Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 8

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 17:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite so vague. ProveIt ^(talk) 23:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur. BoojiBoy 01:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. CalJW 04:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Terence Ong 04:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. It would need clearer name even if its scope extended beyond the Olympics. ×Meegs 09:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT Games should be capitalized. 132.205.45.110 19:29, 10 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 17:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Currently the "Charter Schools" category has just eleven entries, and Georgia has one charter article. When we get more charter school articles, we can consider state-level categories. Charters are a small percentage of schools, and it will take a while before we have enough articles to warrant state-level categories. Rob 23:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep And will the article remain in Category:Education in Georgia (U.S. state) of not? This is a good example of why accurate cross categorisation is desirable; it greatly increases the chances of an article being in both the relevant hierarchies. CalJW 04:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm a little confused by your point. My primary point here is I want the school to appear directly in Category:Charter schools. That's a small category, and all charter schools should be there, without forcing people to visit each state to find all charter schools. Now, I thought if you have Category:Charter schools in Georgia (U.S. state), then wiki convention is that an article not appear in both parent and sub-category at the same time. Am I wrong about that? Also, do you feel there is enough charter schools to break them up between states/province? --Rob 06:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per CalJW. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you support state/provincial level categories for all charter schools? Do you think individual schools should appear directly in the parent category; or both the parent and sub. --Rob 11:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question may simply be, is it too early to have these subcats? One could make a good case that it is, that's why I'm undecided at this time. Vegaswikian 19:18, 10 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 15:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merged with another group -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 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 15:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blanked by its creator -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 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 15:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blanked by User:Sheep81 -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 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 15:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not so good -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete POV. Golfcam 02:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• POV? No, it's part of the Good Articles proposal, sort of a "halfway-to-featured" rating for articles. In any case, delete this unused cat, as it has been replaced with a new code feature. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is POV whether an article is good or not. This feature should be abolished. Bhoeble 15:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This category is redundant. There is already Category:Wikipedia good articles which is only used for talk pages. -- Samuel Wantman 07:04, 11 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 15:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blanked by its creator -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 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 already deleted. - TexasAndroid 15:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blanked by its creator -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 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 already deleted. - TexasAndroid 15:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blanked by its creator -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 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 Already deleted. - TexasAndroid 13:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blanked by User:Ccwaters -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 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 15:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

redundant, blanked by User:Pikawil -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 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 already deleted. - TexasAndroid 15:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blanked by its creator -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 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 already deleted. - TexasAndroid 15:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blanked by User:Jalalarbil -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 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 already deleted. - TexasAndroid 15:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blanked by its creator -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 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 15:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blanked by its creator after a merge. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 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 Speedy rename. -- Francs2000 22:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC) Should be Category:Classical trombonists (plural) -- Francs2000 22:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename CalJW 04:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename; ProveIt ^(talk) 05:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 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 Speedy delete, empty and will remain so (a1, a7). He:ah? 02:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category. Only article in the category has now been deleted through AFD twice and speedy deleted once as a repost. DMG413 20:49, 8 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 Keep. - TexasAndroid 15:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplicate Catagory. Full list can be found here Here -- YCCHAN 19:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Part of the effort to categorize Canadian alumni in Category:Alumni by university in Canada. - EurekaLott 21:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per EurekaLott. ×Meegs 08:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per EurekaLott. --Ardenn 19:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per EurekaLott. BoojiBoy 02:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per EurekaLott. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A category is not a duplicate of a list. Every other university with notable graduates has or will have an alumni category. People who become newly notable who are written up on their own merits can get the category tag sooner than an editor would bother to add them to the list. Etc. Samaritan 22:44, 11 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 16:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:OHL alumni -> Category:Ontario Hockey League players
• Category:WHL alumni -> Category:Western Hockey League players
• Category:QMJHL alumni -> Category:Quebec Major Junior Hockey League players

+ all sub categories moved from "alumni" to "players" categories. Some examples include:

• • Category:Saginaw Spirit alumni -> Category:Saginaw Spirit players
  • Category:Red Deer Rebels alumni -> Category:Red Deer Rebels players
  • Category:Prince George Cougars alumni -> Category:Prince George Cougars players

The standard for sports team players is to have have players (e.g. look at Category:Ice hockey players by league or Category:Basketball players). Also, the criteria noted in all of the "alumni" categories of having played in the National Hockey League is not necessary. -- JamesTeterenko 19:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I STRONGLY DISAGREE with this deletion. The unique purpose of the CHL and other junior leagues are to graduate players to higher levels. Junior teams are alma mater and part of the production sytem for professional players. Accordingly the categories should be called "Alumni". Flibirigit 19:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur with Flibirigit. Oppose renaming. Ardenn 20:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I STRONGLY DISAGREE with this deletion also. The culture of the Canadian Hockey League is such that a team's alumni are a huge part of their history. Hockey players also tend to identify with the junior teams with which they played. BoojiBoy 20:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. The current structure makes it impossible to include a player who is currently playing for the CHL. You are not yet an alumnus if you're still playing. All other categories of sports figures use the term "players" regardless of whether one is currently or previously a player. So these should be no different.---Mike Selinker 21:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Players who are currently playing in the CHL are not normally "Wikiworthy" unless a high "Draft Prospect." See dicsussion below. Flibirigit 17:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• More discussion here. The consensus seems to be to leave the categories alone. BoojiBoy 21:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename/merge all per nom and previous discussion. - EurekaLott 21:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you wouldn't call people who have graduated from Ohio State "Ohio State students", would you? The "alumni" tag is in widespread use in the CHL. I have a copy of the commemorative program issued by the Sault Greyhounds here and one article is entitled "Alumni playing in the NHL". Again, "alumni" is the word used by the CHL and the categories should reflect usage. Oppose. BoojiBoy 22:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit of a straw man, since Ohio State is a school and the Saginaw Spirit is not. I would be willing to bet that the word "players" is also used in the CHL. The Hamilton Steelhawks debate mentioned by EurekaLott seems like what we should follow here.--Mike Selinker 22:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the standard usage in the CHL is to refer to a player as an alumnus of that team once he graduates (and yes, they use the word "graduates" as well). I have provided one link that indicates that. You can also refer to http://www.londonjuniorknights.com/alumni.asp, http://www.londonknights.com/staff_dbrankley.asp, or any of the 264,000 hits given by searching for "London Knights alumni" in Google. And that's just one team of 59 in the CHL. I missed the Hamilton Steelhawks debate, but given that they are a defunct team, they have no "players" at present anyway. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its titles and categories should reflect current usage within the CHL itself, not an arbitrary standard. BoojiBoy 22:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I would say that arbitrary standards are quite useful for navigational purposes. Parallelism has its own merits.--Mike Selinker 04:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose renaming per Flibirigit et al. However, I agree with Mike's comment that the current structure makes it impossible to include current CHL players. Therefore, I propose

keeping "player" categories, and creating new cats as needed. —Dale Arnett 04:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC) Update: I also believe that each "players" category should include boilerplate indicating that only non-alumni of each team should be included, and that alumni can be found at the appropriate "alumni" category.[reply]

• • Players who are currently playing in the CHL are not normally "Wikiworthy" unless a high "Draft Prospect." See dicsussion below. Flibirigit 17:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I understand that alumni is a common term used in the CHL, but this term is also used for former members of many other organizations. Note that the term means "former student of", not "graduate of". In the the first link BoojiBoy gives above, they don't use the term to necessarily mean that they have played in the NHL. If you scroll down the page, it shows players that have gone on to play in various leagues. I believe that having two player categories for every junior team does not add any more significant value than just having one category. If there really is consensus to have a category for players that have "graduated" to the NHL, I would suggest putting that in the category name. Maybe something like Category:NHL players who have played for the Red Deer Rebels. Okay, I don't really like that name, but at least it has the complete criterion within the name. -- JamesTeterenko 06:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename / merge all. Players is widespread throughout other sports and is used to hold both current and former players. At the least, there should be a players category for each team (possibly with subcats for alumni) to remain consistent with the other sports. I caution, that separating current players for former ones is a dated distinction and creates a need for maintainence that is not there with a combined category. ×Meegs 09:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed to renaming and merging Flibirigit 18:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose to renaming, there are few instances where a CHL player is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. If the player is a hot prospect like Jordan Staal, that is usually the only usage of current players. Also, I am not opposed to players who have never made the NHL and our notable in another area to be put on these lists (ex. Peter DeBoer). However I would keep the name the same. Also another thought is if this gets changed to "players", it would generate a lot of confusion in the category sections of hockey bio articles, because the "players" thing is also used for players who have played on NHL, AHL, and IHL teams. If you were to throw CHL into there, it would be very hard to differentiate what leagues those teams are from. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 02:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The only current CHL players that should have articles are those who are prospects to the NHL. Other CHL players are not deemed "Wikiworthy" and there shouldn't be articles for them. The two types of categories that should exist are:
  • CHL Draft Prospects
  • CHL Team Alumni

Quote from ccwaters

Clarification: the guideline at WP:BIO states Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles. So for hockey players, they are wiki notable if they have played professionally. Of course there are always exceptions like hot prospects (Jordan Staal, Phil Kessel, etc)... ccwaters 20:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I propose that the Alumni categories remain, and the Draft Prospects category be created Most current CHL players are not "Wikiworthy" and thus categorizing them is irrelevant. Flibirigit 03:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Flibirigit. BoojiBoy 16:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment by nominator:

There are currently three basic groups of people that have played in the CHL and have Wikipedia articles. They are:

1. CHL players that have gone on to play in the NHL (e.g. Dion Phaneuf, Joe Sakic)
2. CHL players that are expected to eventually play in the NHL (e.g. Justin Pogge, Jordan Staal)
3. CHL players that have gone on to become notable for some other reason (e.g. Kaleb Toth, Peter DeBoer)

I think we all agree that a very high percentage of the CHL players with Wikipedia articles fall into the first group and most in the second group will eventually belong in the first group.

There is a very strong precedent for athelete categories to consistently be named "players" across professional and developmental leagues. Examples of developmental player categories include:

• Category:College baseball players
• Category:Minor league baseball players
• Category:College football players
• Category:High school football players
• Category:College basketball players
• Category:College ice hockey players
• Category:Saskatchewan Junior Hockey League players

I am fairly confident that most, if not all, of the organizations identified above call thier former players "alumni". I am not, in any way, questioning that this term is used in the CHL. I was not able to find any other athelete category other than the ones nominated that have "alumni" in the name. Considering many of these are for College players, they probably use the term "alumni" more often than in the CHL.

My basic reason for making this nomination was twofold:

1. Make the categories for hockey players consistent with other sports in that all levels of play are labelled "players".
2. Simplify the category so that all three groups of players noted above can share the same category. Since those in group #3 are quite small in number and those in group #2 will eventually be in group #1, I felt that one category would suffice. If there is really strong support to differentiate these, I could go along with it.

I am sorry that I didn't provide all of this detail in the original nomination. I really didn't think that there would be any significant opposition to this nomination. For those that have voted oppose, please consider changing your vote. I am not trying to undermine the significant effort that went into populating these categories in the first place. I want all of that work to remain. It is just that I strongly believe that we should have consistent category names for the same basic concept across all sports. -- JamesTeterenko 19:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I DISAGREE with the categories listed above. There are only two types of Categories.

1. "CHL Propsects" (likely to be notable)
2. "CHL Alumni" (who are notable)

(Players who have gone on to play in the NHL are really a subcategory of "CHL Alumni" that have become notable, same as Coaches, Builders, and players in other sports.) Flibirigit 20:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the decision is made to move it all to "players" I won't object per se. I believe that "alumni" is a far more accurate description of the players (i.e., you graduate from your CHL team and become an alumnus of them, and participate in alumni golf tournaments, etc.) I like Flibirigit's proposal of creating a "prospects" category, because who is to say whether or not there will always be any current "noteworthy" players on any particular CHL team? The current system will lead to the possibility of empty categories over time. As I say, if James Teterenko's motion is carried I will not object, provided the categories are maintained under whatever name. But I believe that Flibirigit's counter-proposal is the better one, and I cast my vote for it. (A further comment - if the decision is made to keep the categories as "alumni" then Category:Hamilton Steelhawks players will have to be moved back to "Hamilton Steelhawks alumni" for the sake of consistency.) BoojiBoy 19:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what is going on over there in category:Ontario Hockey League players anyway? Many of the subcategories have duplicate categories for alumni under category:OHL alumni. Regardless of what happens on the nomination (and everybody's made it clear that they have good reasons for their opinions), let's make sure each player only appears in one category per team.--Mike Selinker 00:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current description of the alumni categories states that it is only for players that have gone on to the NHL. I had categorized some of the existing articles and could not put them under the alumni category. For example, Steve Downie currently plays for the Peterborough Petes and used to play for the Windsor Spitfires. So, he is in Category:Peterborough Petes players and Category:Windsor Spitfires players. If you remove the criterion of having played in the NHL, you could now put him in Category:Windsor Spitfires alumni. He could not put in Category:Peterborough Petes alumni yet, because he still plays for them. The "alumni" categories are subcategories of the "players" categories. I would rather not have both the "player" and "alumni" categories, but that would require loosening the criteria and allowing current players in the category. -- JamesTeterenko 18:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Alumni" as a term refers to any former player who once played for a junior team, regardless of NHL status. If the "alumni" categories say NHL-only they should be changed, because that was not their intent. (What about WHA players? Do they count?) BoojiBoy 21:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If this deletion nomination fails, we can easily delete the NHL comment along with all of the deletion notices. -- JamesTeterenko 03:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of redefining each of the major categories (OHL alumni et al.). Obviously I am not going to do it for all in case the nomination passes, but I have redefined the categories as "The following is a list of subcategories of notable former players who played for teams in the (whatever) Hockey League." This better describes the category's intent and deletes the problem of the NHL-only rule. (Besides, there were already players all over the categories who never played in the NHL, see Dave Simpson, for example.) BoojiBoy 14:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I would personally just avoid the use of the word notable. It can be little contentious, see Wikipedia:Notability. If the person actually has a Wikipedia article that is not subject to deletion, then notability can be implied. If the deletion fails, I'll help clean up all of the alumni categories. -- JamesTeterenko 16:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we can rewrite the definition to everyone's liking. BoojiBoy 21:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename/merge all. The categories do define as going to NHL. People who played for these teams may well be noteworthy for other reasons and have Wikipedia articles. Gene Nygaard 03:35, 13 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 Merge. - TexasAndroid 16:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging in Hip Hop Culture category will need it's own separate merge proposal. - TexasAndroid 16:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially duplicate categories which appear to be causing confusion. I don't believe that the seperation between hip hop music and hip hop culture is valid; furthermore, there are inconsistencies such as Category:Hip hop labels being in Category:Hip hop and not Category:Hip hop music. --kingboyk 19:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Bhoeble 15:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep.You don't believe the seperation between hip hop music and culture is valid? Culture includes the music as well as the dancing and the feuds and the graffiti styles.--Urthogie 16:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not a speedy keep mate because this is a good faith nomination and so far you're the only person advocating Keep! :) Without the music there would be no culture. My point is this: there is redundancy in the categories here and obviously confusion amongst editors (obvious because of the mess and inconsistencies.) I propose retaining Category:Hip hop culture as a subcategory of Category:Hip hop, but move everything from Category:Hip hop music into Category:Hip hop. It would help organisation and navigation, I'm sure of it. --kingboyk 16:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Youre suggesting that culture be a subcat of hip hop?? That makes absolutely no sense. "Hip hop" is a culture-- the music, which is the engine of the culture, is only part of it! The whole reason subcategories exist is because they're part of something. If your move were made, it would be saying "hip hop culture" was part of hip hop-- logically, that makes no sense. While this move is completely nonsensical and would serve only to confuse users and editors, I can confidently state that I would support a merge of hip hop culture into hip hop.--Urthogie 15:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My take, but it's not central, it's more down to where would readers and editors expect to find the articles: First came hip hop music, and then came a lifestyle based on that music. Is that not correct? Even if it isn't strictly correct within the genre, other editors have obviously not understood or anticipated there being a difference between "hip hop" and "hip hop music" because several hip hop music entries are in only the hip hop category and not in the hip hop music category. I think to the average person the *terms* "hip hop" and "hip hop music" are one and the same, except the latter is wordier. --kingboyk 17:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're coming from. Basically, what you're saying is that right now the category structure does not make sense to our intended audience. I agree. However, your suggestion is basically asking for a consensus that 2+2=5. As a compromise, how about we merge hip hop music AND culture into "hip hop" and get rid of those confusing categories? I would only support this merge if that merge were made as well.--Urthogie 09:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that suggestion, if you think the "hip hop" category wouldn't be too cluttered, no problem at all. Thanks for working with me to try to find a solution, by the way, much appreciated. --kingboyk 12:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree with this compromise, could you close this CFD and restart a CFD for both of them to merge into "hip hop"? Thanks,--Urthogie 12:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you just list the new merge proposal as a seperate listing? Or add it to this one, if that's alright. I think it would be difficult to close this one early since it's generated a lot of comments? (I'm willing to close it, if other participants don't mind). --kingboyk 17:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really think we need to delist this one, so that people are aware that something new is being suggested.--Urthogie 00:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nominator, keep the "culture" sub-cat, though. The culture may be distinct, but is far-and-away the prime part. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The music is part of the culture, not the other way around.--Urthogie 15:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do see where you're coming from, but I think the extra category for "music" just causes confusion amongst non hardcore afficiniados as I've demonstrated above. I think if we deleted the culture category and left the music category, we'd still have the problem of people putting articles and subcats into the top level cat instead of into "hip hop music" because to yer average Joe they're the same thing. Furthermore, I think the hip hop categories are too deep. See e.g. Category:Punk (also a music and culture) which is rather more shallow and easier to navigate. --kingboyk 17:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree with this compromise, could you close this CFD and restart a CFD for both of them to merge into "hip hop"? Thanks.

See my above reply...I think we can reach compromise.--Urthogie 09:45, 11 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 15:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Uzbek art -> Category:Uzbekistani art
• Category:Uzbek artists -> Category:Uzbekistani artists
• Category:Uzbek athletes -> Category:Uzbekistani athletes
• Category:Uzbek boxers -> Category:Uzbekistani boxers
• Category:Uzbek chess players -> Category:Uzbekistani chess players
• Category:Uzbek culture -> Category:Uzbekistani culture
• Category:Uzbek cyclists -> Category:Uzbekistani cyclists
• Category:Uzbek figure skaters -> Category:Uzbekistani figure skaters
• Category:Uzbek footballers -> Category:Uzbekistani footballers
• Category:Uzbek freestyle skiers -> Category:Uzbekistani freestyle skiers
• Category:Uzbek gymnasts -> Category:Uzbekistani gymnasts
• Category:Uzbek judoka -> Category:Uzbekistani judoka
• Category:Uzbek martial artists -> Category:Uzbekistani martial artists
• Category:Uzbek music -> Category:Uzbekistani music
• Category:Uzbek people -> Category:Uzbekistani people
• Category:Uzbek politicians -> Category:Uzbekistani politicians
• Category:Uzbek society -> Category:Uzbekistani society
• Category:Uzbek sportspeople -> Category:Uzbekistani sportspeople
• Category:Uzbek sport wrestlers -> Category:Uzbekistani sport wrestlers
• Category:Uzbek tennis players -> Category:Uzbekistani tennis players
• Rename all. Uzbeks are an ethnic group, but not all citizens of Uzbekistan are ethnic Uzbeks. Many people in these categories are ethnic Russian, Armenian etc. This is exactly the same situation as with the "Kazakh/Kazakhstani" categories which were renamed a few months ago. - Darwinek 18:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. CalJW 04:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose better use category:Something of/in/from Uzbekistan - then this is clear forever. E.g. use Category:Music of Uzbekistan. Avoid adjectives for countries. What's the adjective for "Democratic Republic of the Congo"? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 06:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  In case of Uzbekistan, people categories should be "Fooian people". In the case of Music see Category:World music by region per standard form. DR Congo/R Congo and Dominica/Dominican Republic are special cases and therefore exception is applied here, for example Category:People of the Republic of the Congo, Category:Republic of the Congo politicians and so on. Adjectives doesn't apply here. - Darwinek 10:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • E.g. Category:German music is misleading, as is Category:German newspapers. Use countryname for country related stuff and you have easy going everwhere. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may want to submit a separate proposal to that effect. I think it makes sense, but its scope is far broader than what's voted upon in this particular CFD, and as such it will need to be considered independently.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 14:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Mayumashu 12:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Nathcer 03:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nominator. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 14:32, 10 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 17:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strict count is 20-D, 13-K, 1-List, with 5 additional Keeps invalidated.

Inherently POV category that brings many unresolvable disputes. (While disputes are not themselves reasons to delete a category, I think the fact that these particular disputes are unresolvable is a reason to.) Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to the absence of objective criteria for inclusion. Also, for example, some might consider Tom Cruise to be a gay icon, and he might even be one, I don't know, but I doubt he'd take kindly to such labeling. — Apr. 8, '06 [19:16] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

  Since when is it a requirement of a Wikipedia biography that the subject "take kindly" to the way they are described? --TreyHarris 06:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Not that Tom Cruise's opinion matters here, but he'd probably already know that he was a gay icon, if he was one. We wouldn't be telling him anything he didn't already know. But, because being a gay icon does not necessarily call a person's sexuality into question - gay icons are often not gay - he may have no problem with it. Rossrs 14:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Valiantis 00:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Don't make this a list, don't make it an article, just get it off this wiki. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  It already is an article; see gay icon. --TreyHarris 06:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I don't mean there shouldn't be an article on what a gay icon is. I just don't want yet another iteration of this POV list of who is a gay icon, in any form whatsoever. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Don't categorise people by who their fans are - reliable data is in short supply. Golfcam 03:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you just conjecturing that reliable data is in short supply, or do you have evidence to back the assertion up? Would coverage in gay press, outreach by the individuals to the gay community, etc., not be considered reliable to you? --TreyHarris 06:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This category is indefensibly biased and promotional. CalJW 04:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  In what way is it biased? How is it promotional? --TreyHarris 06:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Imprecise and unencyclopedic. Hawkestone 17:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. This is no more or less imprecise or encyclopedic than other subcategories of Category:Celebrities. The category makes no allegations about the subject's sexuality; it merely states that the subject is a celebrity with a large following in the gay community. What are the "objective criteria" for including an article in Category:Celebrities? Point me at them, and I'll drop my objection. There are people, such as Bette Midler and Barbra Streisand, whose primary identification among a large fraction of the population is in their statuses as gay icons. --TreyHarris 06:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another category is more POV" is not a valid reason to keep. If you believe that Category:Celebrities should go, propose it for deletion. --Nlu (talk) 06:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be a violation of WP:POINT. Don't bait me to violate Wikipedia policy. --TreyHarris 06:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and make into a list. This was considered previously at CFD in July 2005 and twice in 2004. My view has not changed. This would be better served with a list. I created such a list at one point, and the list was deleted, and the category was kept. -- Samuel Wantman 06:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If I recall correctly, there was an AFD about the list of gay icons, and the consensus was at the time to make it a category instead. Just like with the list about people with bipolar disorder, people can be placed in the category if there is a source, especially if it's obvious that a list is out of the question to create. Mike H. That's hot 07:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  How can you provide a source that someone is a gay icon? Surely, a person being a gay icon is inherently a matter of opinion. Even if lots of people think it, it is still just an opinion. Valiantis 19:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • But if the opinion is documented that's a different story. We know Alfred Hitchcock was a good film maker because a lot of people think so, and that's nothing more than a lot of opinions. We accept it because it's a widely held view, and it's documented. We must comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability, but sourcing that someone is widely regarded as a gay icon is not difficult especially for the more "high profile" icons, and if an opinion is widely held, it's even easier to source because there will be a lot of written material. It's often documented in biographies and even more often in interviews. For example, in the article Kylie Minogue, an interview is quoted in which she says flat out that she knows she's a gay icon, why she believes she became regarded as such, and something like "my gay fans have always been with me". The quote is sourced and attributed in the article. She's a gay icon - it's verified to the same degree Wikipedia expects all information to be verified. Similarly, other high profile people Madonna, Judy Garland, Bette Midler, Barbra Streisand etc are documented as being gay icons. It would not be difficult to find a legitimate source for any of these people. And if a source can't be found, then it suggests that the claim is flimsy and should not be included here. Same as other information we use here - acceptable with a verifiable source, unacceptable without. Rossrs 14:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  How can you provide a source that someone is a celebrity of any kind? You note their coverage in the contemporary press, in books, in memorabilia sales, etc. The same is true of gay icons, you just use the gay press, gay-oriented books, sales of memorabilia targeted to gays, etc. We've gone through the process of identity-oriented, especially gay-oriented, category deletion again and again, and the same POV arguments come up, but yet no one makes an attempt to delete the supercategories, because they intrinsically understand that there is such a thing as, for instance, a celebrity, even if they can't objectively quantify the criteria. --TreyHarris 20:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  By definition all people with articles on WP are "notable". The cat "Celebrity" might be for people who are famous, but there are ample cats to include people on the basis of what they do e.g. famous actors get listed in the actors' cats, famous singers in the singers' cats. This leaves Category:Celebrities for people who are "famous for being famous". As per the cat description Category:Celebrities should only be used for articles that "do not fit into another occupational category". It follows therefore that nothing should be included in a subcat of "Celebrities" that can better be placed in another occupational category. Looking at the articles in Category:Gay icons it is clear that most if not all could be included in another occupational category. This would leave Category:Gay icons for people who are "famous for being famous" and who are popular with gay people (it is of course a sign of this cat's POV that it assumes all gay people have similar tastes!!). That such people are famous (even if it's not quite clear what for) is quantifiably demonstrable by the level of interest that, for example, a Google search would reveal; that they are popular with some theoretical group of gay people (which in the way this cat is constructed tends to mean Western anglophone out gay men) is clearly not quantifiably demonstrable. It would probably be possible to quantifiably demonstrate that a person could fit in a cat called Category:People who regularly appear in gay media (i.e. you could count how often a person appears!) but the clumsiness of such a cat title suggests strongly it is not a useful way to subdivide articles! Valiantis 13:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Mike H. David | Talk 08:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is an important indicator of a given article's subject's place in popular culture. What possible reason could there be for deleting it? --Chips Critic 10:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am amazed that you ask "what possible reason could there be for deleting it?" without addressing a single objection against it, of which many were listed above. --Nlu (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the objections raised so far are valid. If one of them had been, I would have addressed it. --Chips Critic 15:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - Darwinek 18:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As noted by SamuelWantman earlier, this category has been through deletion attempts three times previously, and as noted by Mike H, the category resulted from an AfD vote on a prior list. I don't see what has changed in terms of policy or usage, and I think it's rather bad form to perennially bring these categories up for deletion again and again until deletion finally happens. The onus for deletion is lighter than the onus to bring a deleted item back, so there's an incentive to keep bringing these items up again and again. Also, isn't it considered good form for a nominator to make note of prior deletion votes when bringing up a re-nomination? Most of the delete votes here were made before anyone pointed out that this was a renomination, so those voting had no opportunity to read the prior debates. --TreyHarris 20:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TreyHarris. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP I think it's wrong to delete this category because there are unresolved disputes. Gay Icons is a fun category. Sure there are a lot of disputes in it but there are a lot of disputes in the gay community! Look at any gay gossip board! So what if the disputes are "unresolvable" - so are many conflicts around the world. Does that mean we delete the countries? (On second thought don't answer that! :p ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.100.79 (talk • contribs)
• Definitely keep this article! This thread reflects an integral component of queer culture and is very informative and fun. Please reconsider! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.55.19.104 (talk • contribs)
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Being "fun" should not be part of the consideration. --Nlu (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP Gay Icons are all through history. Let them have their place in our history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.238.199 (talk • contribs)
• STRONG KEEP I must agree that it is objectionable to continue to offer this category for deletion. It was considered and rejected three times. This category is informative and has cultural significance. Given the enormity of anti-gay prejudice in this society, it seems a bit disingenuous to continue to offer this category in this way. clearly it is being continually reoffered in hopes that it will garner different results. That's not appropriate or logical. the fact that information is sometimes disputed is hardly a logical reason for categort deletion on Wikipedia. Information is contested elsewhere as well. Should all categories subject to intellectual differences be considered for deletion? To what end? To put an end to differences of opinion and the free exchange of contrary opinions? And it seems disingenuous not to point out that a gay category is subject to contrary opinions not purely on the basis of fact checking, but on the basis of homophobic discomfort. Wikipedia should have a wealth of wide ranging information, particularly information of cultural significance that may not be available elsewhere due to prejudice. Please don't underestimate the intelligence and curiosity of Wikipedia regulars. Categories like this one can be a wealth of information for non-gay people who don't share the phobias apparent elsewhere. Like me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.137 (talk • contribs)

STRONG KEEP! Gay icons are the essence of entertainment, whether straight people realize it or not. They always have been, always will be. I am dismayed that Wikipedia would even consider discontinuiing this category. Why? Christian hate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.212.138 (talk • contribs)

• Keep per TreyHarris Wuzzy 09:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per TreyHarris
• Keep per TreyHarris & Mike H. Carlossuarez46 20:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP. This reminds me of the "death to disco" thing in the '70s. It was homophobia that spurred the disco backlash, because it wasn't enough that AOR and Punk were alternatives, the queers had to be put down. But synth-pop came hot on its heels and Hi-NRG with it, and even AOR and pop metal veered in a direction that had the same quarters clamoring for it to be brought to its knees once more. If this sounds like a tangent, think about the language you've heard people "dis" disco music, new wave music, Hi-NRG, "hair bands," boybands, female vocalists, sentimental music, opera, indeed pop itself, with..."Gay." It's all a part of the same issue, people identify these things as "gay" whether they're iconizing it or demonizing it. So as long as boybander A or pop diva B is going to receive the cultural stigma of being "gay," it might as well be acknowledged that there is a segment of the population that makes a similar association but without any of the negative emotion—to the contrary is drawn to seek it out and support it. No, indeed, not every gay white male in the U.S. will find every icon on this list to be a personal favorite, and yes, indeed, the entry would ideally be expanded—to the point of requiring disambiguation if and when necessary—to include the gay icons of not only all races and nationalities in the world today but throughout history. And presumably it would, were it allowed to remain long enough for people of varied viewpoints and other cultures to catch on to its presence and potential and offer their distinctions, impressions, additions, counterproposals, which when relevant would be incorporated into the article and represented in any list. Isn't that part of the point of Wiki, that if a (presumably) white male presents the initial definition and list, and can only do so from his perspective, anyone and everyone can submit their own views, and must, as none of us knows everyone else's culture? The very point that some people still don't get what this is about, some seeking to stomp it out yet again, others thinking it's merely fluffy fun, is why it's so necessary to allow this topic's exploration by its inclusion in Wikipedia, open to contributions that can be made anonymously by gays of all cultures - including those where homosexuality isn't merely sneered at or camped up but crushed by an overbearing society and who have no other avenue to contribute and "represent" their unique sexual, cultural truth - to allow people to recognize the deep need to acknowledge the importance of who, and by association what, one holds "sacred" and where that leads - or leaves - one. In whittling down these lists, we're not doing anyone a service, then, we're suggesting the examples must remain limited and then suggesting the limited view is part of the reason it should be removed. Does anyone need an article to tell them Madonna and Cher are gay icons? The point is to go a little deeper and provide a bit of an education as to why, and how the definition embraces some less obvious names that might have people scratching their heads struggling to understand the complexities in some instances, and in others simply going "A-ha!" (No reference to the Norwegian pop group!) This isn't about what Tom Cruise is going to feel about being included, it's about what everyone else has felt about being excluded, and what they've gravitated toward from that place, and why, and what it did for them; it's about the fact that certain individuals from all walks of life and throughout time have held a peculiar appeal for better or worse, in their words, actions, work, demeanor, or very life story. Indeed some have consciously—and others subconsciously—cultivated such an appeal. While still others would argue none exists? Or that it exists but is unworthy of recognition? Does not the Christian faith hold as all its holy icons Jewish figures...many whom the Jewish faith does not recognize or identify with? Yet some here can't understand how straight people would have unique appeal in the gay community, and that it should be up to straight people to sanction such an appeal? In fact, I would offer that the fact that a Tom Cruise might bridle at his inclusion in a list of gay icons is partly the point of the importance of such a list—not to tick him off, but to point out the fact that indeed, society coexists, and people take us as they will; we appear on one another's lists one way or another. The more one takes a stand or fails to, the more one constructs an image, the more one plays a role or shows their true selves, the more certain groups identify with them. I'm sure Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush don't want to appear on lists suggesting they be censured or impeached or brought up on charges in the Hague, but that's beside the point if they've lived the lives that warrant such inclusion. I'm not suggesting they have, I'm suggesting the question is, it's all in the outcome of the investigation, not in the squelching of its very idea, that answers and determinations ought to be arrived upon. The article as it exists now is sorely underexplored and as brief a list as appeared even before it was chopped in two is superfluous. In response to an earlier question: How can you provide a source that someone is a civil rights icon? And do you presuppose that person must be involved in black issues in America? Or is the struggle for civil rights a human issue that knows no color, sexuality, or border? Limiting the dissemination of information on the heroes or inspirations (read: icons) of oppressed groups is to participate in that oppression. While I find the article sorely underwritten, I agree with one point: the image of the gay icon as it's generally acknowledged in the mainstream media is counterintuitively apolitical. Such a thing in itself makes for an interesting discussion - is it the shallowness of gay culture, the fear of mainstream media to elevate a political icon, or the inability of the gay political movement to coalesce and re-present itself in the new millennium - and may invite the recognition that there are gays who do or would iconify, if I may coin a phrase, something deeper than a drama queen or a pinup. It is the challenge of the various constituencies within the gay community, as it is in the broader constituencies in the wider world community, to view their limited interests of preference with a dose of political awareness; and in this shrinking world, the only way we're going to manage to live together—or apart, for that matter—is to find a way to not only tolerate but be interested in our common personal advancement and sociopolitical identities. "Know thyself," but know how the self exists in external contexts; know there are other "selves" than onesself. The core of the negative response to this issue seems to be to preserve the ambiguity of certain people's sexuality so that wider audiences can enjoy their contributions without being aware of, soured or deterred by, a knowledge that they're interested in a gay person's work. We saw this in the 1950s when white audiences clamored for the music of black artists, but only when they were performed by white artists. Educated people in this millennium seeking to present a democratic encyclopedia shouldn't be supportive of preserving such ignorance. This isn't about outing anybody, but it mustn't be about closeting anybody either. Nobody's existence is devoid of a political reality, or the potential for a controversial response. Nobody's iconography is, either. Abrazame 12:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentKeep - I agree that the inclusion of some people in this category is POV, but the fact that some editors can't or won't use the category correctly does not mean that the category itself is invalid. My suggestion would be to make the criteria for putting an article into this category stricter by ensuring that appropriate sources are cited always. If it discusses in a person's biographical article that they are a gay icon and includes a reputable source to support this, then that person could be put into this category. If someone is put into this category, without it being discussed and mentioned in the article, or if it's mentioned without a reputable source - we revert. Surely this is our standard approach to information - site a source - and I don't see this as difficult. This reduces the risk of POV creeping in. The category itself is relevant within the overall scope of queer topics and categories - gay icons are a significant part of some aspects of queer culture. Be strict and uncompromising about how the category is applied to specific articles, but don't delete the category just because it's hard to manage. I don't think it should be difficult if we just abide by the rules which already exist. I don't believe that disputes are "unresolvable" as they should be resolved the same way as any other dispute, and I have to say that many of the votes here, for and against, are demonstrating a POV rather than an argument. Rossrs 14:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You appear to misunderstand the issues regarding sourcing and verifiability. In your earlier comment above you state in support of the verifiability of Category:Gay icons that we know Hitchcock was a good filmmaker "because a lot of people think so, and that's nothing more than a lot of opinion". That's true in so far as it goes, but we would always delete a category called "Good filmmakers" because its POV. The fact that it's the opinion of a lot of people doesn't make it any less their opinion. The fact that lots of people, including the woman herself (and FWIW myself!), think that Kylie (to take your example) is a gay icon, is again only the opinion of lots of people. The verifiability rules you quote refer to including information (including opinions) in articles; the point is that if you want to write in an article "Kylie is considered a gay icon" you have to show a source where someone states "Kylie is a gay icon". It would be inappropriate to write "Kylie is a gay icon" in the article because this is stating as fact something that is opinion. Similarly in the article on Hitchcock, one might write "Hitchcock is widely considered one of the world's best filmmakers" and quote the names of experts who had expressed this opinion; you would not write "Hitchcock was one of of the world's best filmmakers". In categorising, however, we have to categorise by facts not opinions; so Hitchcock belongs only in Category:Film Directors not in Category:World's best film directors. If your argument is that "Gay icons" should be kept because it is as verifiable as "Good filmmakers" then you are voting to delete "Gay icons"!! What your proposals about strict control of attributed sources would do is justify a category called something like Category:People who are considered gay icons. Categories named in this fashion seldom-to-never survive a CFD "vote". Valiantis 18:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I misunderstand the issues relating to sourcing and verifiability, but I admit that my "good filmmaker" comparison was bad and I wasn't looking at it is deeply as I should have, and as you were. But I stand corrected. Without recapping what you've said in reply to me, and to others, I agree with most of what you've said. I agree that categories should be based on fact, but I don't believe that it is only POV in calling certain people "Gay icons". I can see your point though, and I think you have made a stronger case for not using it, than I could make for keeping it. I'd be quite agreeable to seeing the category deleted as long as the List of gay icons/List of people regarded as gay icons replaced it, and was well maintained, referenced and accepted. (ie that it doesn't immediately end up on another VfD). The list would also allow room for for minor qualification/explanation, plus the all important source info. As a list, I would hope that it would be referenced to the same high level as, for example, List of notable brain tumour patients. You've swayed me and I have changed my "keep" to a "comment", although I think the point is probably moot. Thank you for your replies and for treating this as a discussion. Rossrs 02:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete subjective and prone to controversy Paul 21:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but clean up. --DrBat 23:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP - "Prone to controversy" is not a valid reason for deletion. Most encyclopedias would be devoid of entries were that the case. "Factual" information is often subjective, and changes depending on context and perspective. We would have to delete any reference to global warming, the theory of Evolution,abortion, civil rights, women's rights, gay rights. We would have to delete info on many inventions (who invented them versus who patented them-Cottin Gin, anyone?). Most of American History is contested at one time or another. Was Lincoln truly opposed to slavery? Or just a pragamist who saw which way the wind was blowing? Or perhaps neither? Was the Vietnam War justified? The Korean War? We could debate these issues forever, even with the "facts" known about them. Every single fact in any enclopedia is inevitably subject to controversy. And debate. Because Encyclopedia's are written by people, with limited space considerations, and perspectives informed by their own experiences, politics, and education. If Jesse Jackson writes an entry on Martin Luther King Jr., it will differ from one written by William F. Buckley Jr. (who accuses King of plagerism). No Encyclopedia is perfect. The only solution is to add as much information as possible; to allow the reader to intelligently discern what's "true" for themselves.

  As for this..."Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Being "fun" should not be part of the consideration. --Nlu (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)" ... Really? I beg to differ. It would be a far better society if more people found entertainment value in Encyclopedias, Museums, Science exibits, etc. I was one of those children who loved reading the encyclopedia. Perhaps we should delete all references about mythology as well? I loved reading those. But who really needs information about old religious ideas that have long been abandoned. Science fiction? Far too entertaining. Perhaps all references should be deleted there as well. Information should be entertaining, informative, and exciting. Personally, I really enjoy reading new scientific theory. Theory-not fact. Perhaps that should all be deleted as well? Would anyone be asking that this category be eliminated if it did not pertain to gay community interests? I wonder... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.66 (talk • contribs) 

As for this..."Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Being "fun" should not be part of the consideration. --Nlu (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)" ... Really? I beg to differ. It would be a far better society if more people found entertainment value in Encyclopedias, Museums, Science exibits, etc. I was one of those children who loved reading the encyclopedia. Perhaps we should delete all references about mythology as well? I loved reading those. But who really needs information about old religious ideas that have long been abandoned. Science fiction? Far too entertaining. Perhaps all references should be deleted there as well. Information should be entertaining, informative, and exciting. Personally, I really enjoy reading new scientific theory. Theory-not fact. Perhaps that should all be deleted as well? Would anyone be asking that this category be eliminated if it did not pertain to gay community interests? I wonder...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.66 (talk • contribs)

Another outstanding request that I have for a category deletion is one for Category:Self-proclaimed Emperors, on pretty much the same grounds (POVness). You think that that is sexuality-related? --Nlu (talk) 05:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a straw man and a non sequitur. --TreyHarris 06:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to an unfounded accusation of homophobia is a non sequitur? --Nlu (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, responding to an accusation of homophobia by pointing out that something else you did was not homophobic is a non sequitur. But that's neither here nor there; I don't think you, nor anyone else who voted to delete, were being overtly homophobic—and even if we discount the keeps of the two people who have alleged homophobia, we still have no consensus for deletion. I think there might be an undertone of heteronormativity in the idea that gay iconification is impossible to source, or in the idea of classifying someone as a gay icon is inherently POV even when properly sourced, or in the fact that gay-related categories are often repeatedly brought up for deletion (I've watchlisted all the gay-related categories for this reason). That isn't individualized homophobia, it's just part of the systemic bias that pervades any tolerant society. --TreyHarris 07:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a more sophisticated way of declaring that all your opponents are POV. It is particularly frustrating that you choose to do this when some of us are trying to establish the meaning of verifiability despite the unhelpful contributions of people on both sides of the debate - not including yourself, I stress - who've made wildly POV statements, aggressively accused people of acting in bad faith, declared this category should go or stay without giving reasons, and/or added extended essays which have little to do with the matter in hand. Potentially, it might be questionable that this cat has been listed for deletion on several occasions, but I note there has been a long gap between its previous listing and now and that at the previous "vote" the voting was 17 "deletes" to 8 "keeps" by my count (I'm treating "Listify" as "delete" as the effect on the cat is the same). In other words, the cat only just scraped through as a "no consensus", there was definitely not a majority who wanted it kept and the terms of the debate were largely about the non-verifiability of the cat. IMO, this seems sufficient reason to allow it to be reconsidered after a gap of 9 or 10 months. There is also no suggestion that the cat is being targetted by an organised minority pushing POV which would be grounds for me to vote to keep to protect WP against abuse of process. My impression is that the cat will always end up being kept no matter how many times it gets listed on CFD as so few people take part here and only a handful of users need to oppose deletion to see the article kept. On this basis I doubt I'd ever list it here myself, but if it does come up I will vote to delete for the reasons wholly to do with preserving the unnuanced fact-based nature of the category system which I have set out in some detail above. The article on the term gay icon is of course able to discuss the issues regarding the term and include viewpoints that reject the usefulness of the term or highlight problems associated with its use as well as those that foster it or celebrate it. A well-maintained List of gay icons would also be quite acceptable to me as this could be sourced in a way no category can and even if people were added here unjustifiably this would not then impact on those people's biographical articles the way a category does. Others may feel differently (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of gay icons when the list was kept (no consensus) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gay icons when it was deleted with almost no opposition!) but I think turning the list into a cat was a mistake. Valiantis 18:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unencyclopedic fancruft. Bhoeble 09:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Controversial, undefinable, unverifiable (for the most part).—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is POV. It is hard to verified who is a "gay icon." It is all matter of opinion. --Who What Where Nguyen Why 18:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I won't dispute that it is hard to verify and there are no bright lines, but it is verifiable. See the reference to Kylie Minogue above. Surely when someone is asked in the press about being a gay icon, and they respond as if they are aware of that fact, there can't really be much reason to omit them. So it may sometimes be a matter of opinion, but not always. --TreyHarris 18:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You have verified the existence of the opinion; you have not not demonstrated the fact. (Hardly surprising as this is not an issue of fact!) Kylie's opinion on herself is still just an opinion. Your example is an excellent source for including a statement in Kylie's article that she considers herself a gay icon; as verification of something sufficiently factual to be suitable as a category title it is without value. Let me give an unrelated example. "Tony Blair is the Prime Minister of the UK" is a fact. Tony Blair is therefore in Category:Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. "Tony Blair is a terrible Prime Minister" is a (widely held!) opinion. Here is a source from a respected publication (The Times) spoken by a notable person (David Davis) demonstrating that this opinion exists; the opinion is thus verifiable. Nonetheless, we wouldn't put Tony Blair in Category:Terrible Prime Ministers and such a category would not survive a "vote" on CFD because it's categorising people by the opinions that people hold of them. The condition of being a gay icon is not a fact but an opinion that someone holds of you (or which you hold of yourself); ergo we shouldn't categorise people as gay icons no matter how well we can verify that this opinion exists. Valiantis 19:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Everyone yapping about homophobia and writing tirades on it really makes their case seem a lot worse. I wasn't going to vote, because I didn't care much, but all this talk about making it "fun" instead of encyclopedic kind of made me want to vote. Haven't you guys ever considered that sometimes you can follow the rules and have fun at the same time? There's tons of fun articles out there, maybe if you stopped reading about celebrities for one second, you'd find them. Peace, --Urthogie 18:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Odd. Two people have alleged homophobia (in what I agree were knee-jerk "tirades") and one person has talked about "fun", out of 15 keep votes. I don't know how you draw from that "everyone" and "all these people" are holding those views. --TreyHarris 18:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you talked about heteronormativity-- perhaps the most genereally obviously true concept in the world, aside from "don't put all your eggs in one basket" or some other conventional wisdom.--Urthogie 18:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete far to subjective. It will never be verifiable, as there is no clear test for. Also, there is an extreme misuse of the word "icon". True icons, by definition, are rare. Mentioning a few in gay icon has utility, but labelling masses of people "gay icons" because they have some fans who are gay, is rather absurd. --Rob 18:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'STRONG KEEP It IS verifiable-by people WITHIN the gay community. Gay Icon may be a subjective term-but is anyone going to really try to argue that for a certain generation, judy Garland is NOT a gay icon? C'mon. As for homophobia- this deletion has been attempted THREE times before and has FAILED. Why does it keep coming up? Obviously in hopes that it will ultimately be deleted if it's brought up enough. You now have one person saying he's voting for deletion because homophobia has been mentioned. That's absurd. And deleters are twisting arguments in a most illogical fashion. Claiming that nothing intended for entertainment can also ne intended for informative purposes. Really? Because that's completely illogical. I can find something informative AND entertaining. As to verifiability-should we simply delete ALL categories pertaining to any subject that is culturally specific? If not, then why should information provided by that cultural subset not be considered "verification"? If gay people say that a certain public figure is a gay icon, then non-gay people can contest it to no end-but one imagines that gay people would KNOW who their icons were better than anyone. The arguments for deletion being presented here could be applied to any Enclopedic entry that is culturally, politically, or in any way subset specific. As to this; "labelling masses of people "gay icons" because they have some fans who are gay, is rather absurd." To whom? again, if there is a consensus among gay people that a public figure has served as an inspiration to them in some capacity, then that person can be labelled a gay "icon" with little fanfare.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.66 (talk • contribs)

There's no way to gauge a consensus among gay people. Its not verifiable, and theres a ton of closeted gays who wouldn't be included in your "poll."--Urthogie 19:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I right in recalling that "votes" by anonymous users are discounted? A user at the IP address 205.188.116.66 has voted twice. Valiantis 19:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, but they didn't vote twice most likely. It's an AOL.--Urthogie 19:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I just went the through the articles beginning with "A". I removed all but two, because the article didn't even claim they were gay icons (or use the word gay). I'm sure this is typical for the rest. --Rob 19:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you making a WP:POINT here? Ordinary wikiquette is to tag disputed facts first, then, if there's no sourcing after a suitable period of time, remove them. I've never claimed that all the entries in this category were valid, but to just remove Tori Amos? You must have no contact whatsoever with gay culture if you don't realize that she's a gay icon. For goodness' sake, "Tori Amos" and "gay icon" in a Google search returns hundreds of results. Did you even attempt to find a source for any of these removals? --TreyHarris 19:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, where living people are concerned it is the practice to remove disputed facts immediately to avoid issues of the John Seigenthaler variety. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence. In addition, to be categorised it is good practice for an article to make reference to the subject of the category it has been put in. If the article does not do so then it is appropriate to remove it from the cat. It is possible to tag an article as missing sources; it is not possible to tag a category wikilink as lacking article content. Valiantis 19:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just skimmed Tori Amos and the article makes no reference to her being considered a gay icon. The word "gay" does not even appear on the page. Valiantis 19:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to be clear I *only* removed articles that didn't even have the word "gay" or anything remotely resembling it, in the article. Any mention of anything remotely "gay", caused me to leave it alone (and just tag it for sources). This hostile reaction to my attempt to clean-up this category, proves that nobody will ever clean it up properly. I note, that in March 2005 this message was left on many bio article talk pages. The person adding the category admitted they did *no* fact checking, and was asking others to do it. It's a year later, and nothing has been done in most cases. So, is ONE YEAR a "a suitable period of time". Shall we wait another year. How many years do you think are needed? --Rob 21:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just sourced Tori Amos and put her back. I wasn't aware, however, that each categorization of an article needs to be discussed in the article. Where is that given in policy? --TreyHarris 02:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not policy. Sorry if my statement was unclear, though I did feel the use of the term "good practice" was sufficiently distinct from policy. It is, however, common sense and good encyclopedia writing not to stick articles into categories that cannot be justified on the basis of what the article says. Wikipedia:Categorization (which is a guideline) states "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." It seems to me that for it to be self-evident that a person belongs in the "gay icons" cat, the article should mention that they are considered a gay icon. Valiantis 03:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policy doesn't explicitly require putting the such info in the body if the category is used. However, WP:LIVING strongly suggests, such a label ("gay icon") requires a proper citation. You can't put a citation on a category. You need actual text in the body of the article, to attach a citation to or to add a {{fact}} tag to ask for such a citation. The citations are needed, for people to efficiently review the correctness of the claims. It's far to easy for bogus labels to be mixed-in with the true ones, if they are all unsourced. --Rob 04:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete An article giving some examples is fine. A discussion on a bio that someone has been called an icon is good. But categories are binary - with the person is in or not, and this subject cannot be binnary as it is arbitrary and subjective. --Doc ^ask? 19:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Completely subjective. (This is about the icons on your desktop, right?) Just kidding. I don't think "gay icons" can ever be defined. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 19:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unmaintainable as a category. Put the most important examples in the article gay icon, mention it in prose and source it in the rest if it really is that important. -- grm_wnr Esc 19:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The word "subjectivity" has come up several times. We have reams of categories where there is a component of subjectivity. Category:Pacifists, Category:Feminists, Category:Humanists, Category:Philanthropists, to name a few. None of these can you say, this is person is absolutely, undeniably, in the category or not. Are those of you who are voting delete on the basis of subjectivity willing to also vote to delete every category that does not have a definite objective definition that can be definitively sourced? --TreyHarris 19:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not a bad argument, but it doesn't fully address the issue, which is where the subjectivity lies. You are not wholly incorrect that there is a modicum of subjectivity in any category that is concerned with political or philosophical ideas - this is the nature of language. However, whether someone is a pacifist, for example, can be judged in their actions and their words; if Mahatma Gandhi says he is a pacifist and eschews violence then the fact of his pacifism is verifiable, not merely the opinion of third parties that he is a pacifist. "Broad-church" political or philosophical labels such as "feminist" are somewhat more complicated as what constitutes feminism is open to debate. However, most of the people listed in Category:Feminists are primarily notable as feminists. The reason they are in WP is because they spoke, wrote, or acted in a way that they themselves identified as feminist and this is the basis for them having an article in WP. As there is no membership card for feminism and no rule book the only workable test of whether people are feminists is that they declare themselves to be feminists (and the test for including this on WP is that a source can be found where they make this declaration). This is subjective, but the subjectivity lies with the person concerned. This differs from being a gay icon in two ways. Firstly, people in this cat are not primarily notable for being gay icons; to become a gay icon they first had to be famous for something else. Secondly, and more crucially, they are not gay icons because of what they say or do, but because of what other people say about them. (Some alleged gay icons may declare themselves gay icons, but it's not the declaration that makes them so. Such a declaration would not, I'm sure you'll agree, make them gay icons, if they had no gay fanbase). To put this into concrete terms, cats about people that categorise on the basis of how other people view them or name them are regularly deleted (regardless of whether the cat is pejorative); see discussions on sex symbols, the British far-right (the point being that this is not a term used by those people the cat was designed to include), "deadbeat dads" (ditto). Valiantis 03:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Valiantis put it very well - it's inherently ~POV. Category:People considered gay icons would be better if we must have this. —Whouk (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an inherently POV category. --Rory096_(block) 00:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. ^BlankVerse 06:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm Jack Malebranche, and someone referenced me in the article (flattering, thanks). Anyway, while the author of the article is correct in stating my negative assessment of gay icons and gay culture, I think it's nonsensical to imagine that the concept of 'Gay Icon' is completely subjective. While I wouldn't go extending it to everyone who said something nice about gay people, or to every flash in the pan pop sensation,there are probably thousands of books documenting a widespread, almost religious appreciation of Judy Garland, for example, within the gay community. Cher's fan base is so gay that her status is not only factual, it's a cliche. The term 'gay icon' is used often enough that I think a coherent and informative article could be created which would explain the concept to the uninitiated. Anyone with a few books on gay culture should be able to document how revered certain people, especially 'divas,' have been, historically, by gay people. I think that if you really keep the definition strict, and apply it only to people (er...women) who have been deeply revered among large numbers of gay people for a significant amount of time, it becomes less subjective. To say that people like Bette Davis, Cher, Judy Garland and Madonna are not gay icons is just silly. They define the term. Author Daniel Harris' "The Rise and Fall of Gay Culture" (Essay: "The Death of Camp") might be a good source to cite, off the top of my head. It wouldn't apply to someone like Tom Cruise--who is merely suspected of homosexuality. It would apply to people who are demonstrably a part of what is widely regarded as gay culture. I really think a thoughtful article could be created here, that notes the fanatical connection that numerous gays have to these people, and perhaps notes some of the many theories (there are tons of books and articles to cite here) about why homosexuals felt or feel so drawn to these people. These could run the gambit from 'positive' theories to ones that could be perceived as negative, and thereby diffuse POV issues. An article discussing the concept of gay icons would be more useful than a category/list. I few prominent examples could be listed in the article itself, but a category would just have people willy-nilly adding whomever. It's a concept, one with no shortage of writing devoted to it, not merely a category/classification. As a list, it is subjective. As an entry, it could be informative and non-political. Gay culture exists, and gay icons are an integral part of that culture, historically speaking; whether I or anyone else has a negative or positive opinion of that culture is irrelevant. Just my 2 cents.--24.21.68.5 19:23, 16 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 16:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Northern Wei Dynasty emperors -> Category:Northern Wei emperors
• Category:Northern Wei Dynasty empresses -> Category:Northern Wei empresses

• Rename. To avoid clumsiness, I have moved Northern Wei Dynasty to Northern Wei, and I think in accordance the categories should be renamed. Further, even if there were a good reason to keep "Dynasty" in the article name, there is no real reason to do so for category names. --Nlu (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 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 17:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no need for such a category. -- Zzzzzzzzzzz 17:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No clear criteria for inclusion. Could very well include all spiral galaxies.--Kalsermar 17:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. David Kernow 05:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Bhoeble 15:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kalsermar: could just be barred spiral galaxies. Or maybe we should include all galaxies because they're fraternal twins? Oh noes! --Rory096_(block) 19:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Kalsermar. —Whouk (talk) 09:04, 15 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 17:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no need for such a category. -- Zzzzzzzzzzz 17:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom--Kalsermar 17:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 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 15:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanked by User:Sheep81, I assume he has good reason. Looks to be redundant. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 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 15:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is FIBT? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think that means FIBT, as in a sports federation recognized by the IOC. These seems to make sense, as the Olympics are organized by sports federation. 70.51.9.222 17:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just confusing. Group the articles by sport so people will know what the categories contain. Golfcam 03:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Bhoeble 15:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 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 15:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is IIHF? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think that means IIHF, as in a sports federation recognized by the IOC. These seems to make sense, as the Olympics are organized by sports federation. 70.51.9.222 17:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge down into its more usefully named (and well-filled) subcat Category:Ice hockey at the Olympics. Valiantis 00:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just confusing. Group the articles by sport so people will know what the categories contain. Golfcam 03:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Bhoeble 15:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 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 15:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is ISU? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think that means ISU, as in a sports federation recognized by the IOC. These seems to make sense, as the Olympics are organized by sports federation. 70.51.9.222 17:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge down to its more usefully named subcat Category:Skating at the Winter Olympics Valiantis 00:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just confusing. Group the articles by sport so people will know what the categories contain. Golfcam 03:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Bhoeble 15:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 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 speedy delete by Darwinek as a recreation of a previously speedy category rename. --William Allen Simpson

Caps, redundant -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:30, 8 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 15:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanked by User:MatthewUND -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; surely this is a useful cat.? James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment; I assume User:MatthewUND had a good reason for blanking it; probably there aren't any potential members yet. If somone wants to populate it I'd be happy to withdraw my nomination. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; Replaced by Category:North Dakota Supreme Court justices -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Appears to have been replaced by Category:North Dakota Supreme Court justices. Vegaswikian 19:22, 10 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 15:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanked by User:Sheep81 -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 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 15:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate with Category:Wikipedia:Indefinitely blocked users, only populated by substitution of {{vandalblock}} which no longer contains the category. - Mike Rosoft 14:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 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 Merge. - TexasAndroid 16:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge either direction, actually like the longer name better (not everybody that has run for public office considers themselves a politician), but the short name is more intuitive (and created later, so the creator missed the longer name). --William Allen Simpson 12:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment : I suppose it's possible to be a politician without running for public office...? (e.g. RFK...?)  Spanner, David Kernow 05:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as nominator; indeed, there are non-elected politicians in pretty much every country. (Is a political activitist a "politician"? What if they're the chairman of their local party? What if, in the UK, they're a member of the House of Lords? What if... etc. etc.) James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge : Yes, the two categories [I belong to both] are not precisely congruent, but the broader category (politician) does in fact have more members. (Also, not that it matters here, but RFK did run for US Senator, successfully, and for President.) Kestenbaum 23:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that Robert Kennedy held unelected political office/s before becoming a Senator etc. Apologies if this mistaken. Regards, David Kernow 05:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he did, and I agree that he was a politician then. Indeed, U.S. attorneys general and holders of many other unelected positions are defined as "politicians" for the purpose of my own political history web site. All the more reason to use the "politician" name for the category. Kestenbaum 17:08, 12 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 16:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

contained entirely within Category:Space colonization. Mlm42 11:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment might this be a useful subcategory, to differentiate beyween planetary colonisation and generational spaceships and things like that? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 19:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Tiny and inaccurate (the moon isn't a planet). Golfcam 02:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 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 Withdrawn. - TexasAndroid 15:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

empty and unused -- ProveIt ^(talk) 07:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The create comment was will populate later. The category is now populated. Vegaswikian 21:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; I withdraw my nomination. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 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 16:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is consensous to do a rename, but no consensous as to what the new name should be. - TexasAndroid 16:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The former category only contains articles related to the history of administrative divisions of Russia. Conscious 06:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:History of the administrative divisions of Russia. David Kernow 11:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back, there's no reason that history articles should have a separate subcategory, the articles are neatly titled by their respective years. See also Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 4#Subdivisions to Administrative divisions. --William Allen Simpson 13:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, there is already Category:Subdivisions of Russia with lots of articles/subcategories, so a subcat for history would be quite useful. Conscious 13:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:History of the administrative divisions of Russia. This looks like it could be a long series and there are many other articles about subdivisions of Russia so the main category requires subdivision. Bhoeble 15:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move the contents of Category:Administrative divisions of Russia and Category:History of administrative divisions of Russia to Category:Historical administrative divisions of Russia. The latter should remain the subcat of Category:Administrative divisions of Russia. All this mess is completely my fault, by the way—I've been neglecting learning about categories for way too long.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 18:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose to deletion for now. But why not Category:Historic administrative divisions of Russia or Category:Former administrative divisions of Russia? Like other cats in that area? The whole thing could be coordinated somewhere to avoid deletion and re-creation and so on. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 06:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename (and merge where needed) to "Historial administrative divisions of Russia". Let's use an adjective rather than a noun. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment regarding use of "Historic" or "Historical" in category names: since the former can carry overtones of "particularly notable", "classic" or the like, please may we prefer the latter?  Regards, David Kernow 05:27, 12 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 already deleted. - TexasAndroid 15:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

empty and unused -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; we've agreed not to categorise in this way. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 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 speedy delete by Darwinek --William Allen Simpson

empty and unused -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't think "press" is used as a category. There are instead media categories containing more specialised categories for newspapers, magazines and journals. Bhoeble 15:05, 8 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 speedy delete by Darwinek --William Allen Simpson

empty and unused -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:28, 8 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 16:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

empty and unused -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 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 speedy delete by Darwinek --William Allen Simpson

empty and unused -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redundant with the already populated Category:Novels dealing with slavery. Delete.TheGrappler 13:23, 8 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 speedy delete by Darwinek --William Allen Simpson

empty and unused -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:28, 8 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 already deleted. - TexasAndroid 15:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

empty and unused -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Was previously used for an organization where there were separate pages for each range of magnitude. Since the separate pages have been merged into a single page, there is no need for the category. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 18:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 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 speedy delete by Darwinek --William Allen Simpson

empty and unused -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The category's title is ungrammatical, and the category has been superseded by "Category:Polish rebellions." KonradWallenrod 08:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above. David Kernow 11:21, 8 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 speedy delete by Darwinek --William Allen Simpson

empty and unused -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:28, 8 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 speedy delete by Darwinek --William Allen Simpson

empty and unused -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:28, 8 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 15:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

empty and unused -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 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 16:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

empty and unused -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 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 already deleted. - TexasAndroid 15:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

empty and unused -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Cat already exists with the school's correct nickname at Category:Tulsa Golden Hurricane men's basketball coaches. — Dale Arnett 04:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As above.--Mike Selinker 08:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 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 15:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

empty and unused -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 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 16:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

empty and unused -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Most definitely neither empty nor unused. Ingoolemo ^talk 21:29, 13 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 speedy delete by Darwinek --William Allen Simpson

empty and unused -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 15:10, 8 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 16:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is too fluid to be effective. Today's opposition politicians aren't necessarily tomorrow's political opposition. Moreoever, I can't find precedence for this category and that Category:Malaysian politicians should suffice. __earth ^(Talk) 04:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 15:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 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 16:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zero encyclopedic value. There could be thousands of people in this category, but many people are already in so many categories that the most valuable of those categories are hard to spot. Delete Hawkestone 03:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per nom. Conscious 09:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an interesting fact to know. 219.78.90.92 10:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  This is trivia. If it's interesting, it should be included in the article. Conscious 10:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Utter trivia. Valiantis 14:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per nom and Valiantis. Bhoeble 15:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. You guys might want to take a look at List of people who have been considered deities too. __earth ^(Talk) 15:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Utter trivia per Valiantis Golfcam 02:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This trivial category will soon be overpopulated Bwithh 21:32, 13 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 16:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Metal Gear Solid games" is a subset of "Metal Gear games", and this category includes some Metal Gear characters that don't appear in MGS anyway. There's no need to have a parent "Metal Gear characters" cat, either, since the bulk of the characters would be in "Metal Gear Solid characters" anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Merge per nominator. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 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 16:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you specify NYC you don't really need to give the state as well. Could be called "Images of New York, New York" but Category:Images of New York City matches the other NYC subcats so rename to that Scranchuse 03:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 11:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, thinking of users outside the U.S., suggest Category:Images of New York renamed to Category:Images of New York State. David Kernow 11:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. I agree with David Kernow's point, but when the idea was raised before the Americans were set against it. In any case, the change should only be made on a systematic basis, not to random categories. Bhoeble 15:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: this renaming should be part of a larger proposal to remove unneeded state names from subcategories of Category:Images of cities of the United States. - EurekaLott 16:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator; agree with David. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 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 16:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Commonwealth country and the vast majority of countries have a "Sport in" category. CalJW 02:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename per nom. Also, suggest parent category Category:Sports by country renamed to Category:Sport by country. David Kernow 11:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Bhoeble 15:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator; as to David's suggestion of an AE->BE move in the category name, I don't think that this is warranted. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 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 speedy delete by Darwinek --William Allen Simpson

redundant to Category:Czech porn stars -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom (and because it combines two category levels). David Kernow 11:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like this has already been speedily deleted. David Kernow 11:29, 8 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.