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) 07:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Child suicide bombers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• 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)[reply
  ]
• Delete, unless anyone manages to create enough articles to populate the category. Robofish (talk) 06:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 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 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)[reply]
• Delete all people are their parents' children. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that a serious comment? Carcharoth (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A musing that this category is extremely unpleasant, and certainly not worth keeping...Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - any articles placed in the category are likely to fall victim to
  WP:ONEEVENT. dramatic (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Further reply
    WP:BLP's, suicide bombers by definition fail the "L" in BLP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• talk) 11:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Wizardman 19:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People who look like Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)[reply]

• Delete. Unencyclopaedic. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I rather doubt that even Category: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 Category: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)[reply]

• Then again, in light of 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Delete - deeply concerned this could be misused in a defamatory way, lacks encyclopedic value. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Delete. WTF? The Sartorialist (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this has got to be one of the oddest cats here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Environmental politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Delete makes no sense; all politicians like all humans both improve and harm the environment. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Wizardman 05:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dinosaurs of Niger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete.

complementary article. J. Spencer (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• 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)[reply]
• Delete per Firsfron. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Delete prehistoric fauna didn't bother stopping at colonial border lines. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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