Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 31



Category:Haideotriton

 * 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. Kbdank71 13:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * haideotriton


 * Nominator's rationale: Genus contained only one species, and genus itself is now placed in another genus. Dyanega (talk) 20:41, 31 July 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:Summer Paralympics

 * 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: merge per nom.  A glance at Category:Summer Paralympics shows that all of the articles deal with the 2008 games, and a simple merge this way means that no other work needs to be done (great idea by the anon and Grutness, though). Kbdank71 13:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Summer Paralympics to Category:2008 Summer Paralympics
 * Nominator's rationale: All articles in the cat are specifically regarding the 2008 Summer Paralympics. There is already a category for Summer Paralympics in general at Category:Summer Paralympic Games, which nicely matches the corresponding Olympic category (Category:Summer Olympic Games) — jwillbur 20:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment don't you mean that Sumer Paralympics should be merged with Summer Paralympic Games, and currently improperly categorized 2008 articles should be recat? 70.51.9.224 (talk) 04:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the anon, here (a rarity on XfD pages, I'll admit). This sounds more like a case of merging to and re-sorting. Grutness...wha?  01:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * All of the articles in should be recategorized into, not . I could move them all by hand then tag the Summer Paralympics cat for speedy deletion as empty, but.. isn't that what CfD is for? — jwillbur 05:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It may seem more of an exercise in semantics than anything else, since the result would currently be the same, but there is technically difference between merging A and B as subsets of C (your proposal) and merging A and C and recategorising everything from A into B (the counterproposal). If more articles relating to other games (e.g., 2012 Summer Paralympics) were placed in before the completion of this CfD process, then your original proposal might result in them being wrongly categorised; the counterproposal ensures that they wouldn't be. Grutness...wha?  00:09, 5 August 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:SAARC Nations

 * 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 as duplicate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * saarc nations


 * Nominator's rationale: Seems to be a duplication of Category:South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation member states Россавиа Диалог 19:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Its 3 articles are already in Category:South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation member states. Occuli (talk) 19:48, 31 July 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:People from Trelleborgs

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


 * The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Trelleborgs to Category:People from Trelleborg
 * Nominator's rationale: The city is called Trelleborg, not Trelleborgs. 86.167.85.250 (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This qualifies for Speedy Renaming. Cgingold (talk) 20:05, 31 July 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:Sports festivals hosted in Czech Republic

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


 * The result of the discussion was: rename to add "the".  As for removing "hosted", while I agree, it seems to be redundant, there are 123 other categories named the same way in Category:Sports festivals by host country.  As such, an umbrella nom for them all is probably in order. Kbdank71 13:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Sports festivals hosted in Czech Republic to Category:Sports festivals hosted in the Czech Republic
 * Nominator's rationale: This is in an effort to make it more consistent among sports festivals. Event it is called Czech Republic, most people pronounce it with "the" preceding the country Chris (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Rename. This nom shouldn't even appear here. - Darwinek (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not an objection to this nomination since this matches the other categories.  But why do these names include 'hosted'?  What is wrong with names like Category:Sports festivals in the Czech Republic? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree and support removing the seemingly redundant word "hosted" from this and any similar categories. — CharlotteWebb 14:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - There are many sporting events and festivals that occur in different countries throughout a sport's history whether it be luge, flatwater canoeing, athletics, badminton, etc. You may want to keep the "hosted" part in the respective country. Chris (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But if the event is in the country, there is no need to say hosted. That is clear from the title.  Vegaswikian (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was just bringing up the "hosted" idea as a suggestion. Chris (talk) 20:09, 5 August 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:Deputy Lieutenants of Southampton

 * 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: merge. Kbdank71 13:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Deputy Lieutenants of Southampton to Category:Deputy Lieutenants of Hampshire
 * Nominator's rationale: Hampshire is formally known as the County of Southampton, and is so printed in the London Gazette. However, usual practice is to refer to Lord-Lieutenants, Deputy Lieutenants, etc. of the county as being "of Hampshire". The two categories should be merged under the Hampshire name Choess (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge although only one article even mentions Deputy Lieutenant and that is not sourced (unless I have missed something). Occuli (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge This is the usual name for the county. I assume that there are no DL for the city of Southampton.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:10, 31 July 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:Bridges and tunnels that are Registered Historic Places

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


 * The result of the discussion was: no consensus.  As discussed, if there are other like categories that could be renamed, an umbrella nomination is probably a good idea. Kbdank71 13:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Bridges and tunnels that are Registered Historic Places to Category:Bridges and tunnels on the National Register of Historic Places
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Old name is incorrect syntax - not recognized by National Park Service. New name is correct. Appraiser (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per National Register of Historic Places. I would prefer United States to be added to the category description(s) - US isn't mentioned in the parent cats either. Also quite a number of related categories use Registered Historic Places, which is a redirect. (Canada also has a Register of Historic Places.) Occuli (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment:We're aware of the related categories - still coming to consensus wrt their new names here. I'm OK with inserting "United States" prior to "National".--Appraiser (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: As Appraiser has noted, this is just one of a large batch of potential renames discussed at WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRHP renaming proposals. All of the proposals should be addressed as a group. Unless some other country calls its official list the "National Register of Historic Places", the inclusion of "United States" is extraneous. --Orlady (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The other proposals are not listed and thus cannot be addressed here. I asked for United States to be included in the category description, not in the name (which is already somewhat cumbersome). However, New Zealand has a Register of Historic Places as does Canada, Canadian Register of Historic Places, and it seems to me that there is potential ambiguity. I am sure you would agree that Category:Bridges and tunnels on the Register of Historic Places is ambiguous; and adding National doesn't seem to me to make a decisive difference. So I would now suggest adding (United States) both to the article name and to the category name, for clarity. Occuli (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To be candid, I think this particular proposal should be withdrawn until the whole bundle of related proposals is ready to be brought to CfD as a group. If you have opinions, it would be useful if you shared them at WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRHP renaming proposals. Also see the prior discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. --Orlady (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the title is awkward but disagree with the nominator's rationale, "Old name is incorrect syntax - not recognized by National Park Service." We have documented numerous cases of "Registered Historic Places" being used by NPS writers (although downcasing) when writing for external audiences in budget proposals and travel itinerary websites.  We have a need for the Proper Noun version of that phrase. And, the internal NPS or state SHPO jargon is probably not appropriate for general wikipedia usage, containing implicit assumption that the nation involved must be the U.S. which makes sense internally but is U.S. centric in wikipedia articles.  I also thought there was consensus at wt:NRHP to discuss the whole batch there or in the NRHP renaming proposals subpage. doncram (talk) 03:01, 5 August 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:Ethan Kath related

 * 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. –Black Falcon (Talk) 01:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * ethan kath related


 * Nominator's rationale: Category for a non-notable musician Sceptre (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete at least until Ethan Kath gets an article (rather than a redirect). The template is also tenuous, linking together 2 whole articles. Occuli (talk) 16:17, 31 July 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:Women's media and publications

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


 * The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

women's media and publications
 * Rename to Category:Women's media. This one is very simple: "media and publications" is redundant, since "media" already includes "publications". Moreover, the rename is consistent with all of the other sub-cats of .  Cgingold (talk) 12:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename seems fine to me, although I don't have a problem with combinatorial names, either. --Lquilter (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, nothing wrong with combinatorial names per se, the rename simply brings it in line with other similar cats. (Note: Lquilter was the creator of this category.) Cgingold (talk) 20:10, 31 July 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:Boxer Rebellion American ships

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


 * The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Boxer Rebellion American ships to Category:Boxer Rebellion naval ships of the United States
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. To fit into current naming style of "Foobian War naval ships of Foobia".  — Bellhalla (talk) 12:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support per nom, fits the standard naming style. Parsecboy (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per above. --Brad (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * rename per nom. I created the category; now the new name is better in that is matches other names in the parent cat Hmains (talk) 02:18, 1 August 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:Mononymous entertainers

 * 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, per overcat, precedence (see porn stars listing below) and as Sam points out, recreation of deleted material . Kbdank71 13:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * mononymous entertainers


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization by coincidence of name format. That an entertainer uses one name or two names or three names is not a defining characteristic. We have previously deleted such categories as People known by first name only and People known by single-name pseudonym. A subset of a deleted category should also be deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Postdlf (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Soman (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Is Category:Mononymous persons any different? Occuli (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No it isn't but its recent CFD just closed no consensus a few days ago. Otto4711 (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as long as we have Category:Mononymous persons, whose CFD was recently closed with no consensus (as a keep). This category should be retained as a subcategory of Category:Mononymous persons, with entertainers being transferred from that category to this one.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the difference between this and the deleted categories for people known by one name pseudonyms and people known by first name? Where is the literature that suggests that going by a single name is a significant area of study? What is the encyclopedic relationship between, say, Barbette, an American drag queen trapeze artist from the 1920s, and Shazza, a Polish pop singer? Otto4711 (talk) 01:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if the parent category "Mononymous persons" is kept (which it shouldn't be), I still don't see an argument for intersecting that with occupation instead of merging. Postdlf (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as per what Peterkingiron said. Asarelah (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Category:Mononymous persons should have be deleted. It is a recreation of a previously deleted category.  Sorry I missed that discussion.  The deletion discussion for the previous incarnation was here.  I would have no problem with these categories becoming lists.  If we are to have a category for monoymous people, I see no reason at all to intersect them with professions.  (This would be possible in a list).  We need clearer guidelines that explain the advantages and disadvantages of lists and categories. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 06:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Category:Mononymous persons was (rightly) kept, and this is a necessary subset of the parent category.  It is necessary to keep the parent category to a manageable size. Neıl</B>  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#936">  ☄   10:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, per reasons stated above. Nihil novi (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Peterkingiron argument. The relation of the mononymous persons category to the people known by one name pseudonyms and people known by first name is valid, but the decision not to delete (i.e. no consensus) should be seen as an overturning of those previous deletions. These things happen in Wikipedia, consensus sways. __meco (talk) 09:07, 6 August 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:Beginners and newcomers
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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: Withdrawn. Per suggestion, better to let this nomination die with a later rename after cleanup to focus on people by status. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * beginners and newcomers


 * Nominator's rationale: Simply a mishmash of various articles. It includes military ranks and descriptions that can apply to every type of job.  Clearly these are not occupations. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - You're quite right, VW. But I can see what the idea was for this category. Suppose we clean it up, rename it slightly, take it out of, and make it a sub-cat of Category:People by status? Cgingold (talk) 07:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:24, 31 July 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:Solomon Islander football clubs
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 12:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Solomon Islander football clubs to Category:Solomon Islands football clubs
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Solomon Islands is the correct adjectival demonym - the current name is equivalent to "Frenchman football clubs". Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  06:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename. WP:FOOTY should be notified to achieve stronger feedback. - Darwinek (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per everything else in Category:Football in the Solomon Islands. Occuli (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. A similar discussion was had in the past, with the result of changing "Solomon Islander" to "Solomon Islands". See 2008 FEB 8. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:39, 31 July 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:Mononymous porn actors
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Per discussion, this is classic overcategorization.  Plus, as Otto points out, there is precedence in the deletion of Category:People known by first name only and Category:People known by single-name pseudonyms here.  Fianlly, Category:Mononymous persons wasn't kept, it was closed as no consensus . . Kbdank71 12:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Mononymous porn actors to Category:Mononymous porn stars
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency. The term used in WP categories is "porn stars"; the parent is Category:Porn stars and all of the subcategories use "porn stars" too. (Not that I have an in-depth knowledge about this category tree or anything ... you know, a "friend" told me. Yeah ... that's the ticket.)  Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree I created the category, and its perfectly fine with me. Asarelah (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Rationale makes perfect sense to me. • Gene93k (talk) 09:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - overcategorization by coincidence of name format. That a porn star goes by one name or two names or three names is not a defining characteristic. We have previously deleted categories for people known by a single name and people known by single-name pseudonyms; a subset of a deleted cat should also be deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 12:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Otto4711. --Soman (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Otto4711. Postdlf (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Otto4711. Occuli (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment (nom). Deletion is fine with me. I haven't kept up too well on the precedents of categories for these types of things, so I wasn't sure, but I'm glad Otto4711 is around to make a stronger argument I can agree with. (... mind you, it would have been nice to have the category around for my "friend's" use, but oh well ... .) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Category:Mononymous persons was (rightly) kept at CFD, and this article is a necessary subset to avoid the parent category being deluged. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#963"><B>Neıl</B>  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#936">  ☄   10:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Neil. Nihil novi (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do the "keep"s really mean "keep", or do they mean "rename"? Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mind the category being renamed, but I would certainly object to it being deleted. Note this CFD was initially to rename the category, not delete it. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#963"><B>Neıl</B>  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#936">  ☄   10:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This deletion discussion is being conducted under false pretenses. I looked at the category page, and there was a notice there saying that there was a discussion about renaming the category, which I didn't find the need to occupy myself with. Now, by accident, I find out that the disussion is about deleting the category. Also, why isn't this discussion being merged with the above discussion on deleting Category:Mononymous entertainers? Isn't it glaringly obvious that these two have to be dealt with together, as one? If the outcomes are at variance there will have to be an immediate renewed discussion which means that the present discussions taking place will be a mere waste of time. I move to have this discussion annulled and merged with the aforementioned discussion, and to have that renewed (i.e. extending the timeframe). __meco (talk) 10:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I second the motion. Nihil novi (talk) 10:43, 6 August 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:ABS-CBN Celebrities
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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) 21:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * abs-cbn celebrities


 * Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Plus it seems the category creator is a fanboy. Take a look at this edit. -- Howard  the   Duck  00:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - It's no surprise that the creator is the same editor who created Category:Celebrity endorsers in the Philippines, which is also at CFD at this moment. (I might also note that his user page has a notice of suspected sockpuppetry.) But the real issue here is that we simply don't categorize people merely for being generic "celebrities" -- is fundamentally a container category with sub-cats for particular types of celebrities. Cgingold (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fancrufty category.  Even though certain number of celebrities are "tied" to a particular Philippine television station (either ABS-CBN or GMA Network), majority of Filipino celebrities are "bound" to a network only on a per-project basis.  Sheryl Cruz, for instance, can be a "Kapuso Artist" (pertaining to GMA) but then transfers to ABS-CBN after her drama series on the former network ends.  Once that happens, she is now a "Certified Kapamilya" (pertaining to ABS-CBN). Starczamora (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * delete per OCAT.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 10:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as performer by venue overcategorization. We don't categorize people by the networks on which they have appeared. Otto4711 (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per OCAT etc. Occuli (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Per User:Cgingold. I want to create Category:GMA celebrities if this is permitted. --Efe (talk) 05:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, overkill category (i.e. for the same reason I'm voting for a "delete" in the "celebrity endorsers" category". --- Tito Pao (talk) 09:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above statements.. :) --Axxand (talk) 16:26, 5 August 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.