Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 29

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< July 28 July 30 >

July 29 edit

Category:Cleanup edit

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A dup of Category:Wikipedia cleanup I believe. Not used, currently 1.5 articles (.5 is userpage article). Merge with Wiki cleanup and delete. ∞Who?¿? 21:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:United States book publishers edit

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 suspend until category titles discussion is complete --Kbdank71 14:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Has no pages or subcategories in it, doesn't have any content other than a parent category, and is a duplicate of Category:Book publishers of the United States (which has articles in it). --Mairi 19:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Gay icons edit

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 14:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Current totals D-11 K-8 L/d-7 (for those interested) 11:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The category is contentious and superfluous at best. There is no definitive way, in my opinion, to concretely qualify one as a "gay icon". As the category stands now, there are over 200 biographical articles placed under this category, nearly all of which have little-to-nothing to do with the gay community. This category should be deleted and the articles should not be moved into any of the parent categories if they are not there already. Hall Monitor 19:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Previous CFDs here (no consensus from 2004 August 12 listing, keep from 2004 October 17 listing). -- Rick Block (talk) 16:56, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I'm beginning to wonder if maybe it would be worthwhile to limit the number of times per four month period or per year or whatever a category or article can be nominated for deletion. It seems like every other week this category or some other LGBT-related category is nominated. (This isn't a criticism of your comments or nomination, Hall Monitor, just an observation and a little speculation.) -Seth Mahoney 19:30, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
You might want to drop by Wikipedia:Vfd renomination limits. -Splash 20:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC) fixed red link ∞Who?¿? 21:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There was a proposal along these lines with regard to the GNAA article being nominated for deletion 6 times, but I do not believe a consensus was ever achieved. Hall Monitor 21:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were several strong objections to any strict limit, because it would allow for gaming the system either way around. It is a rare case for an article to be re-nominated, and those that are tend to be well influenced by the previous case. Radiant_>|< 09:23, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I am inclined to agree that a portion of the articles may not belong, however, I do think that some of the biographies of those who support gay/lesbian rights should be kept in this cat, because they are noted for being "gay icons". Assuming that's what it means. ∞Who?¿? 21:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup I think there is a clear definition of what a gay icon is, and if the ones can be weeded out that are clearly not, it would be fine. Remember, mis-categorization is not a category problem. ∞Who?¿? 11:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there is a way to define what qualifies one as a "gay icon". Hall Monitor 21:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First of all, the fact this category has appeared on Rowan Atkinson, Ashanti (singer) and many other non-gay icon-related articles prompted me to get involved in cleaning it up. You remove about 10, and another 20 get added. Some are backed up, but the category simply isn't needed. I think this should go. Cleaning it up has been tried by several people; We all failed. Hedley 21:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the category is somewhat subjective, there are some clear gay icons, people who owe the success or longevity of their careers in large part to gays and lesbians (and they will admit it - Cher, Madonna, etc.) Sure there are some names that don't belong, but those can be trimmed. I've trimmed some of them myself. To delete all this work while keeping so many other worthless categories seems strange to me. --JamesB3 23:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup The category isn't unnecessary, just overpopulated. Most of the articles in this category do not actually state anything about their being a gay icon, and, as a result, shouldn't be there. It should be a rule for this category: Do not include articles that contain nothing about their iconic status in this category. (I apologise for the overuse of 'category' here.) --JB Adder | Talk 23:59, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete overly arbitrary. A well annotated list would be far more useful. - SimonP 00:55, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Category is clearly a matter of opinion, not fact, so it breaches the neutrality rule. Osomec 02:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as arbitrary, possibly listify. Radiant_>|< 09:23, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Far more useful than yet another stupid, ugly unusable list. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 16:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (perhaps relistify) - Fails to satisfy (from Wikipedia:Categorization) If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:56, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, possibly listify (a list can provide more context). Pavel Vozenilek 18:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the category is too "fuzzy" and not based in fact. —RaD Man (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Arbitrary. It's better to use a list where the place of each "gay icon" in the gay subculture can be motivated, exemplified and put in some kind of context. Uppland 19:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV, arbitrary. - Aaron Hill 00:28, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Inherently POV and unverifiable. Giving it more time, just means ever more celebs will be added to it; and worse it sets a precident for every "Group X" to have "Category:Group X Icons". --rob 03:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup Lots of people have been labeled one, and that labeling is sure verifiable, too. -- AlexR 10:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the comments I've seen seem to justify the need for a category, that could not be served by having a list. To that end, I added all the names from this category to Gay icon and renamed the article List of gay icons. I did this because I think people put a fair amount of work into making the category, and I don't like deleting peoples' work if it has the potential to become something worthwhile. All the articles can be linked by mentioning that the person is a Gay icon. I think this article is similar to Films that have been considered the greatest ever. Lists and articles about POV classifications can be made into something legit. I'm skeptical that the same can be done with a category. Too much explanation is needed for it to be just a category tag. It is important to explain why and how someone is considered a gay icon and include a credible source. That can be done with a link within text. -- Samuel Wantman 11:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per my votes in the previous CFD's. BlankVerse ∅ 13:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason to delete: it doesn't seem POV to me unless there is controversy over individual gay icon status, which can be easily resolved by removal. However, it's not hard to verify (check gay press) to determine what is and isn't considered a gay icon. Much nicer than a nasty old list. Leave the Gay icon page for discussion of the itneresting phenomena of gay icons. Axon (talk|contribs) 14:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify per Samuel Wantman. Jonathunder 18:57, 2005 August 1 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are some pages that definitely belong in the category, so I don't see it as inherently POV. Individual article's categorization might be, but they should be explained in the articles like any other categorization. --Mairi 21:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And while we are at it, can we have a vote to delete the word listify? Or rather, in Wikipedia language, should we votify the issue by listifying opinions to enable use to decisionify the issue and communify the information those who implementify the decision? FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Rangerdude 03:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and listify per Samuel Wantman. siafu 14:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify, to see Jtdirl's head explode. Actually, delete because of Samuel Wantman's comment: It is important to explain why and how someone is considered a gay icon and include a credible source. --Kbdank71 18:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Listify as per Samuel Wantman. — Sebastian (talk) 19:12, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete do not listify. ComCat 04:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revamp listing to make it clearer and only including openly gay people. Current version is too confusing. CrazyC83 05:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to be gay to be a gay icon. Many gay icons are straight (Barbra Streisand, Bette Midler, etc.) --JamesB3 06:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep then. It is a useful listing to some degree, but extremely prone to NPOV disputes. CrazyC83 21:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.


Category:Lists of Korea-related topics edit

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Category:Korea-related lists. Propose to delete and make that category the daughter of Category:Lists of country-related topics. -- Visviva 15:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:African American politicians edit

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 --Kbdank71 13:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African American politicians, category:African American artists, category:African American scientists, category:African American writers, category:African-American actors

These categories are people by occupation of a specific ethnic groups of Americans. See also a similar previous nomination. — Instantnood 15:27, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Non-vote: These are nominated because of the similarities with a previous nomination. Please don't count my nomination as one delete vote. — Instantnood 15:27, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • My personal vote would be to delete, but I believe this is a broad topic that should be discussed centrally (e.g. any categorization by gender or race could be perceived as discriminatory). Radiant_>|< 16:11, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: In my opinion, identifying people by their gender or ethnic groups could be perceived as discriminatory, but information provided and presented as fact in an encyclopædia does not mean to be discriminating because of one's gender or race. Actually these categories are useful for studies of demography, history, culture and sociology. I agree this is a broad topic, and I do expect this nomination will initiate a serious discussion over the issue of ethnic group categories. — Instantnood 17:16, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • My vote would also be to delete, but an overarching discussion would be more useful. -Splash 20:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep these categories. I agree that the Jewish-American and Chinese-American categories should have been deleted, but to have groupings for African-Americans is much more important, and these are the most prominent minority in America and cannot be classed into other ethnic categories. Harro5 23:56, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: It is not easy to determine, and is subjected to one's point of view which ethnic groups are important and prominent and which are not. In my opinion all these categories for specific ethnic groups are useful ones. — Instantnood 13:21, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. These are topics of scholarly study. There are university courses and books written about these topics. To embrace diversity, you have to recognize that it exists. This is not discriminatory. I also believe that people in these sub-categories also be listed in the super-categories. I believe this is already the case for African-American actors, and it should remain this way. -- Samuel Wantman 10:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is arbitary to preserve these when similar categories have been rightly deleted. CalJW 16:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Aren't categories inherently discriminative? There is nothing wrong with that, IMHO. —RaD Man (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename for consistency; African-American has a hyphen. The individuals listed are, in fact, African-American, and they are notable in their occupations, and being African-American and famous is considered notable in the United States (rightly or wrongly). siafu 14:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. There is an Category:African Americans category which works just as well (and if they are not from the United States, Category:Black people), and Category:Politicians, et al. --Kbdank71 18:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These categories (and those for other ethnicities) happen to be useful categorizations for readers. Someone interested in the history of African Americans in politics for example can search through that specific category. Merging them all into Category:African Americans makes for an utterly bloated and useless list. The point of categorization is speed, optimization, and leading a reader to similar topics. Merging them all into one article means a reader trying to research the history of African American literature (through its writers) will also have to wade through athletes, politicians, comedians, scientists, famous people in the news, criminals, artists, actors, etc, etc. --Yuje 09:05, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful. - Darwinek 14:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Bus Routes in Birmingham, England edit

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 listify or delete, depending on outcome of VFD --Kbdank71 13:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An article on Birmighham bus routes would be one thing - but this category is designed to hold nn articles on individual bus routes (its contents are now all on VfD and look certain to go). There is a higher category 'transport in Birmingham' which can contain any future notable bus related articles (gee, can't wait) --Doc (?) 13:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the Vfd here. ∞Who?¿? 11:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, merge all articles in there to a list. Radiant_>|< 16:11, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've no particular desire to hang to the information in a list, either. Bus routes come and go, and connect nearly every road of every major city. -Splash 20:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge per Radiant. Pavel Vozenilek 23:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be a good idea to make sure these articles are all deleted before deleting the category? --ssd 14:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

First Nations edit

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

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 13:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of the word "Canadian" is unneccessary in the title of Category:Canadian First Nations, just as the inclusion of "New Zealand" would be unneccessary in the title of Category:Maori. The term "First Nations", like the term "Maori", is used only to refer to one unique group of indigenous peoples located in a specific country and nowhere else, in this case Canada. Inclusion of the term "Canadian" would only be needed if disambiguating was required, which it is not.

The inclusion of the word "Canadian" in the title of this category is unneccesary. All chiefs of the Assembly of First Nations, a Canadian organization, are of the First Nations, who are an Aboriginal ethnic group in Canada.

Additionally, the current wording of the category name implies belonging to Canada, which is advised against by the Government of Canada's Department of Indian and Northern Affairs when referring to Aboriginal peoples in Canada [1]. In a related effort to avoid implying belonging, the article First Nations of Canada was recently renamed to First Nations. Kurieeto 03:00, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Agree to this and all the below, with two comments. 1) technically you're wrong about Maori, since it could refer to Cook island Maori, although I take the point of your analogy; 2) Is the name "Indian reserve" still regarded as the correct one? I may be overly PC here, but I feel uncomfortable with the term. Grutness...wha? 08:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Grutness, thanks for your point about the Maori. With regard to the question of the usage of the term "Indian reserve", to my knowledge it is still the most common, correct term. An alternative term such as "First Nations reserve" hasn't replaced "Indian reserve" the way that "First Nations" has replaced "Indian" in common language. As another measure of the use of the term I googled "Indian reserve" and "First Nations reserve" to compare how many results came back. "Indian reserve" received 98,200 hits, and "First Nations reserve" received 4,990. Kurieeto 16:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please make good use of {{cfru}} if there's a need. :-) — Instantnood 14:16, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Instantnood, I didn't know of the existence of that template & will now use it where appropriate. Kurieeto 16:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Welcome :-D — Instantnood 07:58, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support this and all those below. - SimonP 14:33, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support for all in this grouping. Mindmatrix 16:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all I know personally that the Ojibwa (Chippewa) Nations spans both Canadian and US soil, as they are considered First Nations, it would be wrong to have a country specific title. ∞Who?¿? 21:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move all as per Kurieeto. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Please don't confuse non-Canadians. This is exclusively about Canada, so make it clear in the name. Maybe others wish to call themselves "first nations". --rob 04:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the problem with that, is that these are seperate nations, and although they are in Canada, they are also in other countires, such as the USA, so they are not Canada specific. ∞Who?¿? 05:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • But, as written now, all articles (I've seen) in the categories are Canadian specific. All the "official" organizations *exclusively* represent Canadian citizens. The AFN exclusively represents Canadians. They are the highest level group of "first nations" anywhere. That means, that none of the member groups could be considered to be anything other than Canadian. I think those who wish to drop "Canadian" from the categories, must first prove that there is signficant content about First Nations *beyond* Canada's borders in most of the articles in these Categories. --rob 03:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. Being exclusively about Canada doesn't need to be in the title, but does need mention in cat description. siafu 14:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (sorry): There are now two conflicting arguements for renaming. 1)per "who", First Nations are not just Canadian, so drop the word "Canadian". 2)per original reason, First Nations are always Canadian, so there's no need to mention the name, but just say so in the description. How can proponents of a name change be at polar opposites, on the reason for the change? --rob 03:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Canadian Indian reserves → Category:Indian reserves in Canada edit

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

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 13:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the title of this category should be changed to align its wording with similar categories, such as Category:Communities in Canada, and that category's sub-categories at the provincial and territorial level. Kurieeto 03:00, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm in favour of the move, but since we're on the topic, can I also suggest that we ditch the word "Indian" in favour of a different term? Bearcat 01:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the best alternative to "Indian reserve" would be "First Nations reserve". To my knowledge the reserves are known legally as Indian reserves, but First Nations peoples are also legally known as Status Indians or Non-Status Indians, and we have chosen to refer to them as being of the "First Nations" on Wikipedia.. Google searches of "Indian reserve" returns 97,500 sites, "First Nation reserve" returns 4,910 sites, and "First Nations reserve" returns 4,980 sites. Additionally, a Google search of ""First Nations reserve" site:gc.ca" demonstrates that the term "First Nations reserve" is used by the federal government. Kurieeto 02:33, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Métis culture edit

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

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 13:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created this category in February of 2005 when I felt that the subject had a capacity for future growth that warranted its own category within Category:Métis. After four months the Métis culture category contains three articles. I now feel that while a Métis culture category may be needed one day, it should not be created until sufficient articles about the subject are present on Wikipedia. Because the existence of this category makes the location and access of its minimal contents cumbersome, I request that it be deleted and its contents merged into Category:Métis. Kurieeto 03:00, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Upmerge & delete per nom. Radiant_>|< 16:11, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete. I agree that we'll need this in the future, though. Mindmatrix 17:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge and delete per nominator. -Splash 20:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Kurieeto. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No argument. siafu 14:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Métis history edit

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

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 13:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created this category in March of 2005 when I felt that the subject had a capacity for future growth that warranted its own category within Category:Métis. After four months the Métis history category contains only one article and one sub-category. I now feel that while a Métis history category may be needed one day, it should not be created until sufficient articles about the subject are present on Wikipedia. Because the existence of this category makes the location and access of its minimal contents cumbersome, I request that it be deleted and its contents merged into Category:Métis. Kurieeto 03:00, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Upmerge & delete per nom. Radiant_>|< 16:11, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Upmerge and delete per nominator. -Splash 20:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • MergeUP and wipe as per nom. (no copvio here). ∞Who?¿? 22:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Kurieeto. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No argument. siafu 14:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

"Anthropomorphic _____" categories edit

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 --Kbdank71 13:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The categories Category:Anthropomorphic comics, Category:Anthropomorphic films, Category:Anthropomorphic television programs, Category:Anthropomorphic video games. I'm assuming the creator(s) meant "Comics/Films/Television programs/Video games with anthropomorphic characters"; even so, they seem vague and not potentially useful. tregoweth 23:09, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep I don't know, they fit the description given in the parent cat and its article, Anthropomorphism. I don't think its vague, its just a scientific name. As far as useful, well thats up for interpertation, would the normal person go looking for Daffy Duck in this cat, probably not, but for encyclopedic purposes, if I were doing research on types of Anthropomorphism, it would be quite helpful. So I would have to say keep, as this is an encyclopedia and there are other views for say "cartoons" other than entertainment purposes. ∞Who?¿? 11:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but weakly. These categories seem potentially useful, but they are all technically misnamed; it's not the TV program that is anthropomorphic but the characters contained within. Category:Television programs featuring anthropomorphism doesn't exactly flow, however. siafu 14:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_July_29&oldid=1121947319"