Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 24



Category:Macedonian dance

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was speedy(ish) delete as still empty four days after nomination. BencherliteTalk 17:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * macedonian dance


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Speedy delete as empty. Sting au  Buzz Me...   13:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per Sting au. LeSnail (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:List of Multicultural People

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * list of multicultural people


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * You have a point. I actually found the category, it was dormant but it would be a massive undertaking and someone down the line we'd have to list everyone.Katecasares 24 January 2008 (UTC)}}}
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "found the category" because you created it. Snocrates 22:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, even if this were to be kept, it would have to be renamed to Category:Multicultural people, both for capitalization and for the fact that categories aren't lists. The only categories that are supposed to have the word "lists" in their names are the ones that are specifically used to categorize list articles. But at any rate, this has been done before and was deleted (AFD of June 18 2006), so I'm going to have to go with the delete in this case. Bearcat (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete even the Category:Multicultural people is meaningless. Someone eats Thai food on Monday and Tacos on Tuesday, voilà, they're now multicultural! Race/ethnicity≠culture. If this is a race/ethnicity category in disguise, it's similarly unnecessary OCAT even if you believe that some race/ethnicity cats are OK, because most Americans have some admixture in their ancestry and as far as one can tell on this side of the pond, English, Scottish, Scots-Irish, and Irish are all different cultures so the mass of Americans with "British" ancestry belong as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - There have recently been a lot of discussions over categories for people with mixed ancestry and/or foo-ish people in X-land. These have frequently been concluded to make unsatisfactory categories.  This one would be infinitely worse.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - meaningless categorisation. Per Carlossuarez46, multicultural is not the same as multiracial. And even if it was... someone's ethnicity is of course a defining characteristic for many people, but there are infinite variations of mixed ethnicities. Someone who is half Irish, half Nigerian, would in all likelihood have something in common with other Irish people, and something in common with other Nigerian people, but why would they necessarily have anything in common with, say, someone who is half French and half Japanese, just because they are both of mixed race? I'm not sure if I'm making sense, but anyway.. delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belovedfreak (talk • contribs) 17:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:People with Irish names

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * people with irish names


 * Nominator's rationale:
 * I can see what the idea behind it was (Irish people who use their Gaelic names rather than anglicizing them), but that doesn't make it any less OCAT. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - No encyclopedic purpose to categorize by this charatceristic that I can think of. VegaDark (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete not defining. Another unneeded pseudo-race/ethnicity category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It's not even a "pseudo-race/ethnicity category." I know someone with an Irish name, who has lived in Australia since the age of 2 and has no Celtic heritage. LeSnail (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think unrelated subjects with shared name actually covers this, nor is it a "pseudo-race/ethnicity category" as only about 1% of Irish residents would qualify for the category (and I have doubts about Lesnail's Australian pal).  This is encyclopedic as a part of the Irish-language tree, and also represents a cultural/political choice by the members (or in a few cases their parents). A comparable category woiuld be Category:African Americans using Islamic-style names, which I think would be acceptable. I hope every one has actually looked at the category - Sinead O'Connor and Fintan O'Toole for example, would not qualify.  Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep this category because it serves as a useful tool to recognise notable people who chose to keep their Gaelic name or to Gaelicise their birth name, which is extremely relevant to the language and to the character and preference of the person in question. So please do not delete this category.--MaxPride (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - in view of the size of the Irish diaspora, this would be an impossibly large category, even if it was limited to strictly Irish Gaelic names. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not a reason for deletion and there's little sign of this so far! Very few diaspora Irish chose to call themselves things like Eibhlín Dubh Ní Chonaill instead of Eileen O' Connell, as virtually no one outside Ireland knows how to pronounce Gaelic spellings. Johnbod (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Over-categorisation. -- Alan Liefting- talk - 21:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is a form of categorizing by shared name, which is overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:Days of our Lives cast members

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * days of our lives cast members
 * Nominator's Rationale there's already a page of current, former, and recurring cast members for Days of our Lives List of Days of our Lives cast members; category is redundant and unnecessary.IrishLass (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as per the precedant of not cat'ing by cast of TV shows. Lugnuts (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete performer by performance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per all. LeSnail (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete obvious performer by performance category. Doczilla (talk) 08:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. This category and similar are all the work of User:Creepy Crawler, a rampant sock puppeteer who refuses to ever talk about things so she can improve. ThuranX (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment/question - if category is indeeded deleted as it appears it will be, will a bot remove the category or do I need to manually remove the category from the pages he put it on? And was does "and salt" mean?  "Delete and salt"? IrishLass (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * reply WP:SALT I think is the right explanation. It keeps edit warriors from making us lather, rinse, repeat. ThuranX (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * and to answer the other part of your question, when the discussion is closed, an admin will unleash a bot to do the boring bit, so no need for you to do anything else. BencherliteTalk 00:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. And I agree about salting this category after looking into the sock history of the afore mentioned Creepy Crawler aka EJ Banks, et al.  IrishLass (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as performer by performance. -- Beloved Freak  17:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:2008 Movistar Open

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was merge. Kbdank71 15:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 2008 movistar open
 * Merge into Category:Movistar Open, too few members to justify splitting up just yet. -- Prove It (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. Otto4711 (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into parent category per Prove It. -- Beloved Freak  18:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:Abandoned stations

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename to Category:Defunct railway stations. Kbdank71 15:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Abandoned stations to Category:Disused stations or Category:Defunct stations
 * Nominator's rationale:
 * Further comment from the nom: I have requested the input of the WikiProject Transport and the WikiProject Trains. A  ecis Brievenbus 23:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename but to what? The current name is ambiguous since there are abandoned police stations, fire stations and other types of stations.  Likewise this should not be a child of Category:Former buildings and structures by building type since being abandoned does not mean it is a former building meaning it no longer exists.  Something like Category:Disused rail stations might be  a reasonable alternative with Category:Defunct rail stations or Category:Former rail stations for those that no longer exist. So we probably want to split into two new categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The term used for those is railway station, so the category names would be Category:Disused railway stations, Category:Defunct railway stations and/or Category:Former railway stations. But the category also appears to include rapid transit stations, so I'm not sure confining it to railway stations is appropriate. A  ecis Brievenbus 21:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Are we in agreement that it needs to be split into multiple categories? I have no objection to the use of railway as opposed to rail.  However what is the correct name for rapid transit stations?  So do we also need Category:Disused rapid transit stations, Category:Defunct rapid transit stations and/or Category:Former rapid transit stations? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we are in agreement, yes. I think we need to separate the railway stations that no longer physically exist from the railway stations that are no longer being used as such. I also think that the focus of the category currently under discussion should be railway stations that are no longer being used as such. For such railway stations, I think the term disused or defunct would be most appropriate. A  ecis Brievenbus 23:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as the rapid transit stations categories are concerned, Category:Rapid transit stations is currently a daughter of Category:Railway stations. We could maintain that division here as well, by creating Category:Disused/Defunct/Former railway stations as a parent for i.a. Category:Disused/Defunct/Former rapid transit stations. A  ecis Brievenbus 23:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. So there is an agreement to split into 4 categories.  Defunct or former remains from this part of the discussion as the only question.  I lean to former.  This is a better term in my mind when they no longer exist and it matches Category:Former buildings and structures by building type. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that many of these stations still exist physically. See for instance Toyasaki Station and Kurikoma Station. Only a number of railway stations have been torn down, others have been turned into for instance houses and office space. A  ecis Brievenbus 00:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought Category:Disused foo was for the ones that still existed and were converted to another use. Former or defunct is was proposed for those that no longer exist. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This issue has certainly been discussed fully here before - re Australia I think. I think I favour "former", but would like to see the last debate. Johnbod (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename, if you wish, but please avoid 'defunct'. Here in the UK I have NEVER heard of a 'defunct' station of any kind. Disused, former, abandoned, redundant, closed even, but never 'defunct'. -- EdJogg (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename - We have a precedent in its subcategory Category:Disused railway stations in the United Kingdom. I would suggest that this be followed.  This may produce a complaint from the US where they would be "railroad stations", but that can be dealt with by moving the US items into a subcategory "Disused railway stations in the US".  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Defunct railway stations convention of Category:Former buildings and structures by building type. -- Prove It (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Defunct railway stations convention of Category:Former buildings and structures by building type. This is not to say that the subcategories can not be named in accordance with local usage as in Category:Disused railway stations in the United Kingdom or Category:Defunct railroad stations in the United States.  This does not prevent splitting out stations that are no longer used as a station but have found a new use into a new category. I think that trying to address all of this resulted in a lack of consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: it appears that we have a consensus to rename the category to Category:Defunct railway stations, so I recommend closing this CfR. A  ecis Brievenbus 00:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:Panic! at the Disco albums

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was nothing left to do, category empty and redirected. BencherliteTalk 00:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Panic! at the Disco albums to Category:Panic at the Disco albums
 * Nominator's rationale:

Comment: Perhaps this isn't necessary now; Mattbrundage has already edited the article according and placed a redirect (as I did earlier), as expressed here. Thanks, and sorry for any inconvenience incurred. Qwerty (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW, you could have listed this on the speedy renaming section anyway. Bearcat (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:Posthumous works

 * 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: WP:POINT nomination. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * posthumous works


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Speedy keep and speedy close per WP:POINT. Nominator, as evidenced by his comments here, does not believe that categorizing on the basis of being posthumous is overcategorization. This nomination is made in bad faith. Otto4711 (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I expect you to retract your delete votes in that discussion then, otherwise it is clear to me that you have no problem in applying content policies inconsistently to make a point as well. MickMacNee (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And it's clear to the rest of us that you have no problem applying logical fallacies. Bearcat (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy close as it appears to be WP:POINT and WP:GAME. Snocrates 21:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reality check - All I have done is restate the exact same arguments for deletion as stated for Category:Actors with posthumous work. Now those self same delete voters seem unwilling or unable to apply the same standards and policies to this category. It would be funny if it wasn't so utterly contemptible. MickMacNee (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If the nomination was sincere, perhaps we would express other opinions — I for one probably would. You are quite clearly "gaming" the system, which is why we refuse to treat it as a legitimate nomination. Snocrates 22:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As he did in the other debate, MickMacNee is making false parallels here. The other category is not analogous to this one — the appropriate analogy would be if there were categories for the individual writers who wrote the books listed in this one, the individual musicians who recorded the albums listed here, and on and so forth. But guess what — those categories don't exist. Being released posthumously can be a defining characteristic of the work; having unreleased work in the can is not a defining characteristic of the work's creator. (Notice the difference between the verbs "to be" and "to have"? Think a bit about the difference between categorizing on the basis of what something or someone is vs. categorizing on the basis of what something or someone has, and maybe you'll get why this was a false analogy.) Speedy close per WP:SNOW. Bearcat (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oliver Reed died while filming Gladiator; Gladiator is a posthumous work of Oliver Reed. I fail to see the difference. Both are defining. In fact one definition cannot even exist without the other, you cannot get a clearer relationship than that, either both are equally defining, or neither are. MickMacNee (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not so. Gladiator is a posthumous work. Oliver Reed had an unreleased film in the can when he died. What we have doesn't define us — you'll find very few, if any, categories on Wikipedia for which the topic-to-category relationship is based on what something or someone has. A defining characteristic is one for which the topic-to-category relationship is based on what the topic is. (And no, "topic is someone who has..." is not a valid way to dodge that distinction, either.) Bearcat (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment A good explanation has been provided by Bearcat for why someone might disagree with you, MickMacNee, the lack of which you seem to have been lamenting before. Hopefully the explanation provided can illustrate to you that others can disagree and have a reasoned basis for doing so. Now, since we have established that you disagree and we're well aware of the bases for the disagreement, is this nomination serious and are you backing it, or was it to prove a point and continue the discussion that began elsewhere? Snocrates 00:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see that explanation as anything more than hair splitting. Actors who have posthumous works can easily be rephrased Actors who died while filming. I suspect there are plenty of categories of the form Actors who have..., i.e appeared in, won this, achieved that etc etc, but as we know, quoting OSE is a no no. Therefore the nomination stands for me, it's none or both in my eyes. MickMacNee (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep based on the distinction drawn by Bearcat. Being a posthumous work can be defining for a work. Being an actor who appears in a work released after his/her death is almost always not. Snocrates 02:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oliver Reed died while filming Gladiator - So by the statement above, this one event defines Gladiator, but not Reed? I seriously don't see it, and I think most film historians, actor biographers and film critics wouldn't either, let alone normal readers. This is from the non-defining section of OCAT: In general, categorize by what may be considered notable in a person's life, such as his or her career, origin and major accomplishments. In contrast, someone's tastes in food, their favorite holiday destination, or the number of tattoos they have may be considered trivial. Such things may be interesting information for an article, but not useful for categorization. If something could be easily left out of a biography, it is likely not a defining characteristic. Notable in his career: Yes, Trivial event:No, Would not be left out of a biography: Yes. That is the policy. MickMacNee (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say being posthumous was defining for all works, nor did anyone else. I agree that it is not defining for Gladiator. (It's not currently in the nominated category.) Just because an article can technically qualify to be included in a category doesn't mean it should be added. I'm aware of the policies and have expressed my opinion on the nomination. We've also heard your opinion. I suggest we hear what others have to say in order to gain a consensus. Snocrates 03:48, 25 January 2008 (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.

Category:Nepal Army Involved Peace Missions

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was relisted on jan 30. Kbdank71 15:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * nepal army involved peace missions


 * Nominator's rationale:
 * The above seemed a sound enough reason for a speedy delete. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think it qualifies for speedy for any reason. Snocrates 22:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:Ca$hville Records

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Ca$hville Records to Category:Cashville Records
 * Propose renaming Category:Ca$hville Records artists to Category:Cashville Records artists
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Rename per nom. Snocrates 21:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per MoS:TM. -- Beloved Freak  18:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:Aqua Teen Hunger Force characters

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * aqua teen hunger force characters


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Speedy delete It's been empty for more than a month then. LeSnail (talk) 04:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WP:SPEEDY. Empty for longer than four days. -- Beloved Freak  18:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:Hamlets in the Town of Fallsburg

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was relisted on jan 30. Kbdank71 15:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * hamlets in the town of fallsburg


 * Nominator's rationale:


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

Category:Gay icons
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete and salt. Kbdank71 15:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * gay icons


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Delete per nom and as recreation of a much-deleted category (e.g. this 2006 discussion). BencherliteTalk 01:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by the logs. It looks like the category was salted and then User:Centrx unprotected it?  Why would they do that? LeSnail (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Salting generally isn't meant to remain in place permanently — a salted page is usually unprotected and deleted once it's at least reasonable to expect that the likelihood of recreation has passed. Bearcat (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would it seem like the "likelihood of recreation" had passed? I can understand such a temporary salting for something that is in the news at the moment, but with something like this, there will always be a likelihood of recreation, and we will be perpetually deleting it. LeSnail (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion log For a few people here, their status as gay icons is a central characteristic of their notability, like Quentin Crisp, Judy Garland and...hey! where's Bette Midler? But one of the reasons this was deleted the first eleventeen times was that beyond the inclusion of a few no-brainers it gets very subjective and starts devolving into "any celebrity who has three or more openly gay fans in the blogosphere". Frex, does Patti Smith belong here? Henry Rollins? John Goodman? David Beckham? Christopher Meloni? Hawksley Workman? Madeleine Albright (who, believe it or not, once ranked quite highly in an Advocate poll of the celebrities most admired by gay men)? Every last one of those people has far more gay fans than anybody not familiar with gay culture would think...and yet virtually none of them are defined by that fact in any significant way. Similarly, while the 13 people currently included here obviously have documentable gay fan bases, that fact isn't a defining characteristic of most of their careers. (Lucille Ball? Come on. I'm gay and that's news to me...but then again, my icons are John K. Samson and Neko Case, so what the screw do I know?) Delete, even if only as a G4. Bearcat (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - any such category that doesn't include Gloria Gaynor is obviously too subjective. --Lquilter (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Well put. LeSnail (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just for the record...
 * 18:20, March 1, 2007 Centrx (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Category:Gay icons" ‎ (content was: '{tl|{deletedcategory}}')
 * 20:53, July 18, 2006 Nlu (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Category:Gay icons" ‎ (G4 content before blanking was: 'Category:Idols')
 * 04:17, June 28, 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Category:Gay icons" ‎ ({{tl{deletedpage}} doesn't really work on category pages)
 * 11:50, May 13, 2006 Doc glasgow (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Category:Gay icons" ‎ (G4 recreatuion)
 * 05:52, May 6, 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Category:Gay icons" ‎ (Dead cat)
 * Comment: as another example of what I mean, I reviewed the previously-deleted talk page, and there were inclusion debates about Rod Roddy, Meg Ryan, Rod Stewart, Nicole Kidman, Spongebob Squarepants, Eva Peron and Rowan Atkinson, among others. In other words: one passing cartoon fad, one person who's only a gay icon if having been fictionalized in a Broadway musical counts, four who undoubtedly have some gay fans but aren't in any way disproportionately popular among my kind than they are in straightworld, and Rod Roddy (whom I sincerely doubt has ever been idolized or iconized by anybody of any sexual orientation whatsoever.) So basically it was a category of passing fads, current pop culture figures and gag entries. Oh, and now that I think about it, I remember that at one point there was an inclusion debate about Mr. Clean, as well. Yes, the one on the detergent bottle. Seriously. Bearcat (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I can totally see Mr. Clean at the Folsom Street Fair. --Lquilter (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - I was just looking at this one earlier tonight before going out to dinner. Agree with all that's been said re inclusion criteria and subjectivity. One of the people currently included in the category has previously been actively and vocally homophobic (although she may have reformed by now). And honey, please, anyone who considers Lucille Ball a gay icon after what she did to Mame needs to turn in his gay card this minute. Otto4711 (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as G4 and salt? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; too subjective. (By the way, Vegaswikian, I don't think salting does anything but make another page, still with the articles at the bottom of the page. Right?) Qwerty (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That may be correct. However at that point it can be emptied by any editor without discussion. I also suspect that this could be a vandal warning if it appears that an editor is aware of this and puts articles into the category anyway.  Vegaswikian (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete ugh, not again..... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. Way too subjective. -- Beloved Freak  18:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


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