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 17:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Not a good precedent. The possibilities for this kind of category are endless; American people in Great Britain, Australians in Great Britain, British people in the United States, etc, etc. JW 22:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete I agree. In addition to setting a very bad precedent, this is prime example of unnecessary over-categorization. Soltak | Talk 22:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete who lived in? for how long? why does it matter? gren グレン 23:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No argument. siafu 01:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep Nationality doesn't always give the full or accurate picture of a person if people were born in a certain place but have spent most of their life contributing and living in a different country which is why I felt these categories were useful and informative. Arniep 02:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete over-categorisation, and an issue best dealt with in an article. Also, a very clumsy category, given the geography and political make up of the British Isles. Hiding talk 14:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, overcat. R adiant _>|< 17:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - categories gone mad, we already have too many nationality based categories. Djegan 17:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - overcat. Guliolopez 18:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment Are we going to get rid of Category:Irish-Americans too? If not, what's the distinction? — Blotwell 09:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Irish-Americans are Americans of Irish ancestry, not Irish people living in America. JW 14:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep or perhaps rename. — Insta ntnood 18:04, 31 December 2005 (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 -- Kbdank71 17:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty, duplicated at Category:Polish queens consort. Queens consort is probably the more correct plural although they are both in Category:Queen consorts. MeltBanana 21:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment wouldn't it be Polish Queens consorts? since it is multiple consorts for cat... maybe I'm wrong. gren グレン 23:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom; "queens consort" is the technically correct plural of "queen consort". Many other situations like this have been altered, at least in American English (e.g. "Whopper juniors" instead of "Whoppers junior"), but this is such a rare situation that there's been no such dialectizing AFAIK. siafu 01:22, 28 December 2005 (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 -- Kbdank71 17:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

We base these categories off of *nationality* such as Category:United Arab Emirati terrorists, Category:American terrorists and Category:French terrorists, we do not categorise them based off of racial features. Note that we don't have Category:Black terrorists or Category:White terrorists - all of the characters listed under this category are already listed by their nationality, which is a much better solution. Sherurcij ^{( talk) ( bounties)} 20:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete, I really don't mind it so much... besides racial ambiguity. Do we get to have people in white and black terrorists. If this is kept... we need to start populating white terrorists with Red Faction people. (Not to mention Syrians can be pretty white). Yeah, too ambiguous. gren グレン 23:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. This sort of category is begging for trouble. Ambiguous, difficult to verify, racist vandalism bait. siafu 01:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Yuber ^(talk) 03:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep We do indeed categorize people by the Arab grouping in Wikipedia , as you can see here Category:Arab people by occupation -- Amenra 03:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, note the precedent of deleted category "Irish terrorists". Palmiro | Talk 03:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete' - Apparent racism -- Irishpunktom\ ^talk 11:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - POV and racist. helohe (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Pepsidrinka 19:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Per nomination. Cheers -- Szvest 23:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;} reply
• Delete. Wasn't List of Jewish criminals deleted under the same criteria? Jtmichcock 00:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply

  Comment: I moved the above two votes here from the AFD that this was originally and incorrectly listed under. Stifle 01:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply

  Thanks Stifle. Action completed. Cheers -- Szvest 03:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nomination . F.a.y. تبادله خيال ^/c 09:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom Larix 13:47, 30 December 2005 (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 -- Kbdank71 17:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This category is named "Time Travel devices". According to my understanding of Wikipedia policy, only the initial letter is supposed to be capitalized unless it is a name. Since there is no way (that I found) to rename a category, I made the category change in all of the affected articles. Now that this category is empty, it should be deleted. Val42 18:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep No , if this category is empty is should be filled and reading a few science fiction books might help opening up your imagination to the world of Time travel. -- Amenra 03:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, the nominator isn't suggesting that the category be deleted since it is useless, rather that on wikipedia such a category should be named Category:Time travel devices, which they thus created and moved all articles to. Hiding talk 09:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment I am merely moving this request from an orphaned mfd page. Hiding talk 20:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Speedy. siafu 01:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Bkwillwm 19:42, 28 December 2005 (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 -- Kbdank71 17:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Per naming conventions. The proposed new name is not very good either. Ze miguel 17:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete, arbitrary categorization. Create some scheme by year or by century instead, the term "oldest" is not well-defined in this context (and is in fact a phrase oft used in advertising, which tends to be POV). Unless the single-most oldest is meant, in which case it doesn't need a cat. R adiant _>|< 17:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Radiant. Soltak | Talk 22:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, maybe businesses founded 1700s, 1800s, 1900s, etc... gren グレン 23:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Radiant. siafu 01:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Radiant. Pepsidrinka 19:15, 29 December 2005 (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 already deleted -- Kbdank71 17:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Does not have a large potential for growth. Ze miguel 17:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Duplicate listing. Already listed for deletion on Dec 22. - TexasAndroid 18:25, 27 December 2005 (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 consensus -- Kbdank71 18:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Internet Gopher is a redirect to Gopher protocol, the main article of the category. Ze miguel 17:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Many of the articles have no relevence to Gopher as a protocol, but instead to Internet Gopher. Newmanbe 03:13, 28 December 2005 (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 consensus -- Kbdank71 18:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I submit that this category should be renamed since it should have a focus on the neighbourhoods of St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador. This category could also include links to the articles on other neighbourhoods of St. John's, as well as the former municipalities of Wedgewood Park and Goulds. MattFisher 17:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Oppose It contains two streets and one neighbourhood. They are both legitimate category types. Feel free to create the neighbourhoods category as well if you wish. CalJW 20:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Support, it's not a large enough demographic to justify seperate categories, much better to combine them into the umbrella term of neighbourhoods or communities Sherurcij ^{( talk) ( bounties)} 20:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• comment as is, Category:St. John'sis not even populated enough to really requiesubcatsofany sorts. Circeus 05:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Deleting because it is small might be okay, but since when have street and neighbourhood been synonyms? Bhoeble 20:26, 28 December 2005 (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 -- Kbdank71 17:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Duplicate with Category:Hungarian communists Ze miguel 17:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. No argument. siafu 03:20, 28 December 2005 (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 -- Kbdank71 17:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Duplicate with Category:Inclusionist Wikipedians. Ze miguel 17:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC) Same reason for Category:Deletionists: Category:Deletionist Wikipedians. reply

Delete. When I created those categories it was because I didn't know about the other ones. I am sorry for the mess. Amaurea 23:23, 27 December 2005 (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 consensus -- Kbdank71 18:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

It should be made clear that this is a category of Wikipedia users. Ze miguel 17:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• "Right-Wing" needs a hyphen. Other than that, agree. R adiant _>|< 17:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Updated. -- Ze miguel 08:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Needlessly provocative (I dare say it is very cleverly ironic but I don't care and am not going to waste time reading up on it.). CalJW 20:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Category:Wikipedians With A Massachusetts Accent, Category:Wikipedians as Iain Lee Correspondents, and Category:Wikipedians who would shoot Greedo first have just been created. Clear rules need to be implemented quickly to deal with this. Categories such as Category:Wikipedians interested in Foo are useful, since they can be used by people who want to communicate with others for purposes of editing articles relating to a given subject, but vanity categories should be candidates for speedy deletion. Should we have a proposal/vote on that ? -- Ze miguel 09:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per CalJW. Competely unneeded. Soltak | Talk 22:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Move or delete... I don't care about wikipedia categories... but definitely not in the article categorization space. gren グレン 23:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. As before I am against these categories organising Wikipedians by POV. David | Talk 23:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename This isn't about deleting it; the whole thing is about whether to rename the category. If you want to delete it, make a vote for that. Oh, and I've got to say that voting to delete because you can't be bothered to actually make an informed decision looks a little... well, stupid is the only word for it. Rogue 9 00:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about the world , not about the political leanings of its editors .-- Amenra 03:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment Well then it's a good thing this is a user category and not an article, isn't it? Rogue 9 05:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename if we must, I wouldn't be in favour of deleting it. Boddah 15:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename. It was needlessly provocative to be called digital brown-shirts too, welcome to politics. -- Jbamb 20:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • To clarify, I created, I have no objection to moving. -- Jbamb 17:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Oppose deletion so Rename. If you don´t like a category, don´t join it. Let others be free to join it as it doesn´t affect the encyclopedic content of Wikipedia in any way. Larix 13:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Provocative and also I agree with Amrena's comment above. - max rspct leave a message 21:21, 1 January 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 -- Kbdank71 17:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Duplicate with Category:Wikipedia_images Ze miguel 17:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. No argument. siafu 03:25, 28 December 2005 (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 consensus -- Kbdank71 18:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

For consistency with similar categories, propose renaming all to [[:Category:<series name> actors]], as that is the most commonly used scheme. I would also not object to renaming everything else in the category to "cast and crew" though, because that would be more correct. R adiant _>|< 16:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• rename for consistency-- TimPope 17:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Oppose, some of these categories include more than actors (e.g. directors, producers, etc.) Christopher Parham (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename only those that do not refer to non-actors Circeus 05:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Oppose per Christopher Parham. In addition, two of these have other CfRs in progress, and the CfR notice was never added to the others. (The ER category is out of control, though.) - EurekaLott 03:27, 29 December 2005 (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 to Category:Homicide: Life on the Street cast -- Kbdank71 18:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename: expand abbrev to read "Homicide: Life on the Street". R adiant _>|< 16:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete and listify in article on HLOTS. Not category material. 12.73.196.52 01:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename for clarity to Category:Homicide: Life on the Street cast or Category:Homicide: Life on the Street actors. - EurekaLott 03:32, 29 December 2005 (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 -- Kbdank71 17:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename: expand abbrev to read "Saturday Night Life". R adiant _>|< 16:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Wait, that should already be on CFR. Never mind, duplicate nom. R adiant _>|< 16:58, 27 December 2005 (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 -- Kbdank71 18:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Trivia and overcat. No point to categorize people by disease. R adiant _>|< 16:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. No argument. siafu 14:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Palmiro | Talk 17:38, 28 December 2005 (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 (empty, nothing to merge) -- Kbdank71 18:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

“Category:User Lisp” is merged to “ Category:User lisp”. (Should it be removed or redirected?) -- Hello World! 16:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Are these users that lisp, or users that use LISP? R adiant _>|< 16:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • LISP. The category mentioned on the template is about programming language.-- Hello World! 13:03, 28 December 2005 (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 -- Kbdank71 18:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

A pointless category at best. JW 15:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Why is it pointless to acknowledge the contribution that the people of the island of Ireland have made to life in Great Britain? Keep Arniep 15:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, overcat, use "people from Northern Ireland" instead regardless of where they live. R adiant _>|< 16:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete This is a pov category. They are citizens of the UK, even if some of them don't want to be. We don't have Category:Scottish people in England or Category:Alaskans in the 48 states and treating these people differently emphasises a political dispute. It can be taken as read that these people are in the United Kingdom, the same as it is with English, Scottish and Welsh people. CalJW 20:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

comment Sorry, but there is nothing POV in it at all. Nationality doesn't always give the full or accurate picture of a person if people were born in a certain place but have spent most of their life contributing and living in a different country which is why I felt these categories were useful and informative. Arniep 02:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Radiant; overcategorization. siafu 14:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete over categorisation and most certainly POV in this instance. Hiding talk 14:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, what would be next, the interminable syntax mangler Great Britain people in Northern Ireland? Hiding talk 14:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - categories gone mad, we already have too many nationality based categories. Djegan 17:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - overcat. Guliolopez 18:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Would category:Northern Ireland people in England, Scotland, Wales be less contentious? — Insta ntnood 18:05, 31 December 2005 (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 -- Kbdank71 18:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Companies of Greece already exists. -- Longhair 09:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Redirect. R adiant _>|< 16:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No argument. siafu 14:25, 28 December 2005 (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 as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

To match the format for the other Category:Radio by country categories. Vegaswikian 08:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Rename also Category:Radio in Scotland in the same category. Q Q 00:46, 28 December 2005 (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 as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename for reasons given in Georgetown basketball category below. Actually, I created the "Michigan Wolverines" category before even realizing that there was another Michigan basketball players category. — Dale Arnett 08:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Rename. Yes, please-- Mike Selinker 13:10, 28 December 2005 (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 -- Kbdank71 18:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Serves little purpose apart from spoiler. Christopherlin 07:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete - just a spoiler. JW 15:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - as above. Lan3y - [[User talk:Lan3y|Talk]] 02:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Too bad all the characters don't go in here... siafu 14:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Silly spoiler. Ban e s 15:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - spoiler and extention of HP marketing - max rspct leave a message 21:22, 1 January 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 as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename to follow format established in college football team categories, which I've followed in creating college basketball team categories. — Dale Arnett 05:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Rename. Absolutely.-- Mike Selinker 06:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Rename. I agree. I guess I should have made a clearer category name from the beginning. Mah58@georgetown.edu 08:28, 27 December 2005 (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 as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Remove abbreviation for the sake of clarity in line with policy. Rename Osomec 04:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC). reply

Comment. I don't particularly want to do this, but I'm not against it. Nonetheless, it should be done with Category:NBA players, Category:BSN players and Category:NBL players as well if it is done here. Ditto for the category below this.-- Mike Selinker 06:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Support, do not use abbrev. R adiant _>|< 16:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Oppose, most commonly known by abbreviation. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename per naming conventions; avoid abbreviations. siafu 14:27, 28 December 2005 (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 as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Remove abbreviation for the sake of clarity in line with policy. Rename Osomec 04:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC). reply

• Support, do not use abbrev. R adiant _>|< 16:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Oppose, most commonly known by abbreviation. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename. Avoid abbreviations. siafu 14:27, 28 December 2005 (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 -- Kbdank71 18:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Overly simplistic. As discussed on Talk:List of critics of Islam there are Muslims who are critics of certain types of Islam. It's hard to judge who is and who isn't a critic and you can't set it as a boolean of is or isn't without a boatload of criteria. A well written page can give explanation but a category cannot. gren グレン 04:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Delete More controversial than it is useful. Osomec 05:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

keep This is a very useful category that helps keep track of notable personalities whose work addresses the same topic. I do not believe that Gren's points have merit as if we were to apply this reasoning regarding criterias to wikipedia then we would have to do away with all categories. -- Amenra 05:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Delete. This looks like a list prepared to punish the critics, any critics. ← Humus sapiens ←ну? 07:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Perhaps some people might interpret it that way , but that is not the idea of this list. The list is simply a list of free-minded thinkers who have expressed their views on Islam. As Wikipedians we should organize information to make it easier for the reader to find things. This list will help the reader to locate notable figures who have expressed independant opinions on Islam.-- Amenra 02:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Agreeing doesn't make you less of a free thinker ~_~. My biggest problem is you haven't given any specific criteria of what merits inclusion. Is it only non-Muslim critics? Those who critic the existence of Islam as a whole? Those who critique its ethical system? Those who critique other sects? gren グレン 03:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Like I answered you on the Talk:List of critics of Islam the criteria is simply based on the dictionary definition of critic , that is "One who forms and expresses judgments of the merits, faults, value, or truth of a matter" It could be Muslim or Non-Muslim critics . They can have stated their view on any aspect of Islam , though it most cases they are more likely to have opined on the more conspicuous aspects of the belief system.-- Amenra 03:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Delete. Serves no purpose given that we have a List of critics of Islam article. GeorgeStepanek\ ^talk 10:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Delete Many of these people would hate to be in the same category and they don't form some sort of united front. Yuber ^(talk) 16:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

How just exactly how would you know that? Did you ask them ? Did any of them think that by criticising the ideology they were not critics?-- Amenra 03:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Delete. Can we now expect a Category:Critics of Roman Catholicism that joins together Martin Luther, Sinead O'Connor, Pope John XXIII and Marcel Lefebvre? Because that's about as much sense as this makes. As Grenavitar said, a list in an article can potentially embody the necessary clarifications and nuances (even if the list we have is far from ideal); a category can't. Some of the people on this category would be concerned to find themselves on it and probably think it rather unfair, I'm thinking in particular of the likes of Nasr Abu Zayd. Even if "critic" can mean "someone who makes a critique of", it's more likely to be interpreted as "someone who's against", and lots of the people on this list aren't blindly againt Islam, yet others are. Some are political polemicists of the C21, others are Christian apologeticists of the C7. It's no use. Palmiro | Talk 16:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

As I answered you in the Talk:List of critics of Islam the answer is a resounding YES, we should have all those lists. Let the information flow . -- Amenra 03:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete, POV magnet. R adiant _>|< 16:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per gren and Palmiro. Pepsidrinka 04:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. This is much better as a list than a category. siafu 14:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Agree, make it a list. -- Jbamb 20:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Deletea colloction of unknown unauthentic people . Seems like publicity . F.a.y. تبادله خيال ^/c 20:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom Larix 13:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Eventhough we have a list, I'd thought it was a good idea but when I found Mr. Churchill and Mrs. Bellil (see Talk:Winston Churchill and talk:Samira Bellil) introduced recently, I said this is not a joke! So delete it before we see Messrs Bush, Blair and Berlusconi there and waste our time explaining why they don't belong there. Cheers -- Szvest 14:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;} 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 -- Kbdank71 18:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

A list already exists and this cat really adds nothing to each article. We can't create categories for every TV network that has aired the show. I vote delete - SimonLyall 00:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Keep. Nick at Nite is a very large force in preserving old television, and it seems only right to note which shows they've chosen. If anything, I'd delete the list as I find the category more helpful (though I see no problem in having both). Staxringold 01:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This is not TV Guide, Nick at Nite does not currently cablecast all the shows listed & may not even have the rights to many of them anymore, and it is definitely morphing its content to more and more postmodern programs, giving more and more "old television" the heave-ho in the process. 12.73.194.235 01:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete There are far too many channels around the world for this sort of thing to be a good idea. Osomec 05:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Don't see why we need to categorize a show by every channel it airs on. Gwimpey 07:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No argument. siafu 14:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Comment Then what about Category:Shows on Adult Swim or Category:Shows on Toonami? There are many examples of these categorys... Staxringold 14:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Nick at Nite exclusively airs shows that have already been aired before on some other network. If you think the others are inappropriate, nominate them. siafu 16:57, 4 January 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.