Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 24

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< August 23 August 25 >

August 24 edit

Wikipedians by philosophy edit

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of weirdness here.

This overlapped with category:Wikipedian organizations, which is a subcategory of category:Wikipedians by philosophy. I’m sure a lot of the nominations could be improved, so please offer suggestions.--Mike Selinker 03:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose all renaming, simply because these categories are too diverse for me to accurately say that every single one of these renames is right. For example, renaming Category:Rouge admins to Category:Wikipedia adminstrators in the Rouge Admins doesn't make sense- Rouge Admins aren't a club. I'm sure there are other categories that just don't make sense. Also, I fail to see the difference between "users" and "wikipedians". Changing "Wikipediholics" to "Wikipediholic Wikipedians" is redundant. And that's just from barely reading through the list. If these were handled separately, rather than together, I'd reconsider, and probably support most of them. Ral315 (talk) 03:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The strong consensus on this page was to put "Wikipedian" in the title of every Wikipedian category, hence the gang renaming that we've been doing for the last couple weeks (there's lots of examples below). I didn't know Rouge admins wasn't an organization, though, so I've fixed that (at least to my satisfaction). And I'd be willing to change any others that people think aren't named correctly. Feel free to make comments that I can implement.--Mike Selinker 04:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all except the "Rouge admins", "UDUIW" and "Anti-Stub" ones, which can be better-worded (for example, "Anti-Stub Wikipedians" is much simpler, shorter, and clearer than "Wikipedians in Anti-Stub"). -Silence 04:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Wikipedia administrators in the Rouge Admins"? Say what? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose these namespaces arent needed for anything else. Philc TECI 14:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • General support for renaming the categories. Some of them may need to be tweaked as others have mentioned, but I support renaming all the ones that are not disputed. --Cswrye 16:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial support. I support renaming all those that don't currently have "Wikipedians" in them, but I oppose renaming the others. jgp TC 04:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think is is so wrong. Arce 20:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. Consistency would be a good thing. Also per Cswrye. --Quiddity 17:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all that renaming and migrating would be a waste of time that wouldn't help anything. Also, too many requests at once, and the requests are too diverse. Mangojuicetalk 19:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mangojuice. Whispering(talk/c) 00:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the change from category:Wikipedians against notability to category:Wikipedians who oppose the notability guideline. Partially because Notability is not a guideline, and partially because I don't see what is wrong with the old title. The page is fine... or if you really have to, "Wikipedians who oppose the notability essay". -- Chris chat edits essays 04:51, 30 August 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.

Category:National museums of England edit

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National museums of England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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:Friends (TV series) guest stars edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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' -- Drini 02:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Category:Friends (TV series) guest stars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

  • Delete, Only two members of the category, which is not a salient point in their lives worth commemorating in a full category. A mention within the respective article(s) should be sufficient. See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_23#Category:Ellen_.28TV_series.29_guest_stars. -- nae'blis 20:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --musicpvm 20:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category is dangerous. If the practice of categorizing guest appearances was fully realized, some actors would have scores of categories added to their articles. This is more a negative than a positive. This information can organized in a list, which is a much better place for this information. If someone is notable for their guest appearances, they can be linked to the list. -- Samuel Wantman 20:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as recreated content. - EurekaLott 03:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as recreated content. Chicheley 15:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • meh who cares? Arce 20:50, 27 August 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.

Category:Inquiries edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Inquiries into Category:Public inquiries

  • Merge, Public inquiries more accurately describes these articles. Tim! 19:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The membership appears to be UK-related; is the UK the only country to use "public inquiry" as a term?  If so, merge per Tim! otherwise rename to "Public enquiries [in/of] the United Kingdom". Regards, David Kernow 12:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are some for other countries including Ireland and Australia, which will probably warrant subcategories in the not too distant future. Tim! 16:47, 25 August 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.

Freemason Categories edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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' -- Drini 02:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are redundant to Category:Freemasons. Most only have 2 members while a few have 1 or none. Delete all. SynergeticMaggot 18:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fictional freemasons, as that's something separate; Delete the others.--Runcorn 22:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fictional freemasons, Merge the others into Category:Freemasons. -- ProveIt (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Agreed. I must have put that one in by mistake. The Fictional Freemasons cat should be kept. SynergeticMaggot 02:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Fictional Freemasons only has one article - Grandpa Simpson. I think it would be better to listify it to better include stuff like Monty Python's architect sketch (along with about a dozen others) and mason parodies such as the Stonecutters. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 07:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Useful cross-categorisation. Nathan Mercer 10:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and populate. No discernible reason has been given for the proposed damage. Chicheley 15:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all These categories are sure to grow. Twittenham 23:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are already over 300 articles about American Freemasons and over 200 about British Freemasons. Twittenham 23:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. I created these cats to help depopulate the very large parent cat. the merging of some cats based on regions might be in order, however. Additionally, I was not informed of this CFD, and it is usually good form to give the creator a heads up or to at least put a CFD tempate on the cats. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 17:19, 31 August 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.

Category:Sterling prize winners edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 -- Drini 02:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Category:Sterling prize winners to Category:Stirling prize winners[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:Regular Family Guy cast members edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 -- Drini 02:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Category:Regular Family Guy cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

  • There is already a Family Guy actors page, I don't see any need for two categories for it. Many shows have regular and guest stars: but that certainly doesn't mean they need to be put in two categories. One works just fine, and Family Guy shouldn't be the exception. RobJ1981 15:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and merge back into the parent category. In fact, Category:Family Guy actors should contain only regular cast - guest stars should not be in a Family Guy category at all, because it is not an important facet of that person's life. I'll remove most of the one-off guest stars forthwith. — sjorford++ 17:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the guest stars should be listed. Look at just about any category for a television show, you will see it lists guest and regulars. RobJ1981 18:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listing guest stars in an article is one thing; tagging all of their respective articles with a category to that effect is overkill. See above example for Friends, and previous for Ellen and Tom Goes To The Mayor. -- nae'blis 20:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are several categories that include guest stars, because fanboys who think their favourite show is the most important thing in the universe have filled them. But in almost every case it is overcategorisation for the people involved. I cleared out a few such categories a while back (e.g. Futurama, Blackadder, South Park); I'll have a stab at some more shortly. (Although Doctor Who may be out of reach now...) — sjorford++ 08:11, 25 August 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.

Category:Melodrama edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 -- Drini 03:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is an miscellaneous opera category that resulted from confusion about Italian, French, German and English terminology. - Kleinzach 15:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. Vivaverdi 15:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. --Ssilvers 15:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. --GuillaumeTell 15:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete per nom. Marc Shepherd 16:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. --Folantin 17:48, 24 August 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.

Category:Universities and colleges in St. louis, Missouri edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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, but fix typo to Category:Universities and colleges in St. Louis, Missouri --Kbdank71 16:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Universities and colleges in St. Louis, moved from speedy by suggestion. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. "St. Louis" is a proper noun. Srose (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, obviously. Just asking, but is it necessary to bring an obvious typo here to CfD? Don't know the policy but it seems that just fixing the typo should be OK. Herostratus 17:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm assuming that the suggestion that brought this down from the speedy section was that we remove of the word Missouri. ×Meegs 18:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's right. Speedy is OK to capitalized the 'L', but not to remove Missouri. -- ProveIt (talk) 20:11, 24 August 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.

Category:Binary planets edit

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 16:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Binary planets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) *Vote Tally: Keep = 3 | Delete = 5 | Vote over on 29 August 2006

    • Please add your vote to the total above when you cast your vote
This is a debate, not a vote--Runcorn 21:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, well, Pluto nor Charon are planets, nor are the minor planets. Binary planemo hardly qualifies (freely floating planetary mass objects are not considered planets). And even if they do, the only known binary is a borderline case. JyriL talk 15:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. It may be that binary planets will be discovered in other solar systems, but even if Pluto/Charon qualifies, we don't need a category with only one example in it. --Ssilvers 15:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now - What with the very definition of "planets" still heavily in flux, I think it would be prudent to delete this category for now. I'm not even sure if the new definition of "planet" allows for such a thing as a "binary planet", or if it does what it entails. So shelve this category for now, then maybe once the planetary definitions are more set in stone add it again if there are notable, verifiable planetary twins. (By the way, as of this morning Pluto is apparently officially no longer a planet.) Dugwiki 16:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as one-member category for the forseeable future. Herostratus 17:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a question of definition; minor planets are (as their name indicates) small planets, and there are plenty of binary minor planets that could go here. rename to Binary minor planets?--Runcorn 21:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about Category:Binary planetary objects, and in the definition specify it includes binary planets, binary minor planets and binary asteroids, but does not include planet/moon pairs? That would broaden the definition and maybe allow it to be more populated. Dugwiki 23:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sounds reasonable.--Runcorn 12:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now until the whole planet definition is settled. --Exodio 02:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue is now settled.--Runcorn 12:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has 9 members if you include the first-level subcat. --M@rēino 19:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pluto-Charon is now out, and revised mass estimates for the "binary planemo" put both components above 13 Jupiter masses, making it a binary brown dwarf [1]. Chaos syndrome 20:05, 29 August 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.

Category:Mutant Wikipedians edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 -- Drini 03:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Category:Mutant Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

  • Delete - I don't know, maybe there really are mutants editing Wikipedia, but I'm more inclined to think that this is a joke category. I'll let the consensus decide. —Cswrye 14:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Offending the mutant community is not a good idea. They have strange powers. Herostratus 17:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems like a very obvious joke category. RobJ1981 18:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless a useful definition of mutant can be included in the cat. Eluchil404 20:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a nonsense. Actually, a mutant could be anyone who has any genes not identical to either of their parents', and probably there are such Wikipedians and probably they don't even realise!--Runcorn 21:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are lots of categories that are "jokes" or otherwise - like Pissed off Wikipedians. If people want to categorize themselves as mutants, let them. They may consider themselves mutants, or they may actually be mutants. If it was 1 person in the category, i would vote delete, but as it is i say let them keep their mutanthood. --Exodio 02:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense. --musicpvm 04:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per musicpvm. --kingboyk 06:57, 25 August 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.

Category:Yodelers edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Yodelers to Category:Yodelists

  • Rename, "Yodelists" seems like it might be a better term for the category of singers who yodel. Arual 12:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this term recogniz/sed by any (notable) dictionaries...?  Unsure, David Kernow 13:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Yodelist isn't a real word. - EurekaLott 14:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Yodeler is the correct term, I believe. Herostratus 17:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Herostratus Chicheley 15:11, 25 August 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.

Category:Roman saints edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 -- Drini 03:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Category:Roman saints to Category:Ancient Roman saints[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:Sports-related shows edit

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sports-related shows into Category:Sports television series

  • Merge, two cats on basically the same topic: Sports-related television programmmes. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Sports television series. David Kernow 13:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC), withdrawn 12:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Does not the first category cover sports talk shows, which are not "series"? Herostratus 17:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess it would, if each show was a one-off, i.e. not part of a series – or am I confusing myself...?  Unsure, David Kernow 19:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Could "sports-related shows" not include radio shows also? Thryduulf 11:49, 25 August 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.

Category:Sulphur mines edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 and redirect --Kbdank71 15:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sulphur mines to Category:Sulfur mines

  • Rename, the other categories and articles for this element use the "sulfur" spelling so this should be changed for consistency. Bryan 04:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Arguments of "consistency" should not be used to impose American English. If they can be then all the subcategories of Category:transportation by country should be amended to use "transport" as that is the form used by the majority of them - but when that was proposed a number of American users became indignant. Chicheley 11:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename with redirect, as "sulfur" is the spelling adopted by the IUPAC and Royal Society of Chemistry (probably on the grounds of its Latin derivation)  David Kernow 13:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC), +wikilink 19:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC), converted to vote 12:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency. The only times we should employ alternate spellings are when the articles or categories have a regional focus. - EurekaLott 15:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Category:Sulphur mines to Category:Sulfur mines, matching the element Sulfur and the redirect Sulphur. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and make Category:Sulphur mines a redirect (if categories can be redirects and if its useful to make it). I always thought it was "sulpher" and I live in the USA, but Sulfer gives 45 million ghits and Sulpher only 19 million. Also for consistency. Herostratus 17:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as it seems to be the most 'official' version of spelling. --Exodio 02:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Americanisation. Quoting google hits is illegitimate as that can be used to support almost any Americanisation. Nathan Mercer 10:09, 25 August 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.

Category:Flash edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 -- Drini 03:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Category:Flash to Category:Flash (comics)[reply]

  • Rename, Conform with main article title ("Flash (comics)") and eliminate any possible ambiguities (not that I can see any). Tocapa 03:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, as "Category:Flash" seems inherently ambiguous. David Kernow 13:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename or it could include flash photography or Flash household cleaner.--Runcorn 06:11, 30 August 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.

Category:United States government publications edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 {{category redirect}}. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States government publications (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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:Christian footballers edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 -- Drini 03:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, See: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_25#Category:Sportspeople_by_religion. -- ProveIt (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Osomec 09:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Irrelevant connection. Chicheley 11:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, value not worth the effort to keep accurate. Herostratus 17:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ill-defined; is this American football, soccer or Australian rules?--Runcorn 21:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, absurd categorisation. Pavel Vozenilek 21:32, 25 August 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.

Category:Jewish-American professional wrestlers edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 -- Drini 03:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, See: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_25#Category:Sportspeople_by_religion. -- ProveIt (talk) 01:23, 24 August 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.

Category:Christian wrestlers edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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-- Drini 03:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_25#Category:Sportspeople_by_religion. -- ProveIt (talk) 01:20, 24 August 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.

Category:Atheist wrestlers edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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-- Drini 03:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Category:Atheist wrestlers to Category:Atheist professional wrestlers[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/2006_August_24&oldid=1136105040"