Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 25

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Pornographic film actors who became Christians}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category violates the Neutral Point of View policy. It makes the explicit judgment that a pornographic actor cannot be a Christian. I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Pornographic_film_actors_who_became_Christians&diff=prev&oldid=286131074 said more] on the Category's talk page. David in DC (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per above - no reason why a porn actor can't be Christian. This is also an intersection of two unrelated categories. We don't have {{cl|Tennis players who became Baha'is}}, do we? Grutness...wha? 00:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as a Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Trivial intersection. The POV argument seems dubious to me. --Stepheng3 (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment -- Porn is generally considered to be contrary to Christian values, since it is designed to encourage immorality (or is that POV?). It therefore follows that committed Christians are unlikely to be Porn actors. Appearance in this category will thus require an act of repentance. This would need to be based on an explicit WP:RS, probably derieved from the subject. Nevertheless, my guess is that it is a trivial intersection. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment murder is contrary to a basic tenet in Christianity, but that doesn't stop many Christians to pursue murderous intents, or even as one Christian duke put it "kill them all and let God sort them out" 76.66.196.218 (talk) 08:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment -- There is a significant number of Adult film stars that have left the Adult Film Industry to pursue a life of Christianity.EdDeveney (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - overcategorization by trivial intersection, also part of the mania to categorize every possible aspect of race/ethnicity/religion. There are likely a significant number of people from any number of professions who have left them to pursue a life of spiritual fulfillment. I see no need to categorize those people either. Otto4711 (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete interesting, especially if they weren't Christians before getting into the porn industry, but there is no evidence that this is defining. Reliable sources to support the claim could sway my vote. Alansohn (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete another useless categorization based on religion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, consider creating List article instead. Non-defining, so it should not be a category, but of some interest so may have encyclopedic value. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, but divide into subcategories by day of the week and by state, e.g. :Category:Pornographic film actors from Delaware who became Christians on a Thursday. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as trivia before we get categories for everything done next by repentant sinners. (:Category:Hedge fund mangers who became Buddhists, :Category:Reality TV show contestants who became Trappists, :Category:Homophobes who joined the Metropolitan Community Church, etc). This sort of thing might just about merit a list if it can be shown to be a subject of serious study and suitably referenced, but Otto4711 is right the category system cannot accommodate every combination of human attributes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

----

: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: no consensus. While there was consensus to rename, there wasn't an agreed upon target name, and since these are tied to the widely used {{tl|Saved book}}, we should probably get more input than two people here. Kbdank71 14:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

----

:Propose renaming :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Applied sciences to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on applied sciences

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Computer Science to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on computer science

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Economics to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on economics

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Finance to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on finance

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on International development to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on international development

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Arts to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on arts

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Literature to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on literature

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Music to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on music

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Culture to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on culture

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Entertainment to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on entertainment

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Media to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on media

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Sports to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on sports

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books about video games to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on video games

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Geography to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on geography

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books by Country to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on countries

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Australia to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on Australia

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Brazil to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on Brazil

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on India to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on India

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Singapore to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on Singapore

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Thailand to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on Thailand

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on the United States to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on the United States

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books by Region to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on regions

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Asia to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on Asia

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on North America to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on North America

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Oceania to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on Oceania

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on South America to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on South America

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Health to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on health

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on History to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on history

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Mathematics to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on mathematics

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on People to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on people

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Inventors to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on inventors

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Philosophy to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on philosophy

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Religion to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on religion

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Mythology to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on mythology

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Science to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on science

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Formal sciences to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on formal sciences

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Natural sciences to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on natural sciences

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Social sciences to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on social sciences

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Self to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on the self

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Society to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on society

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Language to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on language

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Linguistics to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on linguistics

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Technology to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on technology

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Transport to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on transport

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:Other Books to :Category:User page Wikipedia:Books (merging)

::: and :Category:Wikipedia:Books for Testing Purposes to :Category:User page test Wikipedia:Books

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. To clarify the intent, apply the Wikipedia prefix to Books, where it is most needed. For comparison, see :Category:Wikipedia:Books and its other subcats. Also bringing capitalization in line with Wikipedia style. Also standardize the preposition to on. This discussion will help establish the naming conventions for Wikipedia book categories, so let's give this some serious thought. I think I've got the whole hierarchy tagged now. --Stepheng3 (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Rename all to :Category:Wikipedia user page books on x, which IMO is a better naming convention than the one proposed, except :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Health, :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Mathematics, :Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Self which need to be speedy deleted as empty. VegaDark (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

----

: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 per nom Erik9 (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:High Tech Computer Corporation to :Category:HTC Corporation

:Propose renaming :Category:High Tech Computer Corporation mobile phones to :Category:HTC Corporation mobile phones

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. The company has changed its name to HTC Corporation. Dale Arnett (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

----

: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: Administrative close: speedily deleted by another editor per creator's request. Interested users may want to nominate :Category:Adoptees adopted by family. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Adoptees(Related Adoption)}}

:Nominator's rationale: Improperly named category. This could be a very problematic category even if properly named without the potential for violating WP:BLP and for the availability of reliable sourcing. I think this might venture into over-categorization as well. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

::I agree that the criteria for speedy deletion, notably the incorrect capitalization is warranted. Nevertheless, your opinions concerning BLP and over-categorization are misplaced. First: the Adoptee category is currently over-categorized with 20+ categories based around nationality; I am taking the number of sub-categories down to 2. Second: From a BLP standpoint, I am only using people already in the current 20+ categories; in the process, I am trying to check the sources, adding them where I haven't found any and deleting people form the category where I cannot. If you are suggesting the adoptee label implies a stigma that needs to be considered in BLP, please be careful as this is certainly a POV and potential an objectionable one at that.Tobit2 (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

:::I am not implying anything. The categories are not properly named, and there is no issue with categories based around nationality. The Adoptee category is perfectly fine as a main category with as many sub-categories as are necessary to populate it. I do not take kindly to what you are suggesting is a personal point of view, labelling or casting aspersions regarding adoption. My WP:BLP concerns are not in relationship to anything beyond whether or not an article supports the inclusion of the category based on very reliable sources and how validly one might overcategorize someone into related vs. non-related adoptions. I believe that takes it a step too far in categorizing. Perhaps you don't tend to toss categories onto articles haphazardly, and I have not implied such a thing, but it is done daily on thousands of articles by thousands of editors. That is why I have brought this issue to this page, since you contested the speedy delete on one of the two categories I nominated here. As was noted on one of the talk pages, it can't be easily fixed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comments – this category is empty and the one below is red-linked; so what is going on? There is also :Category:Adoptees adopted by family (which contains :Marcel Desailly, who seems not to be an adoptee at all in the usual sense). Occuli (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as a Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining or trivial characteristic. If there's interest in which notable people were adopted, that would make a suitable subject for a list. A category is not appropriate because adoption is not a defining characteristic for most adoptees. --Stepheng3 (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

----

: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: Administrative close: speedily deleted by another editor. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Adoptees(Unrelated Adoption)}}

:Nominator's rationale: Improperly named category, nominated for speedy deletion and contested by creator. This could be a very problematic category even if properly named without the potential for violating WP:BLP and for the availability of reliable sourcing. I think this might venture into over-categorization as well. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

::I agree that the criteria for speedy deletion, notably the incorrect capitalization is warranted. Nevertheless, your opinions concerning BLP and over-categorization are misplaced. First: the Adoptee category is currently over-categorized with 20+ categories based around nationality; I am taking the number of sub-categories down to 2. Second: From a BLP standpoint, I am only using people already in the current 20+ categories; in the process, I am trying to check the sources, adding them where I haven't found any and deleting people form the category where I cannot. If you are suggesting the adoptee label implies a stigma that needs to be considered in BLP, please be careful as this is certainly a POV and potential an objectionable one at that.Tobit2 (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

:::I am not implying anything. The categories are not properly named, and there is no issue with categories based around nationality. The Adoptee category is perfectly fine as a main category with as many sub-categories as are necessary to populate it. I do not take kindly to what you are suggesting is a personal point of view, labelling or casting aspersions regarding adoption. My WP:BLP concerns are not in relationship to anything beyond whether or not an article supports the inclusion of the category based on very reliable sources and how validly one might overcategorize someone into related vs. non-related adoptions. I believe that takes it a step too far in categorizing. Perhaps you don't tend to toss categories onto articles haphazardly, and I have not implied such a thing, but it is done daily on thousands of articles by thousands of editors. That is why I have brought this issue to this page, since you contested the speedy delete on one of the two categories I nominated here. As was noted on one of the talk pages, it can't be easily fixed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - the category has been speedy-deleted (according to WP:CSD#C2 apparently, though I'm not sure what it's been renamed to). In any case, I think this discussion is now moot and can be closed. Robofish (talk) 06:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

----

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Phineas and Ferb}}

:Nominator's rationale: Not enough content for a category in my opinion, just the show, list of characters, and that's about it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 18:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

:* Delete per nom. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - not enough articles to justify a category. Robofish (talk) 06:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

----

: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: upmerge. the wub "?!" 11:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

----

:{{Lc|New Zealand drug lords}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. only 1 entry so far, there is already a Category "New Zealand drug traffickers". LibStar (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

:Comment some category trees require some level of connection where one entry is irrelevent - there are many linked categories where the links have been created deliberately - SatuSuro 15:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

:: Delete per nom. Not sure if I like the whole "drug lords" categories which fails WP:NEO in my book. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Upmerge to the drug traffickers category - The entire "drug lord" category set should be upmerged to the corresponding traffickers category as there is no objective definition as to what distinguishes a drug "trafficker" from a drug "lord" (or a drug "kingpin" or a "major player in the drug trade" or any of the other words and phrases that are used in the popular press). "Drug lord" is overly sensationalistic. Otto4711 (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Upmerge per Otto4711. --Stepheng3 (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - all sounds like a good idea - I simply have issue with nomination a category that might be part of a wp wide category tree format on the basis of one entry - I dont necessarily even endorse the existence of category - I had simply tagged it for the WPNZ project SatuSuro 01:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

:* Including this one there are 18 drug lord by nationality categories, most of which have one or two entries at most. Total in the tree is around 100 articles. This is a categorization scheme but it isn't particularly wide-spread (compare to :Category:Drug traffickers by nationality with 33 sub-categories or :Category:Businesspeople by nationality with 140) and if they're all merged into the traffickers category no information is lost. Otto4711 (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

::*Some of these subcategories have been—shall we say, as a drug lord might—"taken out". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Upmerge all sounds good - SatuSuro 03:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Upmerge to the drug traffickers category "drug lord" is not an objectively identifiable term. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

----

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Songs with lyrics by Alex Rogers}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another bunch of songwriter related categories with no main article and only one entry. Also nominated:-

::Category:Songs written by Betty Peterson

::Category:Songs with lyrics by Walter Rothenberg

::Category:Songs written by Claire Rothrock

::Category:Songs with lyrics by Allen Schiller

::Category:Songs with lyrics by Hal Shaper

::Category:Songs written by Noel Sherman

::Category:Songs with lyrics by Jack Sherr

::Category:Songs with lyrics by George E. Springer

::Category:Songs with lyrics by Harry Ruskin

::Category:Songs with lyrics by John Clenner

::Category:Songs with lyrics by Willie Raskin

:Richhoncho (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support nom. Occuli (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

----

: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 Erik9 (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

:{{Lc|UK Music Hall of Fame inductees}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category for inductees of the defunct UK Music Hall of Fame awards ceremony. It ran for only three years, and seems to have been cancelled permanently, so there is no scope for expansion. It isn't a particularly important award, despite its name there is no physical "hall of fame" associated with it (just a TV show), and the whole thing has been pretty much forgotten already. It certainly doesn't match up to the notability standard of the other music halls of fame categories. — sjorford++ 11:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

: Delete per nom. Nothing here that isn't adeqately covered in the main article. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. A short-lived unimportant award given to the usual inductees who get dozens of such awards. Occuli (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete not notable for the inductees. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

----

: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: Administrative close: this was actually discussed and deleted previously as part of this batch from 11 Apr 2009, but the bot didn't get around to deleting the category until shortly after this new nomination had begun. It looks like this discussion serves to confirm the result there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Songs by George Campbell}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only one entry in category and no corresponding article. NB There are several George Campbell's at WP. None appear to be a songwriter. Richhoncho (talk) 08:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support nom. Occuli (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

----

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Songs with music by Harold Grant}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only one entry in category and no corresponding article. There is a Harold Grant, but appears not to be the same person. Note on relevant talkpage. Richhoncho (talk) 08:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support nom. Occuli (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

----

: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 Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Songs with lyrics by L.E. Freeman}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only one entry in category and no corresponding article. As usual, anybody who can save category is fine by me. Also nominated for the same reasons :-

::Category:Songs with lyrics by John Golden

::Category:Songs with music by Ben Homer

::Category:Songs with lyrics by Carroll Loveday

::Category:Songs with lyrics by "Red" Hodgson

::Category:Songs with lyrics by Patricia Johnston

::Category:Songs with music by Donald Kahn

::Category:Songs with music by Michael Merlo

::Category:Songs with music by Lotar Olias

::Category:Songs with lyrics by Billy Moll

: Richhoncho (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support nom. Occuli (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

----

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Arch bridges (all)}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is redundant - just includes items already in subcategories of :Category:Arch bridges. Brian Powell (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – according to WP:CAT#Duplicate_categorization_rule, it would be correct to list all the arch bridges at the top level of :Category:Arch bridges anyway, since the 2 subcats are 'distinguished' subcats (as defined earlier in WP:CAT). ("On the other hand, pages are not excluded from Category:Bridges in New York City on the grounds that they also belong to Category:Toll bridges in New York City, since the latter is a distinguished subcategory.") Occuli (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• keep Nomination is incorrect; :Category:Arch bridges (all) includes not only articles in the subcats but also articles not in the subcats. This ALL category is designed to meet the problem that there is no category that includes 'all' of the articles of a subject. Without an 'all' category, each editor/user must wade through multiple subcats to gather information. Putting all these articles in :Category:Arch bridges (using the virtually unused and certainly obscure 'distinguished' theory) creates a different problem. Each editor/user cannot then determine which articles have not been placed in the subcats and thus which articles remain which, perhaps, should be placed in the existing subcats or new ones that may need to be defined. An 'ALL' category thus solves multiple problems without taking away anything that editors/users want from the WP category system Hmains (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• I'm confused. Are you saying that this category is needed to contain all of the arch bridges because otherwise editors don't know that they are included in a subcategory? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• What I am saying is that otherwise editors do not know what articles are not yet in subcats. The :Category:Arch bridges (all) would always hold everything for those editors and others who need to see 'all' the arch bridges while the articles in subcats of :Category:Arch bridges as well as those articles directly in :Category:Arch bridges would meet other needs. Hmains (talk) 04:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - unnecessary duplicate category. Arch bridges that are not either deck arch bridges or through arch bridges, the current subcategories, may go in :Category:Arch bridges. That this is a category that encompasses all arch bridges is clearly understood. I disagree that the distinguishment theory is either "obscure" or "virtually unused" as a cursory wander through many different category structures demonstrates that categories are regularly diffused down to appropriate subcategories as the need arises without employing a separate "(all)" category and the articles do not (or at least should not) remain in the parent category. Otto4711 (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

:*Again, you should look at many actual factual examples of how WP categories are used instead of theory in MOS that is not actually implemented except as prepared samples. Hmains (talk) 04:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

::* I'm sorry, I find this response quite incomprehensible. I have yet to come across any other WP category structures that employ :Category:Foos as a parent with :Category:Foos (all) as a constituent, except of course for :Category:Swing bridges (all) and :Category:Suspension bridges (all), which were both created by you. OTOH there are innumerable :Category:Foos categories with sub-categories whose contents are not directly in :Category:Foos (because that would be redundant) or in :Category:Foos (all) (also redundant). I made no mention of "prepared samples" and have no idea what such a sample would consist of in terms of this discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

::: Thanks anyway. I will try to prepare a better writeup at the category MOS pages for due consideration. Hmains (talk) 03:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete The point of having subcategories to to provent the main one becoming overloaded. Arch bridges are a common variety, so that the population of it is potentially enormous. It needs to be split, and so this category is the very reverse of a good category system. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• comment' The deletionists are using their separate mis-understanding of the category system to say this 'all' category should be deleted. One says delete the 'all' cat because the :Category:Arch bridges should directly include all the articles; one says delete the 'all' cat because all the articles should be in subcats of :Category:Arch bridges. Both arguments cannot be correct. This is my point when I say that the distinguishment theory is not understood in practice, not used in practice (other than a few simple examples that are always trotted out) and most certainly not documented in practice (every category should clearly state what articles it should or should not directly contain) so few editors know what categories should be used for what articles. Look at practice, not theory. The current practice is a chaos. Hmains (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• DeleteDelete and repopulate :Category:Arch bridges. There was never any discussion on the WikiProject Bridges page about creating this category. This category goes against what has been accepted for categorization on the project page. To quote the project page, "the article should be included in the category for the type of bridge that it is". Per the project, all arch bridge articles should be in :Category:Arch bridges. This category should be deleted unless a different categorization is proposed and accepted on the project pages. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 04:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• :There is nothing to repopulate in :Category:Arch bridges as nothing was removed. The 'all' subcat was added, that's all. If the WikiProject Bridges is so concerned about these categories then why were the categories not being maintained in the way you describe before I came to find these categories in the poor condition they are still in. In any case, project pages do not control our editing. Hmains (talk) 04:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Having a :Category:Arch bridges (all) will require that all arch bridges be placed in a particular subtype category. This cannot always be done with WP:VERIFIABILITY. So when a reference says it is an arch bridge, but does not define it as a particular subtype, where does it go? That is why :Category:Arch bridges should be the main populated category of this subject and there should be duplication in a sub-category when a particular subtype can be verified. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• :Exactly the opposite is true. Having the 'all' category does not require that all bridges in :Category:Arch bridges all be placed in sub-categories. They may be placed in as many or as few subcats are are useful and true. Hmains (talk) 04:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - misunderstands the categorisation system. All arch bridges should either be categorised directly in :Category:Arch bridges, or indirectly through one of its subcategories; there's simply no need for an 'arch bridges (all)' category. Robofish (talk) 06:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Again, this is based on a theory of how articles 'should be' categorized, ignoring how editors, in the main, actually do categorize them. No one was doing this 'should be' thing with these bridges before I looked and no one still is. Hmains (talk) 04:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Hmains or delete and repopulate :Category:Arch bridges. Far too many useful categories are getting diffused into their subcategories. Creating these "all" categories would be a good way to deal with this problem. If not, we should have more category duplication. Some people are just looking for bridge types, some are looking for subtypes. Both sets of users should be accomodated. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to :Category:Arch bridges based on Hmains's assertion that deletion of the category would leave some bridges uncategorized. Manual recategorization will then be in order, to deal with article needlessly categorized at different levels of detail. --Stepheng3 (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• I actually never said that and it is not true. Deleting the 'all' category would leave the categories with exactly the same articles that existed before I added the 'all category' Hmains (talk) 04:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, then. --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. The main keep logic seems to be that the category offers a way to determine which articles have not been identified for a particular sub category or that we need a category with all arch bridges. The introduction states 'This category directly includes all articles on arch bridges, regardless of their placement in any other sub-category of Category:Arch bridges', not quite the same as the first reason for keeping. I think a case could be made for the first point and a category could be created as a hidden, maintenance category with a name like :Category:Arch bridges of an unknown type. The second issue is a much larger one and should be discussed as it effects all other categories. If this is changed here, then are we also accepting a category like :Category:People (all) and I don't believe that there would be a lot of support for that. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, you understand the problem I was trying to solve. I tried to get a discussion started at :Wikipedia talk:Categorization, but that got nowhere so far. Where would be the best forum for a discussion of interested parties who might want to help with ideas and solutions? Just keeping the existing situation is no solution--it solves nothing. Hmains (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• I can't answer for others, but discussions in :Wikipedia talk:Categorization seem to not draw many participants lately. Not sure why. The discussion you raised is one that does not have an easy answer so maybe that explains the lack of participation. Maybe another post in that discussion to ask why there is no participation? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

----

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

{{lc|Child suicide bombers}}

• Delete and upmerge the lone article as needed. There's nothing wrong with this category in principle, but it's not really needed for a single article. I don't expect any additional articles to be written -- and I certainly hope there won't be reason to. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 07:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, unless anyone manages to create enough articles to populate the category. Robofish (talk) 06:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - no opinion on category. When I created it, I think there was more than just one article. Possibly some got merged or deleted. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Child_suicide_bombers_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict&hidelinks=1&hidetrans=1 here] for a list of redirects that might uncover merges. The reason for the original creation was to split these articles off from the other ones in the parent categories, as these stood out like a sore thumb and were clearly different to other "children and death" articles. Carcharoth (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all people are their parents' children. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Is that a serious comment? Carcharoth (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• A musing that this category is extremely unpleasant, and certainly not worth keeping...Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - any articles placed in the category are likely to fall victim to WP:ONEEVENT. dramatic (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
• Reply Dramatic, that's an argument for deleting the whole of :Category:Suicide bombers, but it makes no sense to apply that argument for the deletion of this sub-category while keeping its parent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
• Further reply WP:ONEEVENT is for WP:BLP's, suicide bombers by definition fail the "L" in BLP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

:::*WP:ONEEVENT is in no way limited in scope to living people; see WP:BIO1E. Otto4711 (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

----

: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. Wizardman 19:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

:{{Lc|People who look like Barack Obama}}

:Nominator's rationale: I'm not even sure where to begin with this category. We don't have any type of categories of "people who look like other people". This category serves no encyclopedic value and is very unlikely to grow. — Σxplicit 04:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Unencyclopaedic. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• I rather doubt that even {{cat|Barack Obama impersonators}} would pass muster. Of course, I don't even know of any Barack Obama impersonators who actually pass muster as impersonators... So it's possible that my views have been influenced by that fact. :) All the same, I think this one is a good candidate for adding to {{cat|Categories that sound like jokes even though they weren't meant to}}. Oh, I almost forgot -- Delete. Cgingold (talk) 07:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

:*Then again, in light of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=285954750 this edit,] it looks to me like the category's creator was out for a bit of amusement. Cgingold (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Unencyclopaedic. sets a wrong precedent. should we then have one for people who like George W Bush or the Queen of England? LibStar (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - deeply concerned this could be misused in a defamatory way, lacks encyclopedic value. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Oh boy. This is just asking for trouble. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 20:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. WTF? The Sartorialist (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete this has got to be one of the oddest cats here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Ow, my brain hurts. Delete. But for what it's worth, I'm not sure :Category:Impostors is the right category for a professional impersonator, either. Bearcat (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

----

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Environmental politicians}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. "Environmental politicians" is a term that is not in common usage. :Category:Green politicians is the appropriate category. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete -- In several countries "Green" refers to a politcal party, but members of mainstream political parties may take a view on enviromental issues. However we do not have Home Affairs politicians or Health politicians. Furthermore, a good politician will have views on many subjects, meaning that this will not be a category with sharp boundaries, making it close to a POV category. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - excessively vague and ambiguous. As Peterkingiron says, most politicians have views on environmental topics - what makes one an 'environmental politician'? Robofish (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete makes no sense; all politicians like all humans both improve and harm the environment. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. This is at best a categorisation of politicians by opinion, and as such it is so subjective that it's useless, just as the similar categories we deleted in the past for liberal and conservative politicians. At worse, this is a nonsense category, per Carlossuarez46. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

----

: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. Wizardman 05:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Dinosaurs of Niger}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:DINO has had a long-standing policy of only using continental landmasses for categories, instead of political entities that did not exist during the Mesozoic (note that :Category:Dinosaurs of India and Madagascar is in reference to the Indian subcontinent, which was a distinct landmass for much of the Cretaceous). As there would only be a handful of articles this category would apply to if fully populated (on the order of ten), it is better served by its complementary article. J. Spencer (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Nearly empty category; nothing wrong with :Category: Dinosaurs of Africa. Nigerian political boundaries didn't exist in the Mesozoic, and the WikiProject's long-standing consensus has been to base categories on time, taxonomic position, and continent (or landmass). There was an earlier CFD discussion on :Category:Dinosaurs of Arabia, which came to a similar consensus. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Firsfron. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete -- This is a very rationale consensus. We commonly seem to get discussion of species by country category trees, and most will not work well. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete prehistoric fauna didn't bother stopping at colonial border lines. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

----

: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.