Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 26 September 28 >

September 27[edit]

Category:Hungarian national football team managers[edit]

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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hungarian national football team managers to Category:Hungary national football team managers

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.

Category:Given Names[edit]

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 page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. David Kernow (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Given Names (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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 page.

Category:LGBT athletic organizations[edit]

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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT athletic organizations to Category:LGBT sports organizations

  • Rename, Wikipedia uses "sports" for all-sport categories as "athlete/ics" is liable to be taken to mean what Americans call track and field by people from the rest of the world. The parent is Category:Sports organisations. Edton 21:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Doczilla 06:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:People who died on their birthday[edit]

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 delete --Kbdank71 13:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People who died on their birthday (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, as it is merely a trivial coincidence and not a defining characteristic. There is already a list. Edton 21:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Per Edton -- Lego@lost Rocks Collide! 02:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in favo/ur of list, per Edton. David Kernow (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. Hawkestone 12:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Listify any not already on the list (presuming they are appropriate to the topic). - jc37 12:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else. This cat is ridiculous - How insensitive. AND there is also an article in the form of a list on this too. Since no one else has yet, I guess Ill go ahead and nominate it for deletion. What crap, i swear, lets get rid of these. 152.163.100.11 00:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is already a list. The list has better information. The individual articles already note dates of birth and death. Doczilla 05:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Fiction in the StarCraft universe[edit]

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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fiction in the StarCraft universe to Category:StarCraft books

  • Rename for consistency among other fictional-universe categories. Possible alternative: Category:StarCraft novels. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 19:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's not much of a category. I'd say delete altogether. Doczilla 06:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Dragon Ball Movies[edit]

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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dragon Ball Movies to Category:Dragon Ball films

  • Rename per naming conventions in other film categories. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 18:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I don't care if you say movies or films. That should be up to the fans, but the word shouldn't be capitalized. Doczilla 05:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:People from Biggers, Arkansas[edit]

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 delete --Kbdank71 15:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Biggers, Arkansas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, Bigges is a small town with very few residents ever, and there is a Famous Residents section of the Biggers, Arkansas city page listing the only person in this category already. I already checked and the person listed is the only person in wikipedia who links to the city page. Badbilltucker 16:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since this is a part of a series, I'm not sure I can support a delete. Vegaswikian 19:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a big enough town, or one with enough notable people, to warrant a category. I'm not sure any town this small has such a category. Henning, Tennessee is a town of under a 1000 with three notable people, but we don't have a Category:People from Henning, Tennessee. We don't even have a Category:People from Pocohontas, Arkansas which is a larger town in the same county as Biggers. I'm thinking this category might be promotional.--T. Anthony 02:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - with the stipulation that if more notable members show up (a half-dozen, maybe?) it can be recreated. - jc37 12:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Agree with the stipulation of Jc37 above. Badbilltucker 13:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I like in a town in Arkansas, and I still think it's a pointless category. Doczilla 05:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Modern ships[edit]

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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that the templates used by the categories suggest that they are used for ships that have served since the Cold War; this is not how the categories are currently used. They are used for ships currently in service, which is a fine distinction, and the templates will be changed if this rename goes through.
  • Rename. The "modern ships" categories are used to categorize ships that are currently in service. There are a couple of problems with that name. First, it implies that the ships inside are high-tech and up-to-date; someone in the past, confused as to the category's purpose, felt it was POV for a country's ships to be called "modern." Another problem is that there could be confusion with the "modern era", 1800 to present. I favor a rename to "Active", but wouldn't mind a different name as long as the "modern" issue gets resolved. TomTheHand 16:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename. The term 'modern' is very ambiguous - who can say when something ceases to be modern? 'Active' seems to be the most logical name to use here. 'Commissioned' was another possibility but I am of the opinion that this term should not be used as a ship may be out of commission, yet still considered active. So rename to Active ships. Martocticvs 19:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to use Commissioned I don't see active as a proper term for these categories. Both suggested terms 'modern' and 'active' are ambiguous. By using active the USS Constitution which is commissioned would be excluded, but then it is not modern and that may be another reason to rename. My only concern is that the term commissioned may be a US only term. Any ship experts out there? Vegaswikian 19:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I actually prefer "Active" specifically because (to me) it excludes ships like Constitution and Victory, which are museums run by their respective navies, not actively serving naval vessels, commissioned or not. I would hate to have to create "Active sailing frigates" and "Active ships of the line" categories just for those two cases. TomTheHand 20:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. To my way of thinking, ships afloat and in service now are Active, even if they're ancient sailing ships. Lou Sander 19:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. With the exception of the administrative Category:Living people, we have almost always rejected segregation of the living/dead, active/inactive. Commissioned is no better. A major reason is the feeling that we should not have dated categories that require maintenance. As pointed out above modern has many problems (and yes, is somewhat dated too), and could certainly be changed, but it makes more sense to me than the proposal here. Isn't it is better to categorize based on when their life began, not ended? Two destroyers from a WWII production line should be categorized together, even if one was sunk and the other is still in commission. ×Meegs 22:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment At WP:SHIPS we categorize based on every era a ship participated in, so a ship that was constructed in WWII and served in the war, then went on to Cold War service, would belong to both of those categories. TomTheHand 13:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Common sense. Hawkestone 12:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I feel for you, this nom must have been some work : ) - jc37 12:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't really like any of the options (modern, active, commissioned, or delete). In earlier discussions, modern was the unhappy compromise for a name to cover categorization by era for ships since the end of the Cold War (the last broad era categorization under the by era tree). Active can not serve this role, as it doesn't cover ships which belong in the post Cold War era, but which are no longer in service. The problem with modern as an era though is the confusion expressed above that modern indicates technology or some other aspect of modernity. If we go to active categories, they need to move out of by era. Also, they can't be subjective. If the ship is in service in any capacity, it would have to qualify for inclusion. Using commissioned would provide a clear distinction for what belongs within for US and other major navies, but commissioned status is not as clear for civil vessels or for less sohisticated and/or more secretive navies. Josh 15:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I guess what I'm not understanding in the above comment is why you can't have your cake and eat it too. As someone else recently reminded us, the category system is not a "tree"-based system. Looking at your examples: "modern"; "active"; "commisioned". Using "modern" is a bad idea for categories in general. However, there is no reason why each ship that is "active" shouldn't be categorised as such, and the same with "commisioned". From what little I've been reading, both would appear to be notable. If you need a "by era" category, then define and name the era by concensus, and then categorise by that name. - jc37 09:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think you just better stated what was going through my head, and why I don't think that you necessarily need to rename the modern cats, but instead, if you think active or commissioned categories are worthwhile, simply create and populate them as appropriate. Note that I am not opposed to the nomination, I just wanted to make it clear that active categories would not be equivalent to what modern categories are used for, and thus should we make the change, we need to make sure to recategorize the categories themselves to reflect their new scope. Josh 14:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think the problem with going down the era route is that there is no name for the era we are currently in, and we're not in the business of inventing names for things here. 'Commissioned' as a category I think would require more work than 'active,' as ships in navies can lay out of commission for some time (an example being HMS Invincible, which is currently de-commissioned but still a part of the RN's fleet available for commissioning as needed). If we took 'commissioned' as a category, we would need a 'decommissioned' category to compliment it, for ships that are not in commission, but are still actively available to their navies. This really is why I support 'active' as the best option for what's wanted here. Alternatively it could be called something like 'Existing ships' - that covers everything. Martocticvs 14:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Famous Stalagmites[edit]

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 delete, added articles to the stalagmite article --Kbdank71 13:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famous Stalagmites to Category:Stalagmites

  • Rename, No need for the word famous. Could also potentially listify. For reference there is currently both a Category:Caves and also a mainspace List of caves. After Midnight 0001 15:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Tim! 16:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Listify to Stalagmites; since there are only two entries, and the article is short. - jc37 12:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Animals that prey on humans[edit]

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 delete --Kbdank71 13:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animals that prey on humans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, Not a particularly encyclopedic categorization. UtherSRG (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further, the category is incorrect. None of these animals prey on humans - that is, none of these animals seeks out humans for food. These animals may have attacked humans in one form or another, but none of these species regularly injests human flesh as a part of their diet. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to address the exact point you bring up in the text on the category's page. If you can think of a clearer means by which to express this point, by all means be bold and do so.--Caliga10 18:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion to merge this category with "man eaters". As the creator of this category I won't vote here.--Caliga10 15:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note related discussion concerning Category:Man eaters (CFD 2006/Sep/21).-choster 15:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful and encyclopedic. Johntex\talk 15:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too vague to be useful, and per UtherSRG. --Conti|✉ 19:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per UtherSRG. Edton 21:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Almost all the carnivore wild animals could potentially prey on man. --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 22:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per UtherSRG. Stefan 10:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and listify if wanted. Vagueness from whether we're talking about species of animals which would eat humans, or individual events of humans being eaten by a specific animal listed (see Jumbo). Hence, a list. - jc37 12:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Peta 12:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Upon reflection I agree that there is probably a better and more encyclopedic way to present this information, and that the title of the category is misleading. I think we could edit the Dangerous animals article to include the information and possibly do redirects to it to make it a bit more prominent/intuitive to find.--Caliga10 12:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Famous lefthanded people[edit]

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 delete, recreation --Kbdank71 13:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famous lefthanded people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Merge to List and Delete, Most of these are already in the much bigger mainspace List of famous left-handed people. Merge the ones that aren't and delete the category. After Midnight 0001 15:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good grief. Destroy it before it gets any bigger. - EurekaLott 18:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a defining characteristic. Edton 21:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, recreation. >Radiant< 21:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and Delete per nom. - jc37 12:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lists and categories both have their uses.--Runcorn 19:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Runcorn's argument is no argument at all as it can be applied to any nonsense category. Twittenham 22:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Twittenham may have missed my point. I was arguing against Merge to List and Delete. If a list and category are nonsense, delete both. If they are both sensible, they should both be retained.--Runcorn 16:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Recreation of a ridiculous category. Brammen 18:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very often, the fact that someone is left-handed is important, especially for sportsmen.--Poetlister 15:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, emphatic keep. I totally agree with Poetlister. It's vitally important for sports figures. Also, don't we have lists of gays, of blacks, of gay blacks, etc.? Don't we have an article Queer people of color? That's more ridiculous that a category for lefties. I'm tired of being discriminated against as a lefty in the real world, and I think this constitutes discrimination through ignoring us and making us invisible. Also, lists are not encyclopedic, they are merely tolerated. Most legit lists should be categories. Billy Blythe 18:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Listify. A list will have better information than mere names. Names don't mean squat. This category has already gotten deleted in the past. Doczilla 06:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The idea of a category is that you can see the list of articles and click on a name to get more info.--Holdenhurst 10:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The idea that lefthandedness indicates out of the ordinary is both fascinating and important, worth study. Modernist 22:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Empty ports and harbours[edit]

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 delete --Kbdank71 13:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As part of a multiphase cleanup of Category:Ports and harbours, I cleaned up these categories but found their contents reduced to zero or one entry, with few prospects for near term growth. They can always be re-created in the future as called for, but as they are empty now, we should delete them. -choster 14:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with the reservation that they may be recreated if needed (following whatever the naming convention at that time may be). - jc37 12:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uhh, doesn't that kind of go without saying? I didn't request protection. -choster 17:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Ports and harbours of Japan[edit]

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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ports and harbours of Japan to Category:Port cities in Japan

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.

Category:Disney Channel original movies[edit]

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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disney Channel original movies to Category:Disney Channel original films

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.

Category:Lojban[edit]

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 delete --Kbdank71 13:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lojban (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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.

Category:Early Web history[edit]

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 delete --Kbdank71 13:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Early Web history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, only one article is in this category, and the alleged "main article" for this category isn't even listed in the category. It appears that the sole article in this category could be better placed in some of the categories in which this category resides, specifically Category:Internet history and Category:World Wide Web. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A category should have at least 4 or more pages. Th category is to similar to Internet History as well. Hmrox 13:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to category:Internet history - jc37 12:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Human extinction[edit]

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 delete --Kbdank71 13:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Human extinction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, silly POV category about an event (extinction of Homo sapiens) that may or may not take place at some point in the future. Categoriesd article appear to be proposed causes of that extinction. Peta 01:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this +cat is an aggregate of articles that might cause the extinction of the human race; therefore, it is important and should be kept. MapleTree 01:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you see why OR and POV are a problem here?--Peta 01:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The articles have to support the feasibility of it being in the +cat, therefore, it is not POV and not a problem. MapleTree 01:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You appear to be applying the cat all over the place, to articles that don't even mention the possibility. Regardless, this is OR and POV.--Peta 01:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV and speculative. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, OR and speculative. And a bit ridiculous in the application: extinct language, double-you tee eff mate? The article human extinction covers it all nicely. --Dhartung | Talk 04:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete uh, do we *really* need this category? What point does it serve...? --Karafias Talk • Contributions 04:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Speculative, OR and WP:NOT by definition. JFW | T@lk 07:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete is being used as spam on ozone depletion etc where it clearly doesn't belong William M. Connolley 08:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per JFW; also, no sensible limits for this category - do we, for instance, include telephone hygiene? --Plumbago 13:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign earlier)[reply]
  • Delete. Joke. Pavel Vozenilek 09:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete with white goo. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for all we know, we could include Giant Spiders Revenge or Every person dieing of fatal injuries playing twister! I't just not right -- Lego@lost Rocks Collide! 02:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • commentim noe quite sure that this should be deleted ot kept,both seem kinda weird to do.
  • Conditional Keep if the category can be more strictly defined so as to prevent it from becoming an indiscriminate collection of articles. On another note, I don't see how a category can be POV. And even if it is, POV issues can usually be fixed. Ramsquire 23:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the criteria for inclusion in this category were better-defined, it would be worth keeping. --Carnildo 02:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: grab bag - Jmabel | Talk 02:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't know where these subjective and POV objections are coming from - I thought the definition of an existential risk was pretty clear. -- Gwern (contribs) 04:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT crystal ball Pervect 11:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Speculative --Ligulem 12:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speculative, indiscriminate and generally not very useful. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT, esp crystal ball and POV. Doczilla 05:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_27&oldid=1136103569"