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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 14:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(Includes Category:1986 NFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1988 NFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1989 NFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1992 NFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1993 NFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1994 NFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1995 NFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1996 NFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1997 NFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1998 NFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1999 NFC Pro Bowl players, Category:2000 NFC Pro Bowl players, Category:2001 NFC Pro Bowl players, Category:2002 NFC Pro Bowl players, Category:2003 NFC Pro Bowl players, Category:2004 NFC Pro Bowl players, Category:2005 NFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1986 AFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1988 AFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1989 AFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1992 AFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1993 AFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1994 AFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1995 AFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1996 AFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1997 AFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1998 AFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1999 AFC Pro Bowl players, Category:2000 AFC Pro Bowl players, Category:2001 AFC Pro Bowl players, Category:2002 AFC Pro Bowl players, Category:2003 AFC Pro Bowl players, Category:2004 AFC Pro Bowl players, Category:2005 AFC Pro Bowl players)

I can understand having a category for every team and even a category for Category:NFC Pro Bowl players and Category:AFC Pro Bowl players but a category for every year is better served by a list for each year. Brett Favre, for instance, now has 15 categories. Overloads servers, slows down Wikipedia, etc.-- BaronLarf 18:15, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Roger Clemens has 18 categories... so what? -- FutureNJGov 15:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Ouch. Exactly what BaronLarf said. Delete and convert to list. -- Azkar 18:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't know whether it should be converted to a list or not. Categories for players of every pro bowl in existence are encyclopedic, categories for players of every pro bowl in existence in every year in existence are not. — JIP | Talk 18:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and don't convert to a list- I agree with JIP. -- G Rutter 19:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm the person who's created all these categories, and the only reason I did so was to mirror baseball, which has individual categories for every year and is broken down by American and National League teams. If you suggest deleting these categories, then delete baseball's as well. I only started these categories to give football the same quality of categorization as baseball. I may be a little biased since I'm the one doing all the work on these categories, but I still think it's worthy enough to keep. All for all or none for all, but no picking & choosing. -- FutureNJGov 15:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I just took a look at the baseball categories. I think I'll nominate them later, when I have a bit of time. -- Azkar 19:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree, Azkar. I just noticed the football ones since they were just recently created. -- BaronLarf 00:25, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • Why? Keep them there, keep them all there, and help me add to the Pro Bowl categories. They're there for a reason, to categorize. It's such a strawman argument to say that it'll take up bandwidth and overload servers, no more so than some of the other categories in existence which are far more obscure and far less-goal oriented than these sports ones. When I was done with the Pro Bowl ones I was going to do the same for hockey (though I was hoping someone else would do basketball, since it's not a sport I care about). If you want to delete a stupid category like "Children of famous people" which is somewhere down this page, that's fine. But I don't think it's necessary to delete a well-meaning, organized, and (once it's completed) closed category like who played in a Pro Bowl in a specific year. It's not like each category is going to grow exponentially every year; each category is fairly small and close-ended once the players are added. Quite honestly, I don't see why it's the job of the admins to come down on me like this for trying to add to the Wikipedia system, and I'm fairly certain I won't be contributing anymore if my proposed system ends up being deleted. I don't mean to sound like a whining child, but it's quite silly to suggest deleting something useful and then offering asinine arguments to back up said suggestion. At least I'm being constructive, and the fact that I'm doing all this by myself on my own time means that I care enough about the system to do it. I wouldn't spend hours looking up individual teams for the hell of it if I didn't think it would contribute to the website as a whole. I know this was long, so I'll wrap it up, but I hope I've at least convinced you to see my POV and reasoning behind this. And I hope I've convinced other people to vote with me in keeping this, and offering to assist in a painstaking but worthwhile process. -- FutureNJGov 16:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Wow, I feel sorry for whoever has to undo all that if the consensus is to delete. -- Kbdank71 19:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Convert to lists and delete. Even just Category:NFC Pro Bowl players and Category:AFC Pro Bowl players would be overkill in terms of categories. However, AFC & NFC MVP categories would be a good idea. - Sean Curtin 22:29, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with nominator. K1Bond007 02:33, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Convert to lists and delete. Neutrality ^talk 03:13, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Listify and deletify. R adiant _* 09:19, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The content should be in lists, not in categories. - Hapsiainen 15:28, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Better with a list. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Although I disagree with it, I am not seeking to reverse the decision recorded in the CfD debate. But we do need clarification - see Category talk:English coast and countryside by county#Confusion. If the decision was to merge into one "coast and countryside" category for England, then the category title is unsatisfactory. -- RHaworth 16:51, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

• Can we move this to the CfD talk page as it's not technically a nomination? -- Kbdank71 19:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't accept that due process has been observed here. Only one person supported the nominator and another objector has since emerged. I plan to start work on reversing this decision. CalJW 03:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, if I'm not mistaken, User:RHaworth was referring not to the merge, but to the location of the merge, which was fixed (if that's who you were referring to as the "other objector"). So there was in total, wait, let me do the math here, one objector, you. And three supporters, Joe, Radiant, and myself. Not only that, but Radiant even said in the discussion to open an RFC about this. So why not slow down and do that. Kbdank71 14:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) --
      • I'm pretty sure you are mistaken. The level of support for the suggestion was a pitiable justification for such a major decision, and I think you should have shown more caution, especially as you know so little about this subject area that you misunderstood the proposal. I do not believe cfd notifications were put in place in all subcategories as they should have been. You have wiped hours and hours of people valuable work on the whim of a couple of people. CalJW 22:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • I think a content-RFC on this would be appropriate, to determine what the community feels is the best way of categorizing this. Please do not reverse the decision immediately, that would only cause an edit war. Instead, open the WP:RFC and call for a discussion. R adiant _* 09:37, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am the author of this category. I am writing this entry here because it was listed as CfD by someone else, but they forgot to write the entry here. I vote keep, because it doesn't do any harm. — JIP | Talk 15:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. There's no correlation between these fictional characters, except that they happen to share a common first name. -- Azkar 16:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unless anyone, excluding the author, can say that they have found it useful or would find it useful, I consider it a waste of space & detracts from the useful categories on the topics' pages. -- Drak2 17:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless. List them on the Harry disambiguation page. Neutrality ^talk 03:14, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This was recreated (probably by mistake)- consensus has already been reached that it should be deleted. -- G Rutter 13:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Archive of the first discussion Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Bible stories) -- G Rutter 14:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete again. -- Kbdank71 14:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted material. R adiant _* 15:01, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Shouldnt this be moved to "Categories for undeletion" or something, then? ~~~~ 12:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is based on the fallacy that, in WikiPedia, you need to discuss the appropriateness of templates before using them. Instruction creep. R adiant _* 11:02, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Isn't this covered by a cleanup template already? Thryduulf 13:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Partially so, and also by the template's talk page, TFD and RFC. R adiant _* 09:22, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not a good idea. A category that can be added to practically every film article isn't useful. — Xezbeth 06:50, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Agree Delete Hiding 10:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Propose rename to British films for culturally important films created in the United Kingdom. R adiant _* 10:34, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Has existed for a while already: Category:British films. — Xezbeth 13:13, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agree K1Bond007 03:40, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Too broad category. - Hapsiainen 15:28, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Empty category, no longer needed. →Iñgōlemo←  ^talk 02:08, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

• Aren't these planets in Category:Foundation universe planets? Were they moved to the parent category or something? 132.205.44.134 16:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Empty category no longer needed. →Iñgōlemo←  ^talk 02:10, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

• Aren't these planets in Category:Foundation universe planets? Were they moved to the parent category or something? 132.205.44.134 16:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Another empty category. →Iñgōlemo←  ^talk 02:12, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

• Aren't these planets in Category:Foundation universe planets? Were they moved to the parent category or something? 132.205.44.134 16:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Another unneeded empty category. →Iñgōlemo←  ^talk 02:14, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

• That'd be the foundation series, wouldn't it? Merge the lot of them (including the non-empty ones) into Category:Foundation universe planets. R adiant _* 10:34, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Aren't these planets in Category:Foundation universe planets? Were they moved to the parent category or something? 132.205.44.134 16:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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