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. Vegaswikian 04:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

The list was kept, so there's not much of a reason to keep this around. Maybe in the future if we got articles on a large number of roads in DC, but not now. -- SPUI ( T - C) 23:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support merger – state-named is unnecessarily specific. Note: all of its members are already members of the latter cat except Wisconsin Avenue (Washington, D.C.) and List of state-named roadways in Washington, D.C.. × Meegs 13:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• I went ahead and was WP:BOLD and did it. - M ^ask 04:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge - There's nothing particularly unique about the state-named avenues except the names. It's just as pointless as Category:Tree-named streets in Washington, D.C. or Category:Civil War-general-named streets in Washington, D.C.. Also, it has incorrect capitalization. "Avenues" should be lower case. -- dm ^(talk) 04:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. State-named Avenues are a distinct subcategory of streets in D.C. D Monack is misinformed to say that there's nothing particularly unique about them. To the contrary, they are (1) filled in by DC Municipal Law according to the L'enfant Plan, (2) recognized by the Washington Post and Washingtonian as carrying significant cultural and real estate value, (3) the ONLY streets that are both straight and at an angle to the grid plan, and (4) cause intersections to form traffic circles (non-state streets form unnamed intersections). -- M @ r ē ino 15:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment: (1) All D.C. streets are enshrined in law and the L'Enfant plan. There's nothing unique about the state-named ones. (2) Could I get a citation on this? A few streets are valuable or cultural significant, but most are not. No one thinks Alabama Avenue, Minnesota Avenue, Montana Ave, South Dakota Ave, etc. as ritzy. Many of the fanciest addresses are not on state-named avenues, hence not unique. (3) Except for Potomac Ave, Central Ave, Trinidad Ave, Kenilworth Ave, and about 100 others. Also, many state avenues are not straight like Florida Avenue, Michigan Avenue, Wisconsin Ave, Alabama Avenue, Ohio Drive, etc. Again, not unique. (4) All, except for Benjamin Banneker Circle, but why is this significant? Most state-named avenues do not intersect with circles. Maybe we should have Category:Streets in Washington, D.C. that intersect with circles? I don't think that one would survive a CfD vote. -- dm ^(talk) 03:18, 31 May 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. Vegaswikian 04:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I feel it would be better to listify this and all sub categories. Flight numbers are hard to follow and are very confusing. A list would allow easier navigation.

• Delete and/or create a list parallel to the category. If concensus agrees a list is aproporate I'd like to have some assistance... Cat ^chi? 21:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. This seems like very useful data in category form. It may not be as useful as a list might be, but it seems like a very good set of categories to me.-- Mike Selinker 21:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. Every article should have at least one specific and meaningful category. If this category is deleted, its articles do not have such a category. Parallel lists by various groupings already exist. Feel free to create additional ones, but please do not reduce the amount of useful information on Wikipedia simply because you prefer lists over categories. — LX ( talk, contribs) 07:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep - though the category structure needs quite a bit of tidying. A parallel list structure sounds good. I think the subcategories may be overdoing it slightly. It might be best to start from a list, then categorise the incidents that end up with their own articles. ie. Keep stub articles on a list and put the lists in the category? Carcharoth 09:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I believe this is a case where WP:CLS suggests both are appropriate (there are individual articles... what else would they be classified under? But a list would be navigationally better. Ergo, let's have both!). I'd go with Carcharoth's suggestion. TheGrappler 23:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Not an elegant title, but have to improve on nonetheless. Honbicot 20:11, 3 June 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 Merge. Vegaswikian 04:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Same scope. Conscious 17:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Merge. Anirvan
• Merge per nom. Honbicot 20:11, 3 June 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 Merge. Vegaswikian 05:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge this new category into an established one. Conscious 17:06, 28 May 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. Vegaswikian 05:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete -- only two entries, one of which is up for renaming below. Move both entries to parent Category:Religion and politics, where the other by country entries are located. -- William Allen Simpson 16:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Just delete don't move. Let Canadian and US c-s s caselaw be under Canadian and US case law respectively, that's enough. - CrazyRussian talk/ contribs/ email 02:26, 29 May 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 Move to list article. Vegaswikian 05:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Not a category. Move to List of hip hop musicians and bands from Atlanta, Georgia. Conscious 16:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Support -- William Allen Simpson 16:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support-- Urthogie 08:55, 3 June 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. Vegaswikian 23:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

This category contains eleven items and has very limited prospects for growth. It is better suited as a list, which has been created at: List of surface features of Mars seen by the Spirit rover. Category is proposed for deletion. Kurieeto 16:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- William Allen Simpson 16:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. 11 items is fine. There's nothing wrong with closed-set categories.-- Mike Selinker 18:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. No reason to change to a list. Mlm42 20:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Useless clutter, better as list. — Blotwell 20:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Just cover it in the article. Athenaeum 17:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Considerable historic and scientific importance. Irongargoyle 14:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Notable enough to mention in the relevant article, not to categorise. Honbicot 20:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, looks trivial. Conscious 07:37, 5 June 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. Vegaswikian 23:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

This category contains ten items and has very limited prospects for growth. It is better suited as a list, which has been created at: List of surface features of Mars seen by the Opportunity rover. Category is proposed for deletion. Kurieeto 16:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- William Allen Simpson 16:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. 10 items is fine. There's nothing wrong with closed-set categories.-- Mike Selinker 18:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. No reason to change to a list. Mlm42 20:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as for preceding. Couldn't we combine these two nominations? — Blotwell 20:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Just cover it in the article. Athenaeum 17:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Considerable historic and scientific importance. Irongargoyle 14:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Notable enough to mention in the relevant article, not to categorise. Honbicot 20:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, looks trivial. Conscious 07:38, 5 June 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 Merge. Vegaswikian 05:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

The original title is too vague. I initially thought it had something to do with the television show with Andy Kaufman and Judd Hirsch. Dismas| ^(talk) 09:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The category Category:Taxicabs already exists and handles this category's intended purpose. lowercase 09:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per lowercase Calsicol 11:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Category:Taxicabs -- William Allen Simpson 16:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree-merge. I cant believe anyone thought it had to do with TV.

• Merge to Category:Taxicabs -- M @ r ē ino 15:29, 30 May 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. Vegaswikian 04:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Inappropriate category. Paul August ☎ 04:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete one of the silliest categories I've seen. Ever. dcandeto 04:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Very subjective and unencyclopedic. Andrea Parton 04:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• If you look in each article, it spells right there in black and white how the person is opposed to George W. Bush, or even publicly denounced him. It provides a neutral point of view. Xqzzy 04:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• If you look at it that way, then the 'anti-war' category would fall under subjective and unencyclopedic. Xqzzy 04:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- terrible precedent. Jkelly 04:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete --- Fine. Take it down. I would just like to add that I'm not making generalizations, it says in each person's article they're opposed to Bush! Xqzzy 05:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I agree that NPOV allows us to report that some organization or politician opposes Bush. It's just that having a category for it is useless. JamesMLane  t  c 05:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment The name of the category doesn't describe it accurately. Does it include people? Books? Films? Songs? In the unlikely event it's kept, it should be renamed. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 05:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete or at least rename this category to something more specific. -- Sbluen 05:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete It is, of course, POV to lump Saddam Hussein and Howard Dean in the same category. Well, besides the Living people category. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 05:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Calsicol 11:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• KEEP! BUSH LIED PEEPLE DIED! Delete - CrazyRussian talk/ contribs/ email 02:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Where can we discuss Wikipolicies concerning categorizing according to political/religious/sexual beliefs or orientations? Lapaz 04:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- poorly named. - Longhair 05:47, 29 May 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. Vegaswikian 04:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Death to acronyms. Dr Zak 02:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename -- William Allen Simpson 16:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as suggested. Athenaeum 17:43, 29 May 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. Vegaswikian 04:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

General agreement on the talk page is that this would be a better title. The problem is that while Canada's Charter of Rights and Bill of Rights do protect freedom of religion, there is no guarantee of separation of church and state- in fact some governments are obligated under the Constitution to fund certain religious schools. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 01:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename -- William Allen Simpson 16:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Sumahoy 15:08, 1 June 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. Vegaswikian 04:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Useless category, created by vandal User:tdxofo ( [1]) LimoWreck 22:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

This category needs to be deleted, it holds no information in it, no links to other pages, and is obviously vandalism. Russian Sage 777 02:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Honbicot 20:13, 3 June 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.