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. - TexasAndroid 17:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Like the South Park example below, this is much better suited for a list. If every Broadway show gets a category for the cast, every actor gets put in scores of categories of little utility. -- Samuel Wantman 02:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Yeah, let's not do this.-- Mike Selinker 03:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 04:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Kunzite 04:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. It's good to know who was in these Broadway hits. Probably not the best topic for a list, but seems ok as a category. The nom's point is also a gross exaggeration and is designed to play on our primal fears since few actors get to be in numerous Bway shows. Many of the actors in this category are mostly known for Rent. So I ask you, how are we supposed to find these people without the category? -- JJay 04:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply
  • JJay, the list would facilitate finding the actors. In the Rent article, you have a heading called somthinng like "Cast" and then under it have a notation saying "Main article: List of RENT performers" and the direct the reader to the article. That would even be better since you could include info like dates they performed.-- Esprit15d 19:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Better suited as a list. (Primal fears? sheesh)-- Esprit15d 19:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per JJay. Monicasdude 22:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete A lot worse as a category than as a list - as bad as classifying actors by film would be. Scranchuse 04:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensous. - TexasAndroid 16:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Another example of an eponymous category without a purpose. All of the few articles in this category are cross linked. See the next listing as well. If every article gets a category, the categorization system looses its usefulness. -- Samuel Wantman 01:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Despite the previous nomination (which I agree with), this is a fine way to unite these articles.-- Mike Selinker 03:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • If this is o.k. then every single play, musical, etc... can have its own category, which makes a mess of the categorization system. The few articles in this category are already all linked to each other through the article RENT. What does the category add? Take a look the parent Category:Broadway_musicals. This is the only musical with a subcategory. Imagine that every article listed had an eponymous category. Do you think that would be a good thing? -- Samuel Wantman 07:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
    • If they all had several in depth articles, then (and only then) yes, that would be a good thing. Tons of TV shows have this kind of categorization, so it doesn't bother me that musicals would.-- Mike Selinker 17:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per nom. -- Kunzite 04:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete It isn't appropriate to explode every article into a category. I don't think that having lots of such categories would be an improvement. CalJW 20:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep until everyone realises that having categories for films and TV shows is also bad. Arniep 00:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This is good stuff and we should be doing this for every major Bway show. Bway is just as good as TV or Hollywood and we need some better organization here. -- JJay 04:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Serves different purpose from the above nomination. This category groups articles with a similar theme (not just one random fact in common).-- Esprit15d 19:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 15:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per JJay. Monicasdude 22:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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. - TexasAndroid 17:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

This is much better suited for a list. If every show with guest celebrities had a category, many celebrities would be cluttered with scores of categories of little utility. -- Samuel Wantman 00:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep There already is a list, List of celebrities on South Park, which is ordered quite differently and has its own subcategories. If I ever actually wanted to sift thru this topic, I would find both the list and the category useful. Colonel Tom 01:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • And the list is better than the category. If you also want a list of celebs ordered a different way, add it to the list. For an example of a multiple list see: List of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender-related films which is ordered both alphabetically and by year of release. Samuel Wantman 01:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - nom hit it on the head. BD2412 T 01:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (OR rename to something like "People appearing on South Park" (not all are celebrities, are they?)) - Very silly category. Pop culture-oriented and esoteric. Confine to a separate list without having it invade every single article it tracks. Off with its head. Downwards 01:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete I've been working a lot on this category today, but you're right, it would do better just remaining as a list. Dylan 02:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Deletedeletedeletedelete. - EurekaLott 03:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as with recent Simpsons and Friends guest star cats. × Meegs 04:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Trivia in respect of the celebs. Hawkestone 04:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete What they said. Flannel 08:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete-- Esprit15d 19:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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 all. - TexasAndroid 16:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Births by month

• Category:January births
  • Category:January 1 births
  • etc.
• Category:February births
• Category:March births
• Category:April births
• Category:May births
• Category:June births
• Category:July births
• Category:August births
• Category:September births
• Category:October births
• Category:November births
• Category:December births

We already have births by year; does having births by month/day add any value? I can't see that these additions were discussed. Lbbzman 23:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Strong delete. Kill this dead now, before it spreads. Wikipedia is not a horoscope.-- Mike Selinker 04:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all Completely irrelevant to an encyclopedia. Hawkestone 04:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete We do not need a category this uninformative at the bottom of every article. Carina22 05:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete with extreme prejudice. We already have the dreaded Category:Living people cluttering up countless thousands of bios, and we don't need another one like it. (IMHO, we need to kill that one dead too, but that's a lost cause.) — Dale Arnett 19:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC) Update: I took a look at the "Living people" category, and I can understand why it's there. I may not like it, but I can see the logic behind it. reply
• Comment I have added nominations to the daily categories for March to December. Fortunately after February only a few have been created for each month. Hawkestone 22:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for the additional tagging. It got to be a bit tedious and I didn't want the tagging I performed to be mistaken for a bot. Lbbzman 03:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep It's more useful than births by year. It these categories go, you should delete the births section from the articles for each day, like January 1#births. That list is pov in chosing notable births. A births-by-day category would cover the birth of everyone who has a wikibio and be more useful. The more upmarket newspaper include a born on this day section, so should wiki. It's a good way to index it. I really like these cats, shame they're under-populated, but all bios can be included, so it has potential. SandShrew 22:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all, by year is more than enough. Crumbsucker 09:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete Categories should either be based on an achievement that makes the items encyclopedic or make it easier to find people with a particular encyclopedic attribute. This one just groups unrelated items based on an irrelevant coincidence. CalJW 15:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 16:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Spelling out and disambiguating FDP.- choster 15:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename, possibly to Category:Politicians of the German Free Democratic Party...?   David Kernow 00:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per choster, German Free Democratic Party can be something different. Conscious 19:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Understood; have simplified my vote accordingly. David Kernow 04:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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 Huh?. - TexasAndroid 16:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC) CalJW sums it up nicely below. Looks like an AFD on the CFD page, but even then it doesnot say what page is up for deletion. - TexasAndroid 16:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I strongly nominate the Irish-Scots page to be deleted. It is a sectarian and divisive page created by a Mayoman, named Camillus McIlhenney, who believes it is possible to be loyal to two different countries. While the writer mouths anti-sectarian bromides, he, in fact, is helping it to continue by legitimizing these fifth columnists

The page is replete with sanitizations and generalities, and is offensive and provocative in nature.

I know it was considered once for deletion, but with my additions, I request it be reviewed again.

216.194.2.210 15:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Bad faith nomination, and incorrect procedure followed, by yet another Sock-puppet of Rms125a@hotmail.com. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Rms125a@hotmail.com. (Incidentally, Rms, you won't be getting a job with MI5/MI6 either, as I have no connection with Mayo whatsoever, and have a UK passport, not an Irish one.) Camillus (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I made a mistake--he's a Donegalman, not a Mayoman, otherwise, everything stands!!!

• Comment Hard to know what we're supposed to be voting on here. You may wish to read the procedures and redo this one. You may want articles for deletion rather than this page. CalJW 21:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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. - TexasAndroid 16:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

After a series of merges, this category is empty and now redundant. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete, no need for this now, Rlevse 21:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC), Scouting Project Coordinator reply
• Delete per nom-- Esprit15d 19:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 16:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I nominated this for deletion before (see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 18). That didn't get through, but I think the closing admin made the wrong decision as there was a consensus to switch to the less biased category:Anti-war activists after that suggestion was made. The current category name takes these people's own assessment of their activities at face value; others might see category:People who perpetuate war by making the world a more comfortable place for military dictators as a fitting label, but that is also too biased to use. The current term is used a lot in the liberal media and academia, but neither the liberal media nor academia observe Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. The current proposal is in line with the names of the parent categories category:Anti-war and Category:Activists.Rename. Bhoeble 12:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC). reply

• Rename. Seems a lot more definitive.-- Mike Selinker 15:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. × Meegs 16:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. Not per nom - I disagree that anti-war is POV, see the discussion on its page. However, anti-war people is probably too broad; Wikipedia shouldn't be categorizing people on their opinions, at least not widely-shared opinions, only on their actions. anti-war activist better limits out people not known primarily for anti-war work. Kalkin 22:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename, per nom. — Encephalon 22:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as I voted before. -- JeffW 22:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete no objective criteria for inclusion. Anti-which-war? all war? any war? and when? some of the purported inclusions demonstrate the POV: Jane Fonda (anti-US-Vietnam War, but where did she stand on the Vietnam-France War that achieved Vietnam's independence? That was a good war against colonialism as she told her North Vietnamese hosts.); George McGovern, was it his anti-war activism that led him to, as his article states, "volunteer[] for the United States Army Air Forces during World War II and serve[] as a B-24 Liberator bomber pilot in the Fifteenth Air Force, flying 35 missions over enemy territory from bases in North Africa and later Italy, often against heavy anti-aircraft artillery. McGovern was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross; his wartime exploits were later at the center of Stephen Ambrose's book The Wild Blue." If that's "anti-war" I should worry that Cindy Sheehan will be flying B-52s before long. Carlossuarez46 23:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename, if you brought in a random person off the street and directed them to the page, I doubt they would think it was biased in any way. They're just called "activists", no reason to be extra-PC about it. -- Liface 23:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment if anti-war is not POV then so is pro-war, right? If you think that there is an objective criteria for including someone as "anti-" something, then you can do likewise for "pro-". Take George McGovern, someone who volunteered for the military and flew bombing missions dropping bombs on who knows whom seems to be a clear case of a pro-war person, so that category gets him right? The random person off the street (in the US, perhaps not in Saudi Arabia) would find an affirmative statement in the Jesus of Nazareth article stating that Jesus is the only begotten son of God as not POV, too, that's not the measure of POV, however. Carlossuarez46 16:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I agree, but we'll never get deletion through, so all we can do is vote to rename CalJW 21:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename, this was the emerging consensus the last time around. -- Samuel Wantman 00:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. "Anti-war people" suggests people with a general opinion, "Anti-war activists" suggests people who are well-known for public speeches and activity. -- Vossanova 19:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. I was the one whose idea it was to rename in the first place, and I think this muddied the waters a bit regarding the forming of a consensus, which was kind of split between delete, keep as-is, and rename. I'm glad to see it nominated specifically for renaming. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 01:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per Carlossuarez46. With regard to CalJW's comment, a rename would make this less awful, but it would also decrease the chance of it ever being deleted as ahistorical nonsense. Valiantis 18:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. I agree that "anti-war people" is too broad and less neutral than "anti-war activists". Andrea Parton 01:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. Emphasizes that opposing war is important for these people. GCarty 16:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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. - TexasAndroid 16:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

This should be deleted for two reasons. Firstly, Makedone is not an English term. Secondly, this category was being used to categorise poeple born in the Greek provinces of Macedonia. More appropriate categories, namely Category:Natives of Central Macedonia, Category:Natives of East Macedonia and Thrace, and Category:Natives of West Macedonia have been created in its place. Damac 09:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nom. Bhoeble 12:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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. - TexasAndroid 16:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete, as I created the category, accidentally duplicating Category:University of California, Berkeley athletics. jareha ^(comments) 05:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nom. Bhoeble 12:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per above. Colonel Tom 00:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. — Dale Arnett 19:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 16:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Suggesting change as per naming style used at Category:Visitor attractions by city. -- Longhair 04:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename as per above. Colonel Tom 00:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per nom. Hawkestone 04:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename Should certainly be in the "of" form. CalJW 21:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 16:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Suggesting change as per naming style used at Category:Visitor attractions by city. -- Longhair 04:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename as per nom. Bhoeble 12:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per above. Colonel Tom 00:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Visitor attractions in Melbourne, Australia. Downwards 01:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• rename as originally proposed unless Downwards can show that there are other equally famous cities called Melbourne. Grutness... wha? 02:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• rename as originally proposed. Unnecessary disambiguation of cities is an American habit. Hawkestone 04:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 16:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Suggesting change as per naming style used at Category:Visitor attractions by city. -- Longhair 04:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename as per nom. Bhoeble 12:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per above. Colonel Tom 00:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per nom. Hawkestone 04:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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. - TexasAndroid 16:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Category has two whole pages in it. Completely unnecessary. Fightindaman 04:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep Now has 5 articles. Bhoeble 12:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. IMO, the number of articles is irrelevant. I don't agree that categorizing Cindy Sheehan articles is unnecessary.
• Leaning toward Delete. In general, I think eponymous categories should be avoided unless there are more than a dozen or so related articles. If all the articles are cross-linked to the main article in a prominent way there is no need for the category. I think that is the case in this example. Does anyone know the precedent here at cfd for eponymous categories with small numbers of articles? I think the standard should be: "Eponymous categories should be avoided unless there are more than a dozen links in the See also section." If we reach a consensus about this here, a guideline can be added to Wikipedia:Categorization. -- Samuel Wantman 00:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment I'm undecided. Generally these should only be kept when the person is very prominent (in a lasting way) or has many more than 5 articles, but when one of the five is a break out article that changes things somewhat. No vote. CalJW 21:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete I can't imagine there are enough articles to justify keeping a category about one person around. She is one in a long line, and is the type of person who is much better as a member of a category than the subject of one. Everything that could possibly be under this would be much better suited in other categories like Iraq, Anti-Bush, war protesters, etc. It is like having a Jane fonda category. Flannel 08:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete not every article gets its own category. Carlossuarez46 20:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Most of this is, or should be, covered by links from the main article. One wonders how we would react to this category in 5 years. I suspect that a common response then whould be Cindy who? If that's the case, then we don't need a category for this individual. Vegaswikian 21:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete The existence of several articles is the result of her being American and contemporary, not of any real importance. Carina22 01:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Just make sure the other 4 articles are linked from her page. Scranchuse 04:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The articles are linked. Vegaswikian 05:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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. - TexasAndroid 16:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Per discussion on Talk:Ziyarat. A new category Category:Ziyarat has been created, and articles have been moved. deeptrivia ( talk) 02:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensous. - TexasAndroid 16:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Difficult and possibly dubious sorting. It is much easier to sort by language. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep Difficult? A webcomic is either identified with a country or not. Possibly dubious (but possibly not), how? Sorting by language does not replace sorting by country. — Michael  Z. 2006-03-29 03:30 Z
• Keep per Mzajac above. -- DDima ^(talk) 03:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Sort the artists by country if they have articles, but the comics themselves are better sorted by language. There are only a few webcomics that are distinctively associated with a specific country. Most have a Springfieldesque feel to them. And what about cases like Megatokyo? It's strongly associated with Japan, but it's written in English by an author who lives in Michigan. – Abe Dashiell ^{( t/ c)} 04:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete: forgot to mention in my initial post. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 21:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, by language/nationality is superior, by country is undesirable for most culture-type topics. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply

  What is "language/nationality"?—these are two different things. The case in point is Salo in Space, a webcomic from Ukraine on Ukrainian cultural and historical themes, but written in the Russian language. — Michael  Z. 2006-04-02 18:18 Z

• Keep - while not all webcomics are bound by the culture of their creator's country of residence, some certainly are. This seems to have useful potential to me. Colonel Tom 00:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep The web makes country boundaries less relevant, not irrelevant. CalJW 21:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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 Keep. - TexasAndroid 16:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

To be deleted along with #Category:Webcomics by country, above. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep — Michael  Z. 2006-03-29 03:31 Z
• Keep. -- DDima ^(talk) 03:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete For the same reasons I support the deletion of Category:Webcomics by country – Abe Dashiell ^{( t/ c)} 04:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete: forgot to mention in my initial post. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 21:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per my above reasoning for the master category. Colonel Tom 00:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per my above reasoning for the master category. CalJW 21:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply

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