Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 11 February 13 >

February 12[edit]

Category:Parks in Salt Lake City[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Parks in Salt Lake City to Category:Parks in Salt Lake City, Utah
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Add state name for consistency. Parent category is Category:Salt Lake City, Utah and main article is Salt Lake City, Utah. See CFD 2007 DEC 12 where similar changes were made. Snocrates 22:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creators thoughts I have no objection to the renaming, but I did use similar categories as models and decided to leave the state off since the majority of those did as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Parks_by_city —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argyleist (talk • contribs) 00:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. Follow the main parent and we probably need to consider renaming another group of categories to include the higher government entity. Vegaswikian (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear case of rename.Vice regent 15:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Star Wars Republic[edit]

Category:Star Wars Republic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Conscious (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same problem as below. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the category and merge/delete most if not all of the articles on individual comic book issues. Individual comic issues are very rarely independently notable and the articles on these individual issues certainly don't appear to be (not to mention that they violate WP:NOT#PLOT as being little more than plot summaries with no real-world context or information). Otto4711 (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Some articles may need merging.Vice regent 23:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - all articles save one (that I must have missed) have been deleted. Last remaining article is prodded for notability. Otto4711 (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Star Wars: Empire[edit]

Category:Star Wars: Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Conscious (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Author requested deletion. However, for most of these articles, no other category seems appropriate. I have no problem with the deletion per se, but the necessary cleanup must come before deletion. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the category and merge/delete most if not all of the articles on individual comic book issues. Individual comic issues are very rarely independently notable and the articles on these individual issues certainly don't appear to be (not to mention that they violate WP:NOT#PLOT as being little more than plot summaries with no real-world context or information). Otto4711 (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Same rationale as above.Vice regent 00:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Self-Hating Jews[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete by User:Mike Rosoft. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Self-Hating Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category will cause endless WP:BLP problems. The term "self-hating Jews" is propagandistic and is not remotely neutral language. There is also already edit-warring with entries beong added and removed. Peter cohen (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn since the category has been deleted whilst I was composing the above.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Members of the Xth Ministry in Canada[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete/listify. Kbdank71 15:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:
Listify:
Nominator's rationale: Per the consensus of the 2008 February 6 discussion. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, though there is already consensus.Vice regent 00:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Melchizedek (band) albums[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete, C1 - empty category. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Melchizedek (band) albums
Band and album articles were all [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melchizedek (band)|deleted] as non-notable. Jfire (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Category not needed with no band or album articles. --BelovedFreak 20:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these should be speediable, but four days' wait is mandated. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as of now there are no articles in the categoriy, so it serves little purpose.Vice regent 00:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films based on board games[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Films based on board games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I doubt there will ever be more than one film in this category, and that's the Clue (film). • Supāsaru 18:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised someone has not added Jumanji (film), base on the board game in the book. Flibirigit (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The film Jumanji is about a magical board game, which is a bit different. The Clue movie uses a set of characters, weapons and locations of a pre-existing real-life game. It's kind of like making a movie called "Snakes and Ladders: The Movie". • Supāsaru 20:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete suffers from the same problems "films about" categories have: how much about the subject must it be and who tells us that it's at least that much about it. There was a chess game playing an important part in the first Harry Potter movie, e.g. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Carl46. You could apply the same rationale to The Seventh Seal. Lugnuts (talk) 08:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

San Diego Gulls[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: move/merge as nominated. Conscious (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming merging four categories to match the title of the corresponding team articles.
Nominator's rationale: - This nomination renames to first two categories according to new articles for those teams, add essentially merges and renames the WCHL and ECHL players categories, since they were the same team that switched leagues.
Yes, it should read "Category:San Diego Gulls (1995-2006)." It is convention to name the category the same way as the article for consistency. Article names were discussed at Talk:San Diego Gulls. "WHL" and "IHL" are ambiguous terms, whereas dates are not ambiguous and consistent. Flibirigit (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see. My argument, though, is that other teams which existed in the IHL (1945-2001) as well as other leagues are not disambiguated by years unless they also parcipated in the other IHL (IHL (2007-) -- which I believe only applies to the Kalamazoo Wings. I think using the years when it isn't absolutely necessary only leads to confusion when people try to add players to the categories. I'll withdraw my oppose, but I won't support. Call it a stubborn compromise. :) Skudrafan1 (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:San Diego Gulls players is a disambigation category, it should solve any issues. Flibirigit (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sympathy for the Record Industry[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming merging Category:Sympathy for the Record Industry to Category:Sympathy for the Record Industry artists
Nominator's rationale: Rename and purge - the material doesn't warrant a category for the record label itself, so purge those couple of articles that aren't artists and rename per Category:Artists by record label. Otto4711 (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops. I accidentally created the target category in the nomination process, so now technically this is a merge. Otto4711 (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Scottish patriarchs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Scottish patriarchs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: No inclusion criteria given for this category, it is unclear what exactly constitutes a "Scottish patriarch". Appears to have been created to contain ancestral members of the Bruce family, by Wikiaddict8962 (talk · contribs).
  • Delete as a category with no clear parameters for inclusion. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 12:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this category seems far too vague to adequately maintain. --BelovedFreak 20:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - while the category may be notable in a different form, as of now there is no reason to keep this.Vice regent 15:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and is not likely to be populated. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 20:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Environmental threats[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. (as a side note, not related to the closing, but just because I like giving my opinion whenever possible: I don't think any of these options presented (merge, keep, or rename) are good. "Threats" is subjective, "issues" is too broad, and merging will further fill a category that is already too large. In fact, by renaming, someone is just going to come around in 6 months or so and nominate it to rename back to threats saying we should call a spade a spade, and will probably wind up being merged. But that's how CFD works sometimes, for better or worse. Thank you for listening; please have a nice day) . Kbdank71 14:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Environmental threats to Category:Environmental issues
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name limits the content of the cat and is emotive. See also Category talk:Environmental threats -- Alan Liefting-talk- 04:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning toward merge to Category:Environment - "Issues" is a broad and IMHO wishy-washy term. The contents of this category could probably be redistributed amongst the many other more precisely named subcats of the parent, so merge it there for redistribution. Otto4711 (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See USer:Cgingold comment on merging into Category:Environment below. I feel the word "issues" is something that we can work with. I have been maintaining List of environmental issues and I have had very few edits that are outside the terms of ref of the page. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 19:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Environment whether they are threats or issues is POV. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename to "environmental issues" per above. This topic is very notable in the 21st century and is on the minds of scientists, politicans, artists, activists etc.Vice regent 00:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly renaming, but really I think the current name is fine; lots of article & category names might be felt "emotive" by various people, & I don't believe this is POV at all. Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly renaming. Category:Environment is reasonably large and this subcategory is appropriate.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specifically, what articles currently in this category could not be categorized in Category:Environment or an existing subcat? Couldn't pretty much everything in that category be characterized as an "issue"? Why not strive for precision instead of lumping articles into a generic category? Otto4711 (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly what keepers are doing! They might all be issues (there is already a controversies subcat) but not everything in the parent is a threat. If someone suggested a name less liable to POV accusations, but retaining the idea of harm, I would vote for it. Johnbod (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Category:Environmental issues per nom. First, there's a very real need for a category of this sort, because there are already 38 sub-categories cluttering up Category:Environment (along with 139 articles). Dumping the contents of this category would only add to the clutter. We should be endeavoring to improve navigation by organizing those sub-cats more coherently -- not making matters worse, ferkrisake. I would move 8 of those sub-cats into the renamed category, leaving 30 sub-cats that don't come under the heading of "issues" -- and I would use the sortkey to place this category in the grouping that precedes the alphabetical listings.

As to the name... I've been actively pondering this for an entire day, scouting out the terrain and considering various options. To begin with, I've concluded that the current name is problematic because it's a slippery term that's difficult to define clearly enough to be applied with any sort of consistency. I considered a number of possible replacements, but finally settled on Category:Environmental issues. It is perhaps somewhat bland, but consider the following: I ran a Wikipedia "prefix search" for "Environmental issues" and discovered that there are three dozen separate articles running from Environmental issues in Afghanistan to Environmental issues in Vietnam. When all is said and done I believe Category:Environmental issues is the best choice available to us. Cgingold (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominator comment - The proposed new category name would be an extension of list of environmental issues. This list page is for the higher level issues and is inapprop for pages such as Environmental threats to the Great Barrier Reef, Environmental issues in foo etc. If added to list of environmental issues these would add unneeded clutter to what is a well laid out page (IMHO!!). "Issues" is less of a target for POV attacks and is a more , ahhh, encyclopaedic word. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 19:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious - specifically, what articles (other than such things as for example the woefully miscategorized European Environmental Bureau which AFAIK is neither an "issue" nor a "threat") could not go into a more specific subcat of Category:Environment rather than languishing in a bland "issues" category? What "issue" doesn't have some environmental component that couldn't land it in an Environmental issues category? Otto4711 (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have correctly recategorised European Environmental Bureau. Category:Environment is the top level category for all articles pertaining to the environment. It should be kept for important articles and the 1000's of other articles should be placed in sub-cats. Have a peruse of Lists of environmental topics for the huge number of articles that could be squared away quite nicely into an environmental issues category. I have recently culled this list from being a huge list of disparate links (see Talk:Lists of environmental topics). -- Alan Liefting-talk- 03:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not suggesting merging the categories and then just leaving the articles there. I am suggesting merging them so that the articles can be disbursed to more appropriate and more precise subcategories. Pretty much everything related to the environment could reasonably be considered an "issue." We should strive for the most precise names for categories rather than creating dumping ground generic "issues" categories. Otto4711 (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of equal or greater importance is the fact that this category will gather together all of the issues-related sub-categories of Category:Environment that will otherwise be randomly strewn amongst all of the other sub-categories -- such as Category:Environmental protection agencies, Category:Environmental books, and Category:Environmental skepticism -- that don't deal with "environmental issues". Cgingold (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like Category:Pollution which is in this subcat and is just absolutely lost amongst the sea of subcats in Category:Environment? Otto4711 (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There will be at least 16 sub-cats in Category:Environmental issues, most of which would otherwise go straight into Category:Environment along with the other 30 non-issue related sub-cats. Why on earth would you want to increase the clutter there, rather than taking a sensible step toward organizing those sub-cats and reducing the clutter, thereby improving the navigation for our readers? There seems to be some sort of perverse logic at work here that eludes my comprehension. Cgingold (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I estimate eight subcats of Category:Environment, including Category:Pollution, that can be placed under an issues subcat. This will reduce the clutter. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 23:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to find a Pollution cat, "threats" is far more helpful than "issues". I don't like issues at all, at least as a category name. Johnbod (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I'm concerned that "threats" is a "slippery term that's difficult to define clearly enough to be applied with any sort of consistency." But if you can come up workable inclusion criteria I might reconsider, Johnbod. Cgingold (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tourist Attractions in Zimbabwe[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Tourist Attractions in Zimbabwe to Category:Visitor attractions in Zimbabwe
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Target category is older, more comprehensive, and conforms with format of Category:Visitor attractions by country. Snocrates 03:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Gay Neo-Nazis[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 14:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Gay Neo-Nazis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is certainly an interesting intersection of orientation and political views, but it's relevance is questionable. I originally nominated this at speedy to change to Category:Gay neo-Nazis; an editor suggested it should be brought here for full discussion and I agree that would be helpful in this case. If kept, capitalization issue should be corrected. Snocrates 00:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to disagree with the notion that no acceptable lead article could be written for the category. Otto4711 (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Otto's argument that it's a meaningful subcat of Category:LGBT people by political orientation simply serves to point out that all three subcategories should be deleted. In many ways, this is nothing but fun trivia and inclusion criteria are not entirely clear as the term "neo-nazi" is often ill-defined. Did Martin Webster self-identify as a neo-nazi? (or for that matter as gay?) It's not entirely clear either that Nicky Crane ever identified simultaneously as neo-nazi and gay since the article suggests he felt these were two separate phases of his life. Pichpich (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This certainly points out what's theoretically difficult in categories that define people by predilection, belief, or attitude (I'm talking about the Neo-Nazi part). Intersections between occupation and identity categories (gender, race, sexuality as defined in WP:CATGRS, and a variety of other identities as discussed periodically) often work because occupations are a major thing that people do with their time, a major identity they might have, a major way by which they are defined by others, a major impact on their actual lived careers (jobs they are offered or can take, discrimination within those jobs, etc.), and a major way that history will usually see people. So "LGBT scientists", "African American scientists", and "women scientists" are all subjects of study to a greater or lesser extent: They are biographical categories, topics within professional studies and occupational histories, and they are also significant research topics in various identity/area studies. But once you start thinking about identities intersecting with beliefs or attitudes things become a lot wishy-washier. "LGBT anarchists"? "Women atheists"? "African American socialists"? I'm uneasy with this because while we frequently achieve notability in one, or very few, occupations, we typically hold many beliefs that are defining: political beliefs of all sorts, religious beliefs ... so intersecting with our various defining identities explodes this type of intersecting category to a significant extent. --Lquilter (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very eloquent. I share this ambivalence about the category. It certainly does get your attention (as in "you mean gay neo-nazis exist?") but it also highlights this apparent contradiction in a way that's bordering condemnation. I know I'm just speculating but if you're a gay neo-nazi, you probably have a fairly severe identity crisis and you're probably living these two lives in parallel, whereas this category more or less assumes that the two characteristics are a singular part of what defines you. Pichpich (talk) 07:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - while I'm sure there are tabloids out there trying to making these conclusions, I fear this category will be misused. It is often not clear who is a neo-Nazi (those who are alleged often deny it) or who is homosexual (many people identify as bisexual). Accurately determining who is both could be quite difficult.Vice regent 00:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see that Martin Webster and Nicky Crane are both mentioned above by someone arguing for deletion. But surely the facts that they were both ostracised by the far right and that the sexuality of the not-so-neo Nazi Ernst Röhm was used to justify his murder make their sexuality of more than prurient interest?--Peter cohen (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lars Vilks Muhammad drawings controversy[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Lars Vilks Muhammad drawings controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Contains only three articles and, considering that this controversy is since long over, is unlikely to get more populated. Slarre (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OCAT. Sting au Buzz Me... 03:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - overcategorisation. --BelovedFreak 20:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, due to spectacularly mis-timed nomination - they have just been republished in all the Danish papers. Johnbod (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there's nothing here that can't be linked through Lars Vilks Muhammad drawings controversy and, should some fresh controversy erupt necessitating articles other than the main one to cover it, they can undoubtedly be linked through the main article as well. Otto4711 (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 04:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_12&oldid=1138390079"