Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 10#Counter missionary and Christian criticism

: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 section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete --Kbdank71 13:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Justice League television series}}

While the Justice League has had four television series, including Super Friends, that still isn't enough to justify it's own category. These TV series can easily be accomodated in the :Category:Television programs based on DC Comics which is still small enough not to need this level of subcategorization. CovenantD 22:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and list per nom. and ongoing discussion at WikiProject Comics. Doczilla 23:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Listify and delete this and the related below. >Radiant< 09:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and list per nom. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 13:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Listify if wanted. - jc37 02:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Are you expecting the levels matching the likes of the "holy trinity" of comic book superheroes: Batman, Superman and Spider-Man? What limits are we going to have to set when it comes to what is or isn't enough!? Four is certainly far more substantial than two or one!!! TMC1982 15 October 2006 (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 section.

: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 section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete --Kbdank71 13:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Teen Titans television series}}

The Teen Titans have had a total of one television series, not enough to justify it's own category. CovenantD 22:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and list - See my comment under The Flash shows below Dugwiki 22:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and list per nom. and ongoing discussion at WikiProject Comics. Doczilla 23:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and list per nom. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 13:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - jc37 02:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Technically, the Teen Titans have two television series if you count their appearances (which I believe consisted for four animated shorts) on The Superman/Aquaman Hour of Adventure. TMC1982 15 October 2006 (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 section.

: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 section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete --Kbdank71 13:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Flash television series}}

The Flash, a comic book character, has had a total of one television series. Not enough to justify a category of it's own. CovenantD 22:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and list I want to point out that the category appears to be intended to encompass all shows where the Flash made an appearance, including the various Superman and Justice League animated series and Smallville. So even though there's only one television series that stars the Flash, there are multiple shows where the Flash has appeared. All that aside, though, I do think this category would be better suited as a list. (The same comment applies to the other superhero TV show categories listed below). Dugwiki 22:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and list per nom. and ongoing discussion at WikiProject Comics. Doczilla 23:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and list per nom. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 13:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - jc37 02:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - The Flash has been a consistent character television adpations of DC Comics since the 1960s (when he appeared on The Superman/Aquaman Hour of Adventure). He is the only DC superhero to gain his own television program (not counting the afordmetioned Aquaman series) outside of the so-called "Big Three" of Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman. That alone, should be considered a major breakthrough. The fact that he had his own television series gives weight to this particular catagory. TMC1982 15 October 2006 (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 section.

: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 section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete --Kbdank71 13:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Aquaman television series}}

Aquaman has had a total of two television series. CovenantD 22:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and list - See my comment under The Flash shows above Dugwiki 22:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and list per nom. and ongoing discussion at WikiProject Comics. Doczilla 23:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and list per nom. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 13:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - jc37 02:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Aquaman having two solo television series is more sigifnicant than having just one! What why does the amount of solo series matter to you but not his guest appearances on the 1990s Superman animated series and Smallville or his co-starring roles appearances on team shows like Super Friends and Justice League/Justice League Unlimited? TMC1982 15 October 2006 (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 section.

: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 section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete --Kbdank71 13:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Wonder Woman television series}}

Wonder Woman has had a total of one television series. CovenantD 22:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and list - See my comment under The Flash shows above Dugwiki 22:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and list per nom. and ongoing discussion at WikiProject Comics. Doczilla 23:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and list per nom. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 13:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - jc37 02:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - You can just look at her solo television series. Wonder Woman has been a key character on pretty much all of the animated adaptions of the Justice League dating back to Super Friends. She's arguably, the most recognizable DC Comics superhero besides Batman and Superman. Her impact on television doesn't stop there if you add her guest appearances on The Brady Kids and the Ruby-Spears produced Superman series from 1988. TMC1982 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• But Justice League, Super Friends, The Brady Kids, and Superman are not "Wonder Woman television series," which if it means anything at all means series about Wonder Woman. They're merely "television series on which Wonder Woman has appeared, which is trivia, not a category. Postdlf 00:17, 16 October 2006 (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 section.

: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 section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Green Lantern television series}}

Green Lantern, a fictional comic book character, has never had a television series. CovenantD 21:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and list - See my comment under The Flash shows above Dugwiki 22:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and list per nom. and ongoing discussion at WikiProject Comics. Doczilla 23:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and list per nom. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 13:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - jc37 02:12, 13 October 2006 (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 section.

: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 section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} SPEEDY DELETE as recreation of prior deleted category. Postdlf 23:00, 10 October 2006 (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 section.

{{lc|Resurrected fictional characters}}

Same as below - recreation of a deleted category. CovenantD 19:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per prior CFD. I'm really sick of these. Postdlf 19:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I see no reason for this category to be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Animedude360 (talk • contribs) at 20:02, October 10, 2006
• Delete. Funny, I see no reason for it to be kept, and every for deletion lade out for you on a silver platter, no offense. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 21:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Listify 132.205.44.134 21:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - as above, this is ironically a previously deleted category that has been ressurected. Dugwiki 22:20, 10 October 2006 (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 section.

: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 section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete --Kbdank71 13:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Fictional characters with the power to resurrect themselves}}

Yet another variation of the "Fictional resurrected characters" categories that have been deleted via CfD a couple of times in the last few months. CovenantD 19:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and Listify 132.205.44.134 21:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, useless. I'm not so sure it's covered by the prior CFD so as to be a speedy, however. Postdlf 23:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and list per nom. and ongoing discussion at WikiProject Comics. The title isn't even accurate. Not all of the listed characters intentionally brought themselves back to life. And Jean Grey is still dead. Doczilla 23:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Again ;) CovenantD 23:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and list per nom. Chris Griswold (☎☓) 13:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Listify Palendrom 20:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - There is a distinct difference between characters who have been resurrected, and characters who have the power to resurrect themselves. And this is a sub-cat of :category:Fictional characters by superhuman power. - jc37 02:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment does Kenny McCormick count? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Unknown. Why he keeps returning has never been established. For all we know, he's not resurrecting himself, it's the Underpants Gnomes who keep bringing him back. Doczilla 21:17, 16 October 2006 (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 section.

: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 section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. the wub "?!" 09:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Anti-gay marriage politicians}}

Delete. Overcategorization and open to POV. Similar categories listed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_9#Category:Anti-gay_rights_media_personalities] AuburnPilot^Talk 19:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not an opinion that can simply be described in this manner without explanation or sources, and biographies should not be categorized by opinions on any single issue. If it is significant to an individual, explain it in the text. Postdlf 19:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per recent CfD discussions re pro/anti categories,
  or replace both pro/anti categories with single umbrella :Category:Politicians known for views on gay marriage.
  David Kernow (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Because I said I'd support a category limited to politicians. Granted the other proviso was that the category would be limited to those known for their opposition, but so far this mostly fits. This needs to be watched to avoid frivolous additions, and I'm not crazy about the name chosen, but it's fine.--T. Anthony 01:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:I tried to improve it, but it might be better as a list.--T. Anthony 02:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

::I've re-reconsidered. I think it has to be renamed, but in the case of politicians you can measure their support or opposition to things and I doubt this would survive as a list.--T. Anthony 04:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per prior discussions. Categories cannot be sourced to reliable sources like article text can. Thus, these categories violate Wikipedia policy. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. While I'm not sure the category is worth keeping, it seems to me that if a Politician can be quoted as saying the sort of things about gay marriage that some of these folks have, (I.e. - next we;ll have people marrying animals nad supporting beastiality, and thus they opposed gay marriage), then I'm fairly sure it's easily proved in the article, and thus meets the needs of categorization. ThuranX 02:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:*Delete. After reading more comments, I've got a vote now.ThuranX 03:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. More like POV fork than anything else, and it lends itself to a selective list. Also, the category isn't self-defining: anti-gay marriage at the federal statutory level (after all, President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, but for some reason he doesn't appear on this list)? State constitutional level (Senator John McCain endorses state constitutional amendment prohibiting homosexual marriage, but vehemently opposes a federal constitutional amendment)? State statutory level? Federal constitutional level? State supreme courts requiring homosexual marriage? United States Supreme Court requiring homosexual marriage? This category is too broad, too susceptible to POV, and little more than POV fork. Zz414 02:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for the same reasons that :Category:Pro-life politicians and :Category:Pro-choice_politicians were kept after being marked for deletion. The discussion page for both of those were for a consensus of Keep. Those categories have set a precedent and to allow those and not allow this would give an impression of favoritism for that issue without regard to other political issues. To maintain those categories would exhibit a clear bias against this issue. Since those categories are Keep, this should be the same. If this category is marked for deletion, the same rule should apply to ALL political issues to avoid showing a certain point of view in regards to certain hand-picked issues. One cannot "pick and choose" what political categories are accepatable and what categories are not, it is either all or nothing. Anyone who suggests Delete should reopen the debate on :Category:Pro-life politicians and :Category:Pro-choice_politicians because to do otherwise would show that they exhibit a certain POV. Chris24 02:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, What? Those two abortion categories are currently listed here and appear to be headed for deletion (easily). · j e r s y k o talk · 03:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No one ever gives adequate criteria for categories such as this. All categories like this should always be deleted. Always pov and always wide open to abuse. Jasper23 03:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for all of the reasons expressed by various people above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Essentially identical to deleted category :Category:Same-sex_marriage_opposition (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_25#Category:Same-sex_marriage_opposition]). NatusRoma | Talk 06:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Inherently POV category that bypasses tradtional sourcing requirements for a broad accusation. --Tbeatty 07:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy as recreation. >Radiant< 09:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Agenda driven category. We can't categorise politicians by every issue and to me this isn't in the top 100 most important issues in any case. Brammen 13:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Classification by publicly displayed opinion. Pavel Vozenilek 13:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Pavel Vozenilek. - GilliamJF 19:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - "supporters/critics of " category. - jc37 02:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia must keep itself free of the influence of noisy lobby groups. Hawkestone 18:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I generally oppose all "political stance" categories, as they are POV, difficult to verify, and easily abused. Crockspot 03:06, 16 October 2006 (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 section.

: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 section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. the wub "?!" 09:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Deltona, Florida}}

Delete, unnecessary category without room for expansion. Only contained the article for Deltona, Florida and a subcategory, :Category:People from Deltona, Florida which was rescoped to :Category:People from Volusia County, Florida at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 15 making this category obsolete. Recury 17:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The article on Deltona hasn't expanded much beyond the Rambot census data, except to note Deltona's importance as a bedroom community of Orlando. Fine, give Orlando a category, but not this one. Postdlf 17:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete assuming no expansion If the only article is the actual city article, no point in having a category. If the number of articles significantly expands down the line, though, then it would be ok.Dugwiki 22:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I did a check and Deltona, Florida is not mentioned much in any articles. So expansion in the near future is not likely. Vegaswikian 19:52, 11 October 2006 (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 section.

: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 section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. the wub "?!" 09:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Powers of Charmed}}

"Charmed" is evidently a TV show. This category is evidently for linking articles about the various "powers" (e.g. Telepathy) that characters on this show have. Reasons for deleting are: non-notable, boring, insipid, childish and moronic (some of those may not be official WP reasons for deleting a category, but they apply anyway). KarlBunker 16:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Agreed, unnecessary sub-categorization. --Maelwys 17:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete In spite the rather prejudiced wording in the nom. It doesn't make for a very logical or encyclopedic category. CovenantD 20:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There are over 400 articles in the Charmed category and subcategories and this category is well-populated and appears to be notable. No valid policy or precedent has been given. The nominator even went so far as to remove the category from the article "Telepathy" calling it "moronic". Logic, not name-calling, should be the basis for deleting categories. -THB 20:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:Changing vote per Dugwiki's comments below, but still protesting manner of nomination. However, someone needs to create the list prior to deleting the category. -THB 23:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and Listify This category would work much better as a list than a category for a variety of reasons. First, consider what would happen if most sci-fi/fantasy/horror TV show, movie and comic book created a seperate category called "Powers depicted in The X-Files", "Powers depicted in the X-Men", "Powers depicted in The 4400", etc. The articles for those powers would end up having one category per place they appeared; you could easily have hundreds of categories to include for something like Psychokinesis! Second, a list article telling all the powers depicted on Charmed could include things a category can't, like episode date and the character who used the power. Finally, in terms of searching for articles, nobody is going to look at the Psychokinesis article thinking to themselves "I think this might have been a power on Charmed; I wonder what other powers were depicted on that show?" A fan of the show, though, might want to see a full list of all the powers in one article. So this type of category scheme definitely needs to be deleted and listified. Dugwiki 22:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Dugwiki. Postdlf 22:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Most of the entries aren't even about Charmed. - Lex 23:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Doczilla 00:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Lex and above. Delta Tango | Talk 12:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per and list''' per Dugwiki. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 13:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or rename to "Category:Superpowers" since the Charmed characters rival Superman in terms of random powers. Danny Lilithborne 06:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I concede Dugwiki's point. I created this category in order to try to sub-categorise: :category:Superhuman powers (a sub-cat of :category:Fictional abilities). However, I can see that generally, classifying powers by an ongoing series (whether it is now cancelled is immaterial), is likely a bad idea. It would be like having a category for all powers displayed in the comic book series The Justice League of America. - jc37 02:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• We do have such a category; it just happens to be called :Category:Superhuman powers. ; ) Postdlf 00:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, assuming it means merge into parent category. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:17, 16 October 2006 (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 section.

: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 section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} keep --Kbdank71 13:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Years in Pakistan}}

This system of relating the history of countries is just inviting literally hundreds of thousands of poorly-formed, barely-created, articles for thousands of countries for thousands of years. Already, eager editors are plowing away at making skeletons of articles that are of very little value, with few editors improving them, and that will probably remain that way for years. Also, not every year of every country has an abundance of notable information. Also, truly notable periods will no doubt already, or soon have detailed articles about them (the Renaissance, the Civil War, Dadaism, World War II). So basically these articles are low-quality duplications of information that already exists in a better format elsewhere. The concept of providing a reference for the progression of events in a nation's history is much better suited to he timeline method already in place that is being used for some countries. Not only are these infinitely more concise and manageable, but it prevents the explosion of bad articles I mentioned earlier. I also initially wanted to nominate :Category:Years by country for deletion, but it appears that some countries are including pre-existing article on notable events that share a common year (more reasonable), not just articles about the a particular year. Just a footnote, the creator of :Category:Years by country even has doubts about it efficacy. Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 15:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Content-less articles such as 1946 in Pakistan are speedy deletable, but others such as 1970 in Pakistan are of use. This may be more detailed information than many people want, compared to the period articles or the timeline, but there's no need for you to use them. BTW, there aren't thousands of countries in existence. Postdlf 16:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, This is unacceptable to taget :Category:Years in Pakistan while there are same categories for other countries. Please check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Years_by_country&from=1996+by+country. I will be adding more info in these pages. Some people seem to be very trigger happy. Siddiqui 16:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, The categories are okay. If you have problems with indiviual articles then remove those. - SimonLyall 09:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This sort of category is essential for adequate categorisation of (ex)-current events articles (see :Category:2005 in the United States, which should contain far more than the 22 articles it has). Subcategories for future years are likely to become very well populated for all significant countries. Brammen 13:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I see no way to have relevant categoriues without misuse. Will result in thousands of unmaintainable categories. Pavel Vozenilek 13:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The nominator has nominated a category but gives reasons for deleting certain articles which may or may not be found in those categories. I don't see how the relevance of the categories for sorting legitimate articles can be doubted. Wimstead 17:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep every country has events per year (elections, births, deaths, sports events etc.) which can fill articles if they are allowed to develop. Tim! 17:33, 11 October 2006 (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 section.

: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 section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} speedy deleted (recreations). David Kernow (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Counter Missionary Topics}}

{{lc|Criticism of christian proof texts}}

"Counter Missionary Topics" appears to be a list of topics that one user felt were so problematic to Christianity that they could be used as counter missionary tools. However, these are just famous textual criticism issues that do not cause problems for the majority of Christians. In fact, some of these topics are only problematic to a very strawman version of Biblical literalism. The idea of having a category like this is POV and possibly OR, and ignores the apologetics and scholarly responses to these issues. As for "Criticism of christian proof texts" it only has two topics. The whole idea of this category is a POV fork. Instead of having holistic articles about topics that cover "proofs" and "criticisms", this category is trying to split out one POV. On top of that, both of the articles are extremely problematic as they currently stand. At the very least, they both have capitalization problems. Andrew c 14:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete for Criticism of christian proof texts per Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 22 for recreated deleted content.--Andrew c 14:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Is :Category:Counter Missionary Topics also a recreation...?  I think it might be, but can't pin down a CfD discussion...  David Kernow (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Actually, yes, they both are recreations Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 21#Category:Counter missionary topics. I guess they both qualify for speedy, no?--Andrew c 15:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Okay, I'll drop a friendly message to the categories' creator Laughing100 then speedy-close this proposal. David (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - ideological, not NPOV.--Ioannes Pragensis 15:23, 10 October 2006 (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 section.

: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 section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. the wub "?!" 08:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

:Category:Actors who have played serial killers

Probably a bit too specific. JW 10:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Categorycruft. Should be speediable. Pavel Vozenilek 13:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Recury 14:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, overcat. >Radiant< 14:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Garbage. Postdlf 16:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete excessive categorization. What's next, actors who have played dentists? Lefthanded actors who played blond neurosurgeons? Doczilla 23:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Famous lefthanded actors who played blond antihero neurosurgeons. Postdlf 00:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This doesn't seem particularly useful. — TKD::Talk 00:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Absurd. Brammen 13:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - This is another "actor by role/actors who have portrayed" category. (Looks like I have a new auto-delete sentence.) - jc37 02:12, 13 October 2006 (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 section.

: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 section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} no consensus --Kbdank71 13:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

: :Category:Saintly person tombs in Israel to :Category:Tombs in Israel revered by Judaism

: :Category:Saintly person tombs by country to :Category:Tombs by country revered by Judaism

: :Category:Saintly person tombs in Iraq to :Category:Tombs in Iraq revered by Judaism

Rename, because the original wording here is ambiguous since "Saintly person tombs in Israel" could refer to saints of any religion, whereas it is very clear that the original creator of this category meant it to mean, as he says on the page itself: "This category is for Kivrei Tzadikim in Israel" and in Hebrew "Kivrei Tzadikim" means "graves of [the Jewish] righteous." Kivrei means "graves of" and in its dignified form should read "Tombs," the word Tzadikim ("righteous") is redundant for an English category since if the tomb is revered by Jews and Judaism it follows that it must be that of a "righteous" person deemed a "saint" by Judaism - the only problem being that in English, Judaism's holy people are not called "saints" - a word almost always associated with Christianity (see for example :Category:Saints from the Holy Land which is devoted to Christian saints - which Judaism does not venerate in any way.) The creator of this category, User:Amoruso, is obviously translating from the Hebrew and wishes to create a category for Judaism's departed righteous, which is hereby clarified. IZAK 10:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Rename [all] for above reasons. IZAK 10:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Rename ["Saintly person tombs in Israel"] to "Tombs revered by Judaism in Israel"
  [and "Saintly person tombs by country" to] "Tombs revered by Judaism by country". It's not the countries that are revered. >Radiant< 14:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thinking of the format "Righteous Gentiles", how about:

: :Category:Saintly person tombs by country to :Category:Tombs of the Jewish Righteous Departed by country

: ...and therefore:

: :Category:Saintly person tombs in X to :Category:Tombs of the Jewish Righteous Departed in X...?

: (Unlike e.g. Tzadikim Nistarim, a {{tl|main}} article suvch as Kivrei Tzadikim or the like doesn't seem to exist yet...)   Regards, David Kernow (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:*David: At this time we are not trying to create even more confusing categories. All we are trying to accomplish here at this time is to make a vague and ambiguous category into a more spefic and unambiguous one. In any case, as far as is known, Judaism does not revere the graves/tombs of non-Jews, unless you know otherwise and can cite an example. IZAK 04:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:** I hope the above format is now more digestable; I think, however, that Amoruso's approach below is neater (i.e. use "Tombs of Tzadikim..."). Apologies if my idea suggested Jewish reverence for non-Jewish tombs; this was not my intention. (I was trying to address the over-literal "Saintly person tombs" translation.)  Best wishes, David (talk) 07:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Rename to :Category:Tombs of Tzadikim by country I think it's important to say that these are kivrei tzadikim. I believe that 'revered' is not a good word, as in Judaism tombs are not revered. They're actually unclean places and not holy. That article can be easily created but I don't know if it should have the Hebrew name or an English name along the lines that David Kernow proposed Looking at Tzadikim Nistarim I suggest renaming to the above. And then An article will be created called "Tombs of Tzadikim" or "Kivrei Tzadikim" (request advice). In Hebrew wikipedia it's under "Kivrei Tzadikim" and basically "Saintly Person tombs" was my translation. As opposed to Saints, I didn't know if Saintly Persons can be confused with either religions, but that will be clear with Tzadikim I think, a word I see that is used already (which I wasn't aware of). Amoruso 16:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Amoruso: The Hebrew word "Tzadikim" does roughly translaate as "saints" but then you have the problem again as to whose "saints"? Judaism's or Christianity's or others? IZAK 04:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• "Tzadikim" is a (transliterated) Hebrew word, so I reckon it's reasonable to assume they'd be Jewish... Hope I haven't missed or misunderstood anything, David Kernow (talk) 07:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• IZAK, do you object to :Category:Tombs of Tzadikim by country ? this will really be best, short and simple... Tzadikim is not the same as Kdoshim. Kdosgim means Saints. But Tzadikim is the relevant category - it will be defined in an article. There are the gentile righteous that helped Jews in holocaust but it won't be confusing because of that also because they are called CHASIDIM. Tzadikim applies only to Jews AFAIK. If you object, this also possible :Category:Tombs of Jewish Tzadikim by country IMO. My uneasiness with tombs revered in Judaism is because it's factually problematic. Judaism in general doesn't revere tombs except for a few exceptions but many Jews do go visit tombs of tzadikim for many reasons. Revered is too much a strong word for every tomb defined as tzadik you see. it has very bad connotations and I intend the list to be long one day and it would be odd and WRONG to assume that every tomb of a tzdaik somewhere is reverd by the whole religion.. Amoruso 14:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Amoruso: I was trying to avoid creating a wordy and bulky category name. I do not think that the word "Tzadikim" has enough, if any, circulation in English and as I said, if "tzadikim" is translated as "saints" then you create the problem again that it is ambiguous because, in English, there can be saints ("tzadikim") in all religions. The term "Jewish Tzadikkim" sounds belabored and artificial, like "Jewish Talmudists." And I repeat, that in English, and especially among English-speaking Jews, the word "saints" essentially refers to Christian saints, and I am inclined to leave out the word "saints" as well as "tzadikim" altogether and stick with the neutral word "Tombs" which you provided and is correct. Let us ask others what they think. IZAK 03:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• I agree that the word "tzadikim" is uncommon, but then this category is somewhat esoteric. For the very reason you point out, viz. that "saints" may be misleading, :Category:Tombs of Tzadikim by country (then Category:Tombs of Tzadikim in Country) seems a reasonable solution. A note explaining/linking to "(Kivrei) Tzadikim" can be included on each category page. Regards, David (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  PS I'm assuming it's accepted practice to use "Tzadikim" rather than "tzadikim"...?
• Rename to original propoal Agree strongly with the above that saints is a bad word in this context. Among other problems, most forms of Judaism that believe in an afterlife are very liberal about who can get into heaven, so the more technical meaning of "saint" as someone known to be in heaven is inaccurate. I'm not sure what is wrong with the use of tzadikim as long as it is linked well and explained in the category page. I however, prefer the original proposed wording since it is shorter and minimizes issues over whether or not somone was in fact a tzadik which has a somewhat POV element to it. JoshuaZ 04:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all I agree saint is an extremely inappropriate word with regard to Jusaism. However, who is a Tzadik and who is not? I think we would all agree that the kever of the Gr"A would qualify, and even in today's day and age, R' Moshe and the Chazon Ish and the Brisker Rav and the Bobover Rebbe all come to mind, but it opens a slippery slope that can have many people adding this category to articles for which their application is marginal at best and contentious at worst. We all have places where we feel better davening, let's not make a chilul H' by sqabbling over this category which is mariginally encyclopædic and more suited for tourist guides, IMO. -- Avi 12:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

::look at what is accutally in the category. Very few people have articles about the grave itself and there is argument about which sites are revered. Jon513 13:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Rename per David Kernow or Delete per Avi. If the categories are to be kept they must be renamed for all the reasons outlined above- "Saints" is inaccurate and offensive, and "tzadikim" is much too subjectve - How about simply "famous Jewish tombs by country"? I am inclined to agree with Avi that the category of Tzadikkim is highly subjective and open to interpretation; as such I would not object to the deletion of the whole set of categories. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• "Famous" is one of those words folk will pick up, Brian, so maybe {{c|Jewish tombs by country}}, Jewish tombs in Country etc is a solution...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per Avi. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

: No no , I don't think it's confusing at all ! The Hebrew wikipedia has this category. It's a common used name in Israel, and I don't think anyone will ever contest it ! Nobody minds that someone is called Tzadik and this applies always only to Bible people or to Rabbis !!! But.... I will accept {{c|Jewish tombs by country}} Jewish tombs in Country if you disagree and it's a good proposal. But please don't delete it entirely... Amoruso 19:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Rename somehow, because "saintly" in English tends to suggest Catholicism (in the broad sense of the term). - Jmabel | Talk 04:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If :Category:Biblical Jewish Tombs in Israel or :Category:Ancient Jewish Tombs in Israel was used, it would incorporate the majority of articles. However it will not exclude the tombs of the time which Judaism doesn’t give any credence to nor include Har Meron or other Talmudic era gravesites in the Galilee, e.g. Rabbi Akiva? (Am I right in thinking that we also don’t necessarily want included in this category tombs of Achronim, i.e. from 1000CE and onwards?)Chesdovi 14:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all - an article about the interred person/tzadik is the best place to expand on his/her tomb. There are very few tombs that specifically need an entire seperate article about them, certainly not a sufficient quantity to legitimize a cat which would remain thin. On top of that, having a cat like this opens an entire new geographic subset of locations around the world that are redundant. --Shuki 19:26, 17 October 2006 (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 section.

: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 section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|US Television shows without a theme song}}

Delete trivia, inappropriate for a category. Anyone can listify if they choose, of course, but this only had two articles in it at the time I slapped the CFD notice on it. I'm not even going to bother pointing out the naming problems. Postdlf 05:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, even a list would be unlikely to pass AFD per WP:NOT. Too trivial a topic to have a category on. Recury 14:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - However, to reply to Recury, it would I think pass muster as a list. The reason is that it would be reasonable to create an article that pairs TV shows with their theme songs, and the natural compliment for that list would be a second list of shows that have no theme song. So while I agree a category isn't necessary, a list of TV show theme songs with a compliment list of TV shows without theme songs would be interesting reading. Dugwiki 15:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 15:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as trivia per nom. Doczilla 23:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as trivia per nom. Brammen 13:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and listify if justified. — Dale Arnett 05:11, 12 October 2006 (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 section.

: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 section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} Withdrawn. Followup nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 13#Category:United States Courts of Appeals judges.

:Category:United States Courts of Appeals judges to :Category:United States courts of appeals judges

• Rename, Capitalization: when we are writing about a court of appeals, it is a generic and hence should not be capitalized. See Talk:United States district court#Move. DLJessup (talk) 04:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to :Category:Judges of the United States courts of appeal or :Category:Judges of the United States Courts of Appeal to remove/separate plurals. David Kernow (talk) 05:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to :Category:Judges of the United States courts of appeals to match phrasing of subcategories (all are :Category:Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the FOO Circuit, etc.) --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to :Category:United States court of appeals judges to match main article - The spelling in the associated main article is United States court of appeals. The spelling of a category should typically match the spelling of its main article for consistency. Dugwiki 15:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I know it is early, but it looks like we are not headed for consensus on this one as we have 5 proposed names already with only 4 of us voting. Perhaps if you will indulge me I might break this down a bit.... Sorry if I am over-thinking this.
• Issue 1: courts vs. court (i.e. singular or plural) - there are 13 courts involved
• Issue 2: appeals vs. appeal (i.e. singular or plural) - each court handles "appeals", I have never seen "court of appeal" used in this context
• Issue 3: capitalization of words "court(s)" and "appeal(s)" - see link above by nominator
• Issue 4: Foo Judges vs. Judges of Foo - this item seems to be a matter of preference unless someone names a solid precedent.

:I hope that this helps, but I hereby give anyone permission to remove this entire comment if they find it overly annoying (although I do ask that it stay here for 24 hours unless you consider it wholly inappropriate). --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Which is the correct name :Category:United States Courts of Appeals or United States court of appeals? I'm not sure what the correct name is, but doing the parent forst would help me make a decision here. If you assume that United States court of appeals is incorrect capitalization for the article and that the parent category is correctly named :Category:United States Courts of Appeals then the correct name for the judges should be :Category:United States Courts of Appeals judges. Vegaswikian 03:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comments.
• After Midnight's comment elegantly summarizes the issues that seem to have cropped up.
• On issue 1, I believe that we should be choosing the plural “courts” over the singular “court”; in my experience, generally speaking, category titles are in the plural while article titles are in the singular.
• On issue 2, the courts are courts of appeals; they never appear in the singular.
• Issue 3 was the original point of my nomination, so obviously I support the uncapitalized versions.
• On issue 4, I actually prefer the “Judges of foo” style, but it does seem to be a matter of preference. I will note that one of the supercategories of Category:United States court of appeals judges is :Category:United States federal judges and the sibling categories of Category:United States court of appeals judges are :Category:United States Bankruptcy Court judges, :Category:United States District Court judges, and :Category:United States Supreme Court justices, so if we do change this, we will need to change those category titles as well.
• With respect to Vegawikian's comment, Category:United States Courts of Appeals needs to be renamed, and I will generate a request for such this evening, when I have enough time to do so.
• : — DLJessup (talk) 13:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Further comment. First of all, I have generated the speedy rename request for Category:United States Courts of Appeals per my previous comment. Second, it occurs to me that there is a title for a judge of a United States court of appeals, and that is circuit judge. Therefore, I propose that we rename this category to :Category:United States circuit judges. The name is simpler, it avoids the ugliness inherent in using United States court(s) of appeals as an adjective, and it seems less unwieldy than :Category:Judges of the United States courts of appeals. What do people think? — DLJessup (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Given all of the discussion and changes, would it be better to withdraw this nomination and start a new one? Vegaswikian 22:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• That's a good suggestion. — DLJessup (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2006 (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 section.

: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 section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} Speedy delete g3, vandalism. NawlinWiki 02:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Marvel films}}

Delete, duplicates Category:Films based on Marvel comics. ThuranX 01:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as duplicate category. CovenantD 01:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.