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 all. Courcelles 02:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Articles in these categories are people not notable for being religious/Christian; they just happen to be Christians. Per Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality#General, point #4: Inclusion must be specifically relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities and an essential part of that activity. Royalbroil 22:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. Note that many articles in the category are stubs without any notice of religion (Jerry Howarth) - BLP concerns. Articles that mention religion do just that, mention it. The category was created and populated by user:Xnatedawgx yesterday. He's been notified of this CFD and perhaps can bring in arguments in favor of keeping. East of Borschov 08:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think we've had broad consensus in the past that we only categorize by intersection of religion and occupation when the occupation is somehow directly related to the religion. Here, there is none. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (with regret) -- This intersection is not usually notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No need to repeat what Good Ol’factory said : ) - jc37 02:26, 15 August 2010 (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.
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. Courcelles 02:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Totally unnecessary intersection. Every album actually released by this record label should be merged into Category:Flying Nun Records albums (or one of its other subcategories.) The intersection of artist and record label (including albums released on other record labels) is an unwieldy and useless way to navigate. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I have created this category and some others more to give some stucture to the topic "Flying Nun Records". I have had a lot of difficulties finding informations on records and artists of this label. The idea behind Category:Flying Nun Records artists' albums was indeed to find ALL albums released by FNR artists including albums released on other record labels than Flying Nun. A lot more of work is to be done and maybe somebody can help and I'd be thankful for everything. And please feel free to contact me if I am wrong here or there. In the meantime...please keep this category. Thanks and greetings from Germany!--Hlamerz (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that's not how the record label category tree works. It's just clutter. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:26, 8 August 2010 (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.
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. Courcelles 02:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Correct spelling of the series as pointed out in the recent WP:RM request and matches what Disney uses. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2010 (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:Expatriate racecar drivers in the United States[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. Courcelles 02:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This category is of no relevance whatsoever to a driver's career and surely fails WP:OVERCAT. A single editor is adding drivers to this category depending on whether or not they have raced in the US. A very large number of racing drivers have raced in the US at some point and no attempt is made to discern whether or not they actually lived in the US or merely stayed there for a few weeks / months. Sport-specific categories such as Category:Indy Racing League drivers, Category:Indianapolis 500 drivers and Category:NASCAR drivers cover the sporting angle, while simple nationality categories cover the rest. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please, stop this. It's about the racing drivers who have competed in series' of the country, just as the case with footballers playing in foreign countries. If those categories are allowed to exist, then why not this one? In the category description it's evident that it doesn't include Formula One drivers or Can Am contestants (that was a shared project with the Canadian Motor Sport Association). It's about taking part in an US-based series for a substantial amount of time. Thank you. Roslagen (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The other categories cover it more than adequately. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Bretonbanquet, this is over-categorisation, I don't see the value of having this when series categories cover drivers racing anywhere perfectly adequately. QueenCake (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also agree with Bretonbanquet, this is over-categorisation with the category and also the creator has a tendency to over categories in general. Bjmullan (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OVERCAT summs it perfectly. --Falcadore (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overcategorization. Creating a list would be bad because there are too many people to make a list usable and it would be difficult to find a reliable source which would be complete and unbiased toward a specific subset of this group. Royalbroil 22:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I do not think this is a useful category. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OC - A list would at least be able to explain about such an intersection. (And allow for references for each individual, etc. ) - jc37 02:26, 15 August 2010 (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.
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. Courcelles 02:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. We don't usually have categories for individual baronetcies, and this one contains only two barely-related articles. The convention is to categorise individual baronets under Category:Baronets (e.g. in Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of England), and to have an article on the baronetcy, in this case at Tichborne Baronets. That article does not yet exist, but I will create it now. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the list articles (on each title) are much better navigation aid than categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like ann OC category scheme waiting to happen. - jc37 02:26, 15 August 2010 (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.
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. —fetch·comms 02:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This is a difficult concept to categorize by. What degree of "sympathy" must have been demonstrated to justify putting someone in this category? What sort of evidence is required? It's relatively easy to categorize people as being a part of an organization or political movement; it's very tricky to use categories to categorize someone as being a "sympathizer" or an organization or movement. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no solid basis for categorisation here. Look at the Heidegger debate and that's on firmer ground as he was a party member. The element of "singing for your supper" when living under a particular regime make any evidence of "sympathy" a matter of POV. AllyD (talk) 08:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For a moment I thought we were revisiting a category that was discussed & kept a while back. But then I remembered that that was Category:Collaborators with Nazi Germany, which was the result of this CFD. It seems to me that it's far trickier to make a determination of who was a mere "sympathizer" than of who was a "collaborator". So I think the concept is just too problematic to serve as the basis for a category. Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}}Cgingold (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It appears I didn't think through the implications of this cat when creating it.4meter4 (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete per nominator. "Sympathy" for the Nazis could cover everything from suggesting that the Nazi building of Autobahns was not entirely a bad thing through to a Good-old-Hitler-sorted-out-those-Jews stance. I am sure that the category had no malign intent, but the danger of a category based on a fuzzy concept such as sympathy is that at best it groups together people who may have radically diift view, and at worst it can used as an attack category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too difficult to interpret inclusion criteria. Royalbroil 22:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Much too subjective to make a satsifacotry category. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - And not just due to the above, but also, because WP:BLP - Sources for such an intersection would seem to be absolutely required. - jc37 02:26, 15 August 2010 (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.
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 all. Courcelles 03:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The name of the party is "Parti socialiste"—"Socialist Party". "French" is not part of the name. Thus the main article is at Socialist Party (France). The categories need to be renamed to match. Also converting the category for "members" to a standardly named category for "politicians" of the party. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per proper translation/main article. jonkerz♠ 00:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I don't doubt thye nom at all, but just curious if there is a link showing the actual name of the org? - jc37 02:26, 15 August 2010 (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:People from Las Vegas, Nevada (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. Courcelles 03:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Rename to match the name of the main article. Las Vegas, Nevada should only be used to refer to the city since that is the only US locality that has any form of that name (except for Las Vegas, New Mexico). Vegaswikian (talk) 06:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - Only because I have a vague recollection that this has been re nommed several times. The whole question of city name vs. metro area, etc? - jc37 02:26, 15 August 2010 (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.
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 under G5. — ξxplicit 18:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. After removing the two technology articles, it leaves one article. I suspect that we don't already have a well populated category by now since this may not be the best way to categorize these. How many articles do we have here about specific sets that are not about technology or branding? Note this may have been created by a sock of a banned user. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Support It is quite obvious in going through the edit history that creator User:Hamiltha is a new sock account from banned User:Mac. This has been reported at SPI. I'm going to apply the db-banned tag anyway, just on principle, even though it'll probably be rejected because the SPI has not been closed or CU done. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2010 (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.
