Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 25
November 25
As with Category:LGBT criminals, this is a grouping not supported by the proposed consensus on race/gender/sexuality categorization -- which is that such groupings should only be permitted if they constitute a unique and distinctive cultural context about which an encyclopedia article could itself be written. It would be impossible to write an article about gay murderers as a distinct phenomenon from straight ones, so accordingly I'm proposing delete in this case. Bearcat 19:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Useless category. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. Here we go round two. I guess Category:LGBT criminals wasn't satisfying enough for the people obsessed with making a point. Next stop should be Category:LGBT rapists, Category:LGBT sex offenders and so on. Really sad. -- JJay 20:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Or delete all the positive LGBT categories too. It is the gay rights activists who are making a point on a massive scale, intruding their agenda into every subject area at every conceivable opportunity, when it need only be covered in articles about sexuality. CalJW 21:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I can't respond to your impeccable logic. For those looking for other groups that may have gotten too uppity, suggest Category:Disabled criminals, Category:Environmentalist criminals, or why not kill two birds with one stone via Category:LGBT Jew criminals see List of LGBT Jews for ideas. Just trying to be helpful. -- JJay 22:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: As I've already stated, the tentative consensus in the race/gender/sexuality discussion is that such a category should only be implemented if that combination constitutes a unique and distinctive cultural context about which an encyclopedia article could itself be written. If you want this category to be kept, you therefore need to prove that one could somehow write an encyclopedic article on gay murderers as an identifiably distinct phenomenon from non-gay ones. The onus is not on me to prove that such an article could not be written; it's on you to prove that it could. And it's not about positive vs. negative groupings; there are positive LGBT groupings that would be invalid under this criterion and negative ones that would be permissible. The defining criterion is whether one can actually write an encyclopedic article about the topic. Bearcat 23:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per CalJW. — Instantnood 22:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Obviously biased POV nonsense. This is the part where I would normally compare this to other obviously moronic hypotheticals but JJay has already done that for me :-) Soltak | Talk 23:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unless someone creates and fills up a heterosexual and transsexual murderers category before the end of this cfd debate (I wouldn't bother because it will get deleted pretty soon). Arniep 23:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: I could see some sense in categories that deal with criminalisation of Homosexuals, like "People convicted unter anti-gay laws", but people murder for all kinds of reasons, most of which are tied in no way to sexual orientation. -- Mkill 00:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
One article. Upmerge and delete. - SoM 19:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Groups people based on alleged attendance at San Francisco club retreat. Can't find a similar category and associated bios do not seem to mention club. Do we really want to set up categories based on attendance at Political or social clubs? What's next? Category:Communist Party meeting attendees, Category:Ravenite social club attendees, Category:GLAAD weekend retreat attendees -- JJay 19:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- JJay 19:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Attendance at Bohemian Grove is very informative to researchers about historic public figures and their influence over public affairs of their time and afterwards. Historically, many key decisions affecting global business and politics appear to have been made by attendees at Bohemian Grove, or through contacts made possible there. For instance, at minimum Presidents Eizenhower, Nixon, and Reagan, attended Bohemian Grove in the months prior to launching their successful campaigns for President. Innumerable other examples in other fields exist. The problem then seems that not enough is known about this crucial fact that this category makes easier to know.
There is also controversy about alleged activities inside Bohemian Grove, including public protests, such as it's ban on women and allegations of occult ceremonies. Since these congregations involve attendance by important public figures, and all public figures should be accountable for their actions, figures including both Presidents Bush, other former Presidents, Cabinet Officers, and recently the current Governor of California, etc., this category serves an important purpose of showing in one place who attends these functions.
The above objector to this category states that these names of attendees are "alleged" as if questioning their validity. If he/she wishes to object to any specific names, that is one thing, and if based on objective facts, welcome, but he/she uses that logic to imply that the whole category should not exist. On that basis very few categories in Wikipedia could exist!
The entries in this category are valid based on documentation from past newspaper articles, published interviews, doctoral thesis', and other research. If there was a way to cite sources for category inclusion, I was not aware of it, but would be happy to conform these entries to such format. If such a format exists, please notify me of it and the link. Please KEEP "Category:Bohemian Grove attendees", leave it alone!
Thank you. Nfgii 20:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I’m sure Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan did many things before launching their campaigns. They may have visited Bohemian Grove. Their thinking may have changed as a result of these visits. They may need to be held accountable for their visits. In fact, it just occurred to me, they or other historic public figures may have become robots controlled by the Bohemian Club, or even have been replaced by identical clones created by the Bohemian Club. They may now be owned by the Bohemian Club. This could have easily occurred at Bohemian Grove while other attendees were distracted by human sacrifice rituals or servicing from Gay porn stars, activities discussed in our Wiki article. Think about it. Every leading institution in the USA may now be run by Bohemian Club robots or clones, and the influence may be spreading internationally. Thankfully women are excluded from Bohemian Grove, possibly because they might object to the snuff films being made, but who knows, that could change, meaning Bohemian Club indoctrination could start at birth. As most of the Grateful Dead were members, maybe Jerry's death was faked, because he knew too much. These crucial facts are not widely known among the public. I welcome a discussion of this, but do not try to use logic to imply that these ideas should not exist. Hm, maybe I should withdraw the nom... -- JJay 00:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- comment It says in the article The club's membership includes many artists, particularly musicians I can't see many, actually, any of those in this category, why? Arniep 01:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per JJay's comments. Also, the comment from Nfgii sounds like this category exists to satisfy conspiracy theorists. OCNative 07:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Should be pluralised in line with naming conventions. Carina22 11:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Rivers of the United States
- Category:Alabama rivers --> Category:Rivers of Alabama
- Category:Alaska rivers --> Category:Rivers of Alaska
- Category:Arizona rivers --> Category:Rivers of Arizona
- Category:Arkansas rivers --> Category:Rivers of Arkansas
- Category:California rivers --> Category:Rivers of California
- Category:Colorado rivers --> Category:Rivers of Colorado
- Category:Connecticut rivers --> Category:Rivers of Connecticut
- Category:Delaware rivers --> Category:Rivers of Delaware
- Category:Florida rivers --> Category:Rivers of Florida
- Category:Georgia (U.S. state) rivers --> Category:Rivers of Georgia (U.S. state)
- Category:Guam rivers --> Category:Rivers of Guam
- Category:Hawaiian rivers --> Category:Rivers of Hawaii
- Category:Idaho rivers --> Category:Rivers of Idaho
- Category:Illinois rivers --> Category:Rivers of Illinois
- Category:Indiana rivers --> Category:Rivers of Indiana
- Category:Iowa rivers --> Category:Rivers of Iowa
- Category:Kansas rivers --> Category:Rivers of Kansas
- Category:Kentucky rivers --> Category:Rivers of Kentucky
- Category:Louisiana rivers --> Category:Rivers of Louisiana
- Category:Maine rivers --> Category:Rivers of Maine
- Category:Maryland rivers --> Category:Rivers of Maryland
- Category:Massachusetts rivers --> Category:Rivers of Massachusetts
- Category:Michigan rivers --> Category:Rivers of Michigan
- Category:Minnesota rivers --> Category:Rivers of Minnesota
- Category:Minnesota streams --> Category:Streams of Minnesota
- Category:Mississippi rivers --> Category:Rivers of Mississippi
- Category:Missouri rivers --> Category:Rivers of Missouri
- Category:Montana rivers --> Category:Rivers of Montana
- Category:Nebraska rivers --> Category:Rivers of Nebraska
- Category:Nevada rivers --> Category:Rivers of Nevada
- Category:New Hampshire rivers --> Category:Rivers of New Hampshire
- Category:New Jersey rivers --> Category:Rivers of New Jersey
- Category:New Mexico rivers --> Category:Rivers of New Mexico
- Category:New York rivers --> Category:Rivers of New York
- Category:North Carolina rivers --> Category:Rivers of North Carolina
- Category:North Dakota rivers --> Category:Rivers of North Dakota
- Category:Ohio rivers --> Category:Rivers of Ohio
- Category:Oklahoma rivers --> Category:Rivers of Oklahoma
- Category:Oregon rivers --> Category:Rivers of Oregon
- Category:Pennsylvania rivers --> Category:Rivers of Pennsylvania
- Category:Puerto Rico rivers --> Category:Rivers of Puerto Rico
- Category:Rhode Island rivers --> Category:Rivers of Rhode Island
- Category:South Carolina rivers --> Category:Rivers of South Carolina
- Category:South Dakota rivers --> Category:Rivers of South Dakota
- Category:Tennessee rivers --> Category:Rivers of Tennessee
- Category:Texas rivers --> Category:Rivers of Texas
- Category:United States Virgin Islands rivers and streams --> Category:Rivers and streams of the United States Virgin Islands
- Category:Utah rivers --> Category:Rivers of Utah
- Category:Vermont rivers --> Category:Rivers of Vermont
- Category:Virginia rivers --> Category:Rivers of Virginia
- Category:Washington rivers --> Category:Rivers of Washington
- Category:West Virginia rivers --> Category:Rivers of West Virginia
- Category:Wisconsin rivers --> Category:Rivers of Wisconsin
- Category:Wyoming rivers --> Category:Rivers of Wyoming
- Rename all. Wiki-standard is "Rivers of Foo". See: Category:Rivers by country. - Darwinek 11:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Rename all to conform to standard. Carina22 11:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Rename all let's keep up the progress on these U.S. and Canada categories. CalJW 21:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
All the other English "Wikipedians by county" categories use full county names. I wondered why i couldnt' find the Buckinghamshire one... this was why - the one exception to the pattern. Grutness...wha? 11:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Rename as proposed. Carina22 11:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Rename as proposed. Arniep 01:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Rename but frankly I would enjoy seeing this and other "Wikipedians" categories Deleted. I don't see a reason why we take up space talking about people who are only notable for using Wikipedia.Vulturell 02:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
See notes on Category:Christian scientists page. Rnt20 10:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Rename per discussion at category talk:Christian scientists. It's confusing enough. — Instantnood 22:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Rename as proposed. Arniep 01:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Rename When I saw that name I thought you meant people who follow Christian Science! This category name needs to be used for people who follow Christian Science, not for scientists who are Christian.Vulturell 02:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Per previous CfD, replace use of country adjective with noun.Joshbaumgartner 06:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose Sounds better as it is. Carina22 10:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, "sounding better" is POV, and consistency is more important. Radiant_>|< 14:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or rename as category:aircraft carriers of the People's Republic of China. The PRC has never, until this moment, had any serving aircraft carrier in its military. Varyag may be being used for military purpose (in a dry dock), while Minsk is part of a theme park. — Instantnood 16:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: That's why I proposed the China category as opposed to a PLAN or even PRC category. The broader category makes it unnecessary to delve into the intricacies of the ownership and operational histories of the Minsk and Varyag, which haven't always been clear or stable. Readers can read the articles to learn the detailed stories. Joshbaumgartner 17:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Unlike submarines, there's little use of aircraft carriers functioning as such outside of military. Both Varyag and Minsk are not being used as aircraft carriers, and Varyag has never been used as such. That was why I suggested to delete the category. If the category is to be kept, it'd better be renamed to avoid possible ambiguity, and to go in line with naming conventions. — Instantnood 21:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: That's why I proposed the China category as opposed to a PLAN or even PRC category. The broader category makes it unnecessary to delve into the intricacies of the ownership and operational histories of the Minsk and Varyag, which haven't always been clear or stable. Readers can read the articles to learn the detailed stories. Joshbaumgartner 17:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep The so called convention is wrong. I wish I hadn't started this process. CalJW 21:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete China has no aircraft carriers. It has a former aircraft carrier parked in a theme park and rusting hull in a dock. What, if I write up some articles about the history of the original boats in Submarine Voyage can I create Category:Submarines of Disneyland as a sub-cat of Category:Navy of California? If I browse to a sub-cat of the Chinese military, I expect to find military ships. Not theme park rides or a rusting hull that were military ships for other countries who eventually were retired in China. There are mothballed ships in the US that came from the Eastern Bloc too, there was a former Soviet sub docked in Elliot Bay for several years, but even if they had Wikipedia articles they wouldn't belong to a military of the US category. SchmuckyTheCat 00:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- COMMENT I see no reason not to have Submarines of Disneyland if you can make the submarines in Submarine Voyage notable enough to have articles. A systematic bias against commercial submarines is a bad idea. I don't see why you would have it as a subcat of Navy of California, instead of ships of California (if somesuch category exists). As for military theme-park, if it's a museum display, sure, keep it as an aircraft carrier. If it's a "demonstration" ship, ditto. As for rusting hulks... we have the USS United States, an aircraft carrier that has never been in service, that was never completed, in the aircraft carrier categories, and the HMS Queen Elizabeth never started construction. The Varyag is intact, such as it is, and was not shipped to China to be sent to the breakers, and is owned by Chinese interests. 132.205.44.134 02:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Per previous CfD, replace use of country adjective with noun, plus fixing the spelling error. Joshbaumgartner 06:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose Sounds better as it is. Carina22 10:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, "sounding better" is POV, and consistency is more important. Radiant_>|< 14:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose I wish I hadn't started this process. The "of" form is pointless for ships. CalJW 21:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Per previous CfD, replace use of country adjective with noun.Joshbaumgartner 05:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose Sounds better as it is. Carina22 10:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, "sounding better" is POV, and consistency is more important. Radiant_>|< 14:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Opppose as above. I wish I hadn't started this process. As I recall most of them were "Fooish ships" to start with and they should all move that way. CalJW 21:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: What are the criteria in the choice between Fooian something and something of Foo? — Instantnood 21:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: good question. i don t know what the need to not use Fooian something is?? -Mayumashu 03:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: What are the criteria in the choice between Fooian something and something of Foo? — Instantnood 21:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Empty category. Joshbaumgartner 05:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Reluctant delete unless it is populated, but I hope it will be back. CalJW 21:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unless populated.Vulturell 02:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Sub-Categories of Jewish people
A consensus to delete these type of Jewish categories was reached earlier in 2005 [1] and these categories should either have been deleted or not been created in the first place (probably, they were introduced by users unaware of the earlier decision/s), following the consensus to delete reached at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 15#Re:Sub-Categories of Jewish people. IZAK 02:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC) Please note: the consensus was reached to delete all Jewish by country categories, not to delete all Jewish occupation categories. The original reasons cited are still the same: "The splintering of categories about Jewish people is getting out of hand, and must be tightened. Too many "frivolous categories" (as in "Frivolous lawsuits") for Jews are being created on Wikipedia. The [above] sub-categories about Jews (many of whom did not even care to be identified as such!) are proposed for deletion because they are either empty/orphans, or their contents can correctly be found in other similar categories Category:Lists of Jews of lists -- or of [for example] Category:Lists of Jewish Americans, or they are basically duplicates of "List" articles in categories by country such as Category:Jewish Spanish history that can include the information [if needed]." IZAK 02:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Support. mikka (t) 03:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)Third. TomerTALK 08:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
The above are duplicate votes, please vote below the list.
This category should have been deleted following the consensus to delete reached at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 15#Re:Sub-Categories of Jewish people.
This category should have been deleted following the consensus to delete reached at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 15#Re:Sub-Categories of Jewish people.
- Delete all the above as stated above. IZAK 03:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete all. mikka (t) 03:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete all as per previous consensus. Grutness...wha? 04:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)Moving to abstain. Looks like I misunderstood what the original consensus was. I'd be happy to revisit these nominations on an individual basis, but this group nomination contains a mix-and-match of keeps and deletes. Grutness...wha? 00:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)- Strong Keep Look guys, if you delete this you have to delete every single other "ethnicity-American" category out there (and we got one for every major group, believe me). No fair otherwise. And "Jewish American actors" just survived an AFD, I'm not sure why there's another one. You can't delete, say, "Jewish Americans", without deleting "Irish-Americans", "Norwegian-Americans" and so on. And yes, those other categories ALSO have already-existing list versions. Gee, I wonder why Jewish Americans always gets nominated for deletion first...Vulturell 05:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Question: So if I read that correctly, you would change your vote to delete if the others were nominated too? --Kbdank71 17:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- No, I absolutely wouldn't. I'm say you CAN'T delete "Jewish Americans" without deleting "Irish-Americans" or "Norwegian-Americans". It's singling out a particular ethnic group for deletion. We are supposed to apply the same standards for every group.Vulturell 18:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Question: So if I read that correctly, you would change your vote to delete if the others were nominated too? --Kbdank71 17:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Delete ... take out the garbage already. TomerTALK 08:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Anti-Semitism on the rise. :( - Darwinek 10:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- I would not call IZAK antisemite. Even if you were joking, please check your facts. mikka (t) 17:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, This is anti-Judaism, and If these categories deleted, we can't make list (for example, Category:Hungarian Jews). --User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg/sig 13:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes we can. If the vote to delete will prevail, you may go and in 2 minutes do cut'n'paste (ou even may it leave to someone else to format the list). 17:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete all. I find I'm very confused by these categories, they are in the category tree as both an ethnicity and a religion, which to me doesn't seem right. Steve block talk 13:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep for all except Category:Jewish American actors and Category:Jewish baseball players, the first due to the reasons I argued before against that category, and the second as being too specific. I don't think it is right that all these categories are nominated together just because they contain the word Jewish as they really have different merits and deserve individual discussion. Arniep 13:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Unbelievably antisemitic to single out Jewish-related Cats/Subcats for deletion in a site awash in religious/ethnic/racial categorizations. 12.73.194.50 13:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete all - I'm not against categorization by ethnicity per se, but such categorization has to a) have some meaningful purpose (left-handed Norwegian-Americans, for example, would not serve any useful purpose); b) not be redundant to lists; and c) bear some relationship to the individual. For example, Karl Rove has identified himself as a Norwegian-American, so categorizing him that way is fair game. But there are undoubtedly other celebrities with Norwegian ancestry who think it's entirely incidental. (And I'm using Norwegian-Americans as a strawman to make this a principled discussion, rather than one about whether someone is Jewish or not). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leifern (talk • contribs) 13:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- I understand your objection to the Jewish American category, as some people included do not identify themselves as a Jewish American. However, this applies to all the (ethnicity) American categories so I propose that either all the (ethnicity) American should be renamed Americans of (ethnicity) descent to remove any problem with giving a person a label which they do not apply to themselves or make those new categories and only put people in the (ethnicity) American categories when we are absolutely sure they identify as such. Arniep 14:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- The second idea would really be a matter of debate, again and could be POV for certain individuals because we are not sure. However, I'm not sure exactly why you think Karl Rove is a good example. He's something like 1/4 Norwegian, and just because he's spoken about it doesn't mean he thinks of himself as "Norwegian". Obviously, for most of the people in ethnicity based categories, we wouldn't even know about their ancestry unless they've somehow identified themselves as such publically.Vulturell 18:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep on most, but strong delete for Category:Jewish American actors - overcategorisation. I am saddened that some people have made comments assigning anti-semitic motives - without any evidence - to those who wish to delete these cats. Do we no longer work on the basis of assuming good faith and Wikipedia:Etiquette? Valiantis 13:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete all as per previous consensus and above comments. --Kbdank71 14:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- comment This blanket nomination is somewhat dishonest and misleading in claiming that there was previously a consensus to delete these categories. IZAK claims that a consensus was reached to delete Jewish categories in April, however, the vote was only on categories which tie Jewish and country together, the vote was not on any categories which list Jews by occupation only. Arniep 14:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete all per the above. Radiant_>|< 14:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- comment It seems to me that what IZAK and others are, perhaps unintentionally, saying, by deleting these categories, is that if you are not Israeli you cannot identify as Jewish, thus saying that all the Jewish people before the creation of Israel cannot identify as Jewish- Stella Adler, Jacob Pavlovitch Adler, Sigmund Freud, Moses Mendelssohn you are officially not Jewish, by decree of Wikipedia!!! Arniep 15:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment That is not what is being said at all. People are merely stating that it is perhaps not a useful distinction to make at such fine levels through the categorisation tool, but rather these distinctions are better suited to lists. I don't see anyone suggesting Category:Jews for deletion, where such people as you accuse Wikipedia of decreeing not Jewish can be suitably categorised. Steve block talk 16:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- comment As I said before, Jewish people have a cultural identity akin to that of nation so they should be allowed their own occupation categories as nations do, otherwise we discriminate against Jews who lived before the creation of Israel. Unfortunately, the Jewish lists are being deleted with the reasoning that the equivalent categories exist so there seems to be a bit of a mess here. Arniep 17:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- comment Category:Jews is not very helpful; it would get too big and cumbersome if it were the only appropriate category. - Poetlister 22:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep - Such lists are sensible encyclopaedic information - RachelBrown 18:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- STRONG KEEP. Why in the world would we want to delete this? It is a perfectly valid categorization and does not imply any kind of racial/religious segregation. It is just another way of grouping people, in the same way Category:Argentine footballers does. There is no reason for deleting jewish groupings by country. Category:Argentine jewish footballers would be too narrow. But, IMHO, being jewish is not very much different (in some aspects) on being a footballer. It is a choice you make, something voluntary and something that can be used to describe you. Deleting this category is wrong. If you nominate this one and not all other descriptive categories is inconsistent at least. Needless to say, I would oppose that one too. Sebastian Kessel Talk 18:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - I never thought I'd vote in one of these beauty parades, but this proposal is so shockingly, obscenely racist that I could not abstain. All that it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. - Taxwoman 18:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Abstain More than enough people have voted already. Could some of you please consider voting on other proposals on this page, as much of it gets little attention. CalJW 21:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe people don't care about the others. - Poetlister 22:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep for all. Same goes for every other religion. -- JJay 21:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong keep. — Instantnood 21:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Please be reminded {{cfdu}} should be used instead. — Instantnood 22:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep for all. - Poetlister 22:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep for all. --Vizcarra 23:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep for all. This is what categories are for. LISTS are useless User:Ejrrjs says What? 23:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep country categories; this has previously been determined to be a valid categorization scheme, and Category:Jews would be unfathomably large and unwieldy without some form of subcategorization. Per category discussion on gender/race/sexuality/etc. categorization, keep occupational categories for which encyclopedic articles about distinctively Jewish contributions in that field of endeavour could realistically be written, and delete ones for which that type of article couldn't be written. I leave it to those more knowledgeable about Jewish topics to determine which is which, except to say that "Jewish baseball players" is almost certainly the latter kind and "Jewish philosophers" is probably the former. This really should not be a mass nomination. Bearcat 23:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, except for Jewish baseball players. All of the other mentioned categories tell a story to some degree, but I don't see anything special about being Jewish in a baseball player. -- Mkill 00:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - please don't throw accusation of antisemitism lightly. I don't see what's the problem. For example, why could Waldemar Haffkine be included into Category:Indian doctors , Category:Ukrainian scientists, but not Category:Jewish scientists. Of course certain cats/lists are too compartmentalized or contain wrong/questionable names, but that's another story. I am against wholesale removal. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete for all - It's time to put an end to this massive array which has piled up beneath our noses. Antidote 06:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Jewish + state (Category:Argentine Jews, Category:Jewish Canadians, Category:Hungarian Jews, etc.). Neutral on others. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete all - ESPECIALLY Category:Hungarian Jews, Category:Jewish Canadians, Category:Jewish Americans and Category:Austrian Jews -- as they all have their own lists and repeating them is just another case of enormously repetitive listing of jews thats been going on lately. EscapeArtistsNeverDie 07:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Name is currently out of compliance with similar categories. --Nlu 20:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy rename CalJW 21:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy rename Arniep 01:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy renameVulturell 02:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Spouses of whom? The category name itself is not useful, and there are no standards listed. The people classified in the category itself should suggest that the category is not useful. Strong delete. --Nlu 21:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Good quirky category that seems to have been populated with care. CalJW 21:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Potentially endless list of non-notables. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Completely worthless. -- JJay 21:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Is there any list or category for people who're famous just because they're spouses of somebody? — Instantnood 21:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete what do you do if they are both equally famous, or you are not sure which is the most famous? Ridiculous. Arniep 21:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Completely useless category. As the nominator stated, even the name of the category is ridiculously ambiguous. I'm a spouse, does that mean I get to list myself? Can I list my mom? What about my sister? Utterly nonsensical. Soltak | Talk 23:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Being a spouse, or even a S.O. is complete NN and unencyclopedic. User:Ejrrjs says What? 23:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete So we add every article about everybody to this list who was or is married? How many articles would that be??? -- Mkill 00:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete The name in itself is confusing. Is it for people who are only notable for being married to someone, or two famous people who were married, or what?Vulturell 02:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
&Delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and rename. I've briefly glanced through what's in this category, and I'd say until this moment it's kept to cover only people who're famous mainly because they're the spouses of somebody else. It's not like what the comments here said that nearly everybody could be covered. — Instantnood 06:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)