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 merge and listify -- Kbdank71 14:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Incredibly POV title, and I don't see a point in it anyways. -- Conti| ✉ 21:44, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I oppose deletion of this category:
  • I submit that it is not a point of view title. It is a term drawn directly from, and clearly defined in, a recent convention of the International Labour Organisation (1999), the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention. Over the five years since adoption 154 countries have ratified this convention. [1] The Convention is enjoying the fastest pace of ratifications in the ILO's history since 1919. [2] I suggest that it is fair to say that, at least at the level of governments and national employers and workers' representatives (the three constituent parts of membership in the ILO), there is consensus regarding the meaning of the term worst forms of child labour (WFCL).
  • There are further good reasons for keeping the category. Internationally there is much writing and activity in addressing child labour in general and worst forms of child labour in particular. I therefore expect the number of extent of articles in this regard to expand substantially. A separate category worst forms of child labour would assist to organise all these articles.
  • Zingi 05:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply
    • With respect, this isn't the International Labour Organisation. It's wikipedia. And "worst forms" is indeed POV. -- Kbdank71 15:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• I understand Zingi's explanation, but that isn't apparent from the cat title, so it is potentially confusing. I would prefer to merge with Category:Child labour. R adiant _* 07:07, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• You could always create the parallel Category: Best forms of child labour... nah, I do understand the reasons for the name, but I think it might best be served by Category:Child labour and List of the worst forms of child labour (ILO convention). Grutness... wha? 13:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge with Category:Child labour. -- Kbdank71 13:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep! I support Zingi (for various reasons!). There is a difference between child labour and its worst forms and I am quite convinced that both categories will grow sufficiently, and sufficiently speedily, to legitimise separate categories. Basse 14:15, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep having child labour and the worst forms of child labour as two separate categories would help in prioritising the issues and help this programme to be more focused, I'm in support of Zingi and Basse. Sonele 14:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Sonele has nine edits, Basse has one. I'm somewhat disturbed to find sockpuppets making their way onto CFD. R adiant _* 14:39, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • You beat me to the punch. At least I can add that the only other edits Sonele has are the same articles Zingi was working on the day before. -- Kbdank71 15:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Easy now Girlfriends! Some of us could be late starters. Basse 06:22, 20 May 2005 (UTC) reply
    • I think that is exactly the point that is being made by Radiant! and Kbdank71. -- Zingi 06:57, 20 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Separating out the "worst" forms of child labour from the main category is not useful, and certainly not NPOV. I would support the creation of a List of the worst forms of child labour (ILO convention), as Grutness sugested, but this category has got to go. -- Azkar 18:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge with Category:Child labour and create List of the worst forms of child labour (ILO convention) as suggested by Grutness - Algebraist 15:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename (vote #1) to Worst forms of child labour as defined by the ILO or perhaps the more wieldly title Worst forms of child labour (ILO).
• Convert to list (vote #2) and merge content to Category:Child abuse ... I don't agree with the current placement of the child abuse category or even the categorization of Child abuse. Time for a little boldness ... Courtland 14:43, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
  • Renaming the category to Worst forms of child labour (ILO) or Worst forms of child labour (International Labour Organisation) seems to deal with concerns regarding the alleged POV nature of the category. Could those who voted for its deletion or merger with Category:Child labour comment? Zingi 13:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Renaming is slightly better than the status quo, but I don't think we need to fork Category:Child labour. A list is sufficient. -- Azkar 20:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge with Category:Child labour Beta m ( talk)
  • However, Listify the worst forms. Beta m ( talk)
• In view of the general support for merging Category:Worst forms of child labour with Category:Child labour I propose the following strategy: (a) That these categories be Merged and Category:Worst forms of child labour is deleted. If there is approval for this, I can attend to recategorising. (b) A List of the worst forms of child labour (ILO convention) is created - I can also attend to this. (c) If the Category:Child labour at a later stage expands to such an extent that subcategorisation is called for to group articles and thus to make them more accessible, then the creation of Category:Worst forms of child labour (ILO) could be reconsidered. Zingi 15:55, 23 May 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 merge -- Kbdank71 14:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Really small. Suggest merging with parent Category:Economics. R adiant _* 12:09, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Agree, although personally I like it if debt is really small. Grutness... wha? 13:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. This found object can actually be quite useful, and at least a dozen articles I think can fit under it. I'll be adding these soon.-- Pharos 20:25, 23 May 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 14:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Instruction creep. Purpose is to stick a template on topics that are considered 'valid' but have not yet any content, then list them in this cat. We already have Requested articles. R adiant _* 12:08, May 18, 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 no consensus (keep) -- Kbdank71 14:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Really small. Suggest merging with Category:Pacifism and Category:Pacifists, respectively. R adiant _* 12:01, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Definately Keep. Being Anti-war doesn't make a person pacifist. For example many refuseniks in israel are anti-war, but are very militaristic and patriotic. Category:Pacifism can be a subcategory of Category:Anti-war but not the other way around. Beta m ( talk)
  • While I do agree with your point on definitions, the fact that this category is too small to be useful and unlikely to be filled any time soon are, imho, reason for deletion. R adiant _* 09:26, May 23, 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 rename -- Kbdank71 14:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply

I expected this to be related to Tolstoy's Dostojewski's book, but instead it lists a number of subcats related to crime. Suggest rename. R adiant _* 11:48, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Rename Category:Judicial and penal systems people or something like that. Beta m ( talk)

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 14:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Contains one article (on a tattoo gun). Propose merging with parent Category:Art. R adiant _* 11:45, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - redundant with Category:Body art. - Sean Curtin 23:14, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Should be part of Category:Body art until more content emerges, then maybe can become a subcategory. Beta m ( talk)

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 15:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Contains one image, and nothing links here. Deprecate? R adiant _* 11:43, May 18, 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 merge -- Kbdank71 15:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Contains two images (and one duplicate) of our semi-offical mascot. Propose merging with Category:Wikipedia. R adiant _* 11:43, May 18, 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 16:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply

This seems rather pointless... if an article is merely about a word, it should be in Wiktionary instead. Other than that, just about every article name is an English word. R adiant _* 10:18, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't know much about CfD, but I would suggest that this category is useful right now as a one place for a bunch of articles that need to be transwikied. Before any deletion, can we make sure that happens? -- Dmcdevit 21:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Paged through the cat and added transwiki tags where appropriate. HTH! R adiant _* 10:57, May 25, 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 merge -- Kbdank71 16:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Near-empty, not very useful. R adiant _* 10:14, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Upmerge to category:Surnames. — Insta ntnood 16:00, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Surnames, yeah. James F. (talk) 09:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Agree, merge. Zingi 09:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge Unless somebody's last name is not a surname or a family name... Isn't that the case in some of the Native American tribes and nations? Beta m ( talk)
• Delete not very useful, Wikipedia is suffering from over-categorization, too much categorization kills categories-- Khalid hassani 11:41, 24 May 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 (keep) -- Kbdank71 16:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Request renaming to plural, per consistency with other cats. I haven't listed this as speedy because it's a rather crucial cat. R adiant _* 09:14, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

• No, this current name is correct. The individual documents together make up our policy, singular. We don't have multiple policies (one for Cabal members, one for the rest, for example). James F. (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Weak agree. Policy can be used to refer to many policies as one, such as Fooian foreign policy, but we do indeed have categories named Category:Wikipedia policies and guidelines and articles also: Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Not to mention all of the specific and different "policy" articles: Wikipedia:Arbitration policy, Wikipedia:Banning policy, etc, which are Wikipedia's policies. -- Kbdank71 15:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Oppose, agree with James F. -- Netoholic @ 02:19, 2005 May 19 (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 rename -- Kbdank71 16:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Request renaming to Category:Wikipedia policy proposals Category:Wikipedia proposals since that's what it is. Anything accepted, rejected or abandoned should be in another cat. (updated per Neto's suggestion) R adiant _* 07:03, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

• I prefer a simpler and more expansive Category:Wikipedia proposals. Not all proposals are for policy, some are guidelines, some are feature requests, some are process. -- Netoholic @ 02:15, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

• Agree. Arguments above seem sound. Zingi 09:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Agree. Beta m ( talk)

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 merge -- Kbdank71 16:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Only a few entries. Any reason for this to be separate from the much more populated Category:Tennis players? -- Tabor 02:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• No. Amateur tennis players (such as myself) generally don't have a Wikipedia entry. Thus, merge & delete. R adiant _* 07:43, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge - All the tennis players I recognise at Category:Tennis players are professionals. Keeping Category:Professional tennis players will result in duplication, and even in confusion. Zingi 14:32, 19 May 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 16:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply

A little unsure about what to do with this one. It has 7 articles. Someone made the category redirect to the list in regular article namespace named People from Detroit. -- Tabor 02:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Huh? I don't particularly see the point of this, so I'd vote delete unless someone explains it. R adiant _* 07:43, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Replace with list if someone really thinks it's needed. RedWolf 06:04, May 21, 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.