Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 11



16th-century Italian rabbis

 * 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: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Category:16th-century Italian rabbis
 * Nominators trational This is the type of three part coincident categories that we generally discorage. I would also say that the creation of the category was essentially of a role to disrupt currently pending CfD proceedings.  There is a currently pending debate that at heart has its question as "do we need to sub-divide the 16th-century rabbis category".  There is no clear consensus on the issue, so until we have a clear decision that we need to divide the rabbis category there seems to be no reason to do it.  The Italian rabbi category is also not a clear candidate for division, and probably also should not be divided until we reach a clear decision that it should be divided.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. While discouraged, they are permitted. The debate referred to above concerns a different region of the world - Palestine. That need not deter us from debating a different region here. There are too many entries in the parent category to make it useable. Some subdivision is warranted. This is as good a basis for division as any other. There are sufficient entries in the category to justify its continuance. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The other category cited, relating to "Palestinian" rabbis, under discussion here, is far more intricate that indicated and the question at the heart of the discussion is not "do we need to sub-divide the 16th-century rabbis category?", but revolves primarily around the use of the evotive term "Palestine". There is clear justification for the retention of this category, as a single category "16th-century rabbis" would be too wide. Davshul (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2011 (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.

Women comedians

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Category:Women comedians
 * Nominators rationale It seems that the policy on gender categories would reccomend against this category. We do not have Category:Actresses so I see no reason we should seperate comedians by gender.  My baisc guess would be that gender is more inportant in the case of actors/actresses than in the case of comedians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, this category was kept at a CfD two years ago, Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_22, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The previous discussion clearly did not delve into why the glaring precedent to not have this category I brought up. It was also very far from unanimous, and no one seemed to have a clear answer as to why we have the category but lack the article Female comedy.  It is also interesting that the closing administrator had been a participant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A comment about a related discussion is far from being a participant and then that point was disclosed at the time of the close and no one objected. So I don't see why you are raising that close as an issue now, two years later. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Female comedy is a different issue than female comedians. Female comedy suggests issues that surround female life. Female comedians are women who are of a certain gender. Why would we have an article about a woman's comedic material when we can address it on her bio? --Shakesomeaction (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per the strong keep arguments in the previous discussion. Occuli (talk) 00:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I'm not convinced that it's particularly notable that a comedian be female. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes this is notable. Comedy is a male-dominated field and there is not only social proof of that when turning on the television to watch American cable channel Comedy Central but even evidenced in this printed work, which says exactly what every woman working in comedy knows: "female comedians (...) often had trouble being as successful as male comedians because of cultural restraints that governed their reception in more public venues." This has been an issue that female comedians have had for centuries, and just because we are in the 21st century does not mean that problem has gone away. Change takes a very long time. Yes it's a keep due to the fact that this minority group should get special recognition for their efforts, and it is definitely of interest to women researchers like myself. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - based on the actor/actress principle, that one does not wish to create the impression that there are Comedians and Women Comedians. If one were to change the rule that would prevent us from having Male comedians, female comedians (and presumably Transgendered comedians) that might be different. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. A good deal of the argument for retaining this is that some group is disadvantaged or that some other group dominates some field. That argument leads to categories like this being based on exclusion of other groups which is not a reason to categorize.  The slippery slope that this leads us down is to have categories for transgendered individuals all over and how about midget comedians (Chuy Bravo)?  If this is deleted (or even if kept?) we also need to delete Category:Male comedians. Categories are not based on notability which is a concept for articles.  Comedians are more appropriately categorized by their comedic field. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2011 (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:Christmas number-one albums in the United Kingdom

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * christmas number-one albums in the united kingdom


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. There are no other number-one albums categories, which have regularly been deleted by consensus in other CFDs, such as WP:CFD/2006 Jul 15, WP:CFD/2007 Jun 27, and WP:CFD/2010 Mar 7, which suggests lists being better than categorization for these purposes. Since this is the recommendation for an obvious parent category, this should follow along the same lines of reasoning. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per precendent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete As non-defining. I think the UK no.1 Christmas single is defining, but not the album.  Lugnuts  (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2011 (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:Non-fiction printed works about abortion

 * 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: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Non-fiction printed works about abortion to Category:Non-fiction literature about abortion
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename per parent Category:Non-fiction literature. I was going to speedy this, then thought that some might wish to upmerge to Category:Abortion in non-fiction, so I brought it here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We should leave this seperate from the documentary films cat. If we merge them we will then have to put everything in both these cats in the parent either documentary film or literature cat and so will increase the number of cats for all these items.  We should just change the name of this cat and not mess with the cat tree.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename as nominated; as John says, the head category covers multiple media. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2011 (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:Telecommunications buildings on the National Register of 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: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Telecommunications buildings on the National Register of Historic Places to Category:Telecommunication buildings on the National Register of Historic Places
 * Nominator's rationale: The plural of "Telecommunication building" is "Telecommunication buildings" and not "Telecommunications buildings". Sir Armbrust  Talk to me  Contribs  12:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Disagree: The main category is Telecommunications not Telecommunication, hence Category:Telecommunications companies etc. This is because there are several forms of Telecommunications eg telephone, telegraph, telex etc. Hugo999 (talk) 04:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The singular is telecommunications building.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2011 (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:African American women

 * 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: administrative close: discussions have been irretrievably tainted by inappropriate off-site canvassing. I suggest a renomination after a cooling-off period. I have opened a discussion of this issue at the Administrators' noticeboard here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * african american women


 * ispanic and latino american women


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete as per WP:Cat/gender. Same rationale as seen at Category:American women of Argentine descent. If not deleted, it should be purged and serve as a category for sub categories only. Nymf hideliho! 07:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you seriously not get why these categories have relevance?? And when I tried to create subcategories you nominated them for deletion. Because these pages are about women of ethnic diversity who mostly live in North America, it's largely important to recognize their culture. This is a US issue, sure. I don't know how people feel about recognizing ethnicity and culture throughout the rest of the world, but people where here in the US would find these categories very useful for research, especially those researching woman's contribution to society and the role diversity plays in it. Either I can break down the category as I tried to do, but you nominated those for deletion, or I lump every person of Hispanic and Latin heritage into one group, which is culturally insensitive, but this seems to be preferred by most Wiki members. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not a matter of lumping them into one category, but that they should not be separated into men and women, unless the gender has a specific relation to the topic. The guidelines are clear about this. Nymf hideliho! 10:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Several people in this post, including myself, came to a consensus to create the African American women category in the first place. I feel like this is a sort of passive attack, since you have nominated all the categories I have created relating to American ethnicities. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not the one setting guidelines. Please assume good faith. Nymf hideliho! 10:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's hard to assume good faith when you suggested a group of categories I created, which ultimately seemed reasonable, and then nominated the other categories I created in less than 24 hours after nominating the others. Also I am not creating a separate men's category. Are you even reading why the issue of having women's categories in these instances is important? You may not find that women's categories relates to the subject at all, but they very much do. I created these categories so that research would be far more easier for people when looking up the history of women of color. To say the category does not not relate to the topic at hand is dismissing all the accomplishments women of color have made. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is it that African American women should have a category, but not African American men? Japanese women? Japanese men? Swedish women? German women? Afghanistan men? Do you see the dilemma? The guidelines pertaining to this specific topic is in place for a reason. Nymf hideliho! 17:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have explained to you why women deserve a category of their own. I have explained, in several previous posts, why women of color deserved to be recognized in their own categories. Women are considered a social minority group of their own and are still slighted in many modern nations--even by women themselves. They have been slighted in the past in almost all cultures--in many they have been slaves. Women of color have a right to be recognized because they worked very hard for their achievements. If you do not understand why this relates, then this is clearly your misunderstanding of history. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't buy it. Are you saying that Asian people haven't been slighted? Even Asian men? or African American men? It is certainly not a neutral point of view, or even a real rationale for these categories. Nymf hideliho! 19:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Asian people are people of color. The categories I had created that you nominated are a slow process that I have been working on over a month. I just started on the Hispanic and Latino American women category. To suggest that I am leaving out a certain ethnic group because I am focusing on one at a time is absolutely absurd. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What about Swedish men and women, who has been slighted as being promiscuous for decades, and speaking funny? Do they deserve their own category? Do you intend to create a category for men in these categories that you have already created? How slighted does one have to be to get their own category? What about Caucasian American women who has been slighted by the African American community? Is this American centric only? How neutral is that? Nymf hideliho! 20:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Swedish people feeling slighted because they talk funny is a little different than African Americans being in fear of their life because they will be murdered due to their skin color. Of course it's American centric, it's an American category. If I lived in Europe, I'd be editing European stuff I understood about. Stop trying to derail this and make it about you. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view/FAQ Nymf hideliho! 20:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Women should only be subdivided where their being women is clearly important and distinctive.  This is not the case in race/ethnicity categories.  This rule probably should be interpreted to limit women/female categories to profession categories.  It makes sense to have Category:Female African American models because the role, function and perception of female models is so closely connected with their gender.  It makes sense to have Category:Female heads of government since there are few of these and so their being female enters into their role.  It does not makes sense to have these categories.  There is no reason that these should exist but the male equivalent cats should not, and there is no reason to have both.  It will either lead to people being put in more categories, which is not needed in most cases, or to even smaller categories as sub cats of these, which we do not need.  It is not a question of deserving a cateory, it is a question of usefulness.  The most clear divisions of Hispanic and Latino American people are by Mexican, Guatemalan, Puerto Rican, Cuban and so forth.  Any category that groups people across these lines needs to have a strong common basis, and being women is not such.  I really think we should adopt a rule that "women categories should only be used in occupation categories (broadly defined as what someone did, not neccesarily what they made money at, that is someone who is a notable female writer who never got paid for it is still in an occupation cat) and not in non-occupational categories.  Even in occupational categories there needs to be a clear reason to seperate women in that field."John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. We do not seperate actors by gender.  There is no reason to seperate racial or ethnic populations by gender.  Gender is clearly a more important factor with actors, and yet since we do not do it there we should not do it here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. It appears that this category was created because a relevant list was too unruly.  Well that is a poor reason to create a category.  Categories need to be created because they have encyclopedic relevance.  As I have said I fully will support Category:African American female models, but a general African American women category is not needed.  I would also point out that not only do you not own anything in wikipedia, but categories are ways to group things.  We are not suggesting any article be deleted, only that there are better ways to group the articles together that have better chances of being useful.  Unless you think that Oprah and Condolezza Rice can adequately be said to belong in the same category because they happen to be the same race and the same gender there is no reason for this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Looking at the rules about Category:Women and Category:Men, I see no reason why Category:African American women should be allowed to contain articles on individual people if Category:Women does not.  If this category is not deleted it should be changed to contain articles that discuss the history and sociology of African American women as a group, and have all individual biography articles removed.  However I still think we should just delete the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The fact that Secretary Rice, the African American women to hold the highest office in the US government of any African American women ever, without no debate on this proposition even possible, is not in the category shows that it is seriously lacking in content and probably shows that the idea of creating such a category is unworkable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see what's so strange about a collection of women of historical relevence with race and gender as a commonality. It would be incredibly useful, for me and for many others to be able to access a diverse list of women of color who are relevent for different reasons. If I want to find remarkable African American Women, I don't want to have to sift through a list of women in general. This would be very helpful when it came to gender studies/women's history research, not to mention a great source for young women of all races. They make print encyclopedias about women and even women of color. I don't see why Wikipedia has to be behind the times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.144.95 (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Keep". I believe that categories for women of color will be very useful. Women's Studies does not relate only to the achievements of white women, and these categories can be a good resource for research. When women of color, such as Condoleezza Rice or Aung San Suu Kyi make significant accomplishments, whether they intend it or not, it makes a statement about both their race and their gender. These cases are subtly different from those of white women, and so should have their own category to facilitate ease of research--and to be a resource for young women of color who are looking for role models. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.108.87 (talk • contribs)
 * KEEP. Women's history is difficult enough to find information on if one is doing research in that field, but it is even more difficult if you want to learn about women of color. And much like the unsigned comment above me, there are print encyclopedias on women of color, so Wikipedia should be making information like that accessible as possible to those scholars and budding scholars who need it for whatever reason. --Caterfree10 (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Love how IPs and users who hasn't edited for 7 months are popping up. Nymf hideliho! 20:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow I love that these people are coming up with REALLY GOOD POINTS. Wikipedia really is in the past in this debate, that much is clear. You can cite rules and tattle to Wikipedia all you want, but it is clear a large amount of people feel this way--no matter what way they find the page. I wonder what rule you will cite next. Make sure to know how to let Wikipedia guide you so you don't have to use your own opinion! --Shakesomeaction (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW this is a kicking and screaming issue to me. Obviously there is no possible way you will understand how diversity and American women's history is important to me, that has been made clear. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Keep". To delete this page would remove an easily accessible page for those who want to know about women of color and their accomplishments.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.168.8 (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * KEEP. Categories for women of color are useful in many circumstances, not the least being educational research. Such a category would be helpful on the college level as well as lower levels. I would personally use this category in my own studies and frankly have always wondered why it did not exist. It seems as though the brand-newness of this category is being used against it, which is both short-sighted and strange. Pointing out the absence of one woman within a category so new as proof that it is unworkable is illogical. The category cannot be more properly rounded out unless it is kept and others are permitted to add to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.247.38 (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Keep". Women's history is often not recognized in typical textbooks, schools, and even college classes.  This list would be useful and important, as marginalized groups should be recognized for their achievements.  Gender is very much important here, as these are historical figures that are often overlooked or ignored in traditional education.  The list is not too broad, it has relevance and will be immensely useful.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.255.82 (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

”’Keep”’. Women of Color categories need their own section because women in general are a minoritized group (yes, biological sex IS sadly an important factor here), but add in that they are female AND PEOPLE OF COLOR** and you come up with a minoritized group that's EVEN MORE minoritized. Categories like these give minoritized groups a voice -- a voice that they really need to have, in whatever and however many forms necessary, so that the majority will listen and will be aware (and consequently (hopefully) will stop oppressing, directly or indirectly, the minoritized groups). The U.S.A. needs this especially because of all the issues surrounding sexism, racism, civil rights, social issues, etc. Note that we aren't claiming the U.S. is just the only country to have this problem, it just so happens the one who created this category lives, and has experience, in the U.S. Person-who-wants-this-deleted, if you want to create separate categories for all those other groups you mentioned and care about, then please do go ahead. Nobody's stopping you. But don't try to stop other people from trying to inform the public about the (minoritized) group they care about. Specificity of categories in a research site such as Wikipedia is also NOT a bad thing; it actually helps researchers find what they're looking for. (**Also, women of color = African American women, Hispanic & Latino American women, Asian American women, Indian (Asian Sub-Continent) American women, Native/First Nation American women, etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.213.125 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment there is some serious canvassing going on here, see this, this, this and this link. Nymf hideliho! 21:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Screenshot 1, screenshot 2, and screenshot 3 and screenshot 4 in case the posts are deleted. Nymf hideliho! 21:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Hey you know, if I am banned from Wiki for this issue, so be it--this is an important issue. I have not told any of these people what to say, they are all giving their own specific reasons for why they believe this category should be kept. Also those were public posts made in my personal blog that were reblogged by a friend. If you find other things that were publicly reblogged, then pull out the rule book and start citing, honey. I know you have them memorized by heart. (Ohhh she changed the links after I posted this. Got it.) --Shakesomeaction (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2011 (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:American People of Mexican-Jewish descnet

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Category:American people of Mexican-Jewish descent
 * Nominators Rationale There is only one person in this category and one sub cat, the later up for deltion. The one person here is also in Category:Mexican Jews and Category:American Jews since she emigrated to the US from Mexico.  Calling somone born in Mexico as a Jew (at least by some meausres) of "Mexican-Jewish descent" seems odd.  So we have no person clearly illustrating why the cat is needed.  Beyond this the whole mixture of American plus Mexican-Jewish is odd.  It might make sense in cases like Russian-Jewish where the Jews were clearly not treated as Russians but as a seperate ethnic group and there is a long history, but we do not have this in Mexico.  Most of the people who end up in this category are children of Russian or other Eastern European emigrants born in Mexico, so it is not like they often have a long line of Mexican ancestry anyway.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This category is part of of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme and pursuant to WP:SMALLCAT the fact that it currently contains only one article, is not a justification for deletion. Furthermore, as to the listing of the article in this category, there have been Jews in Mexico since Hernan Cortes conquered the country (see History of the Jews in Mexico) and the article appears to fall within the definition of the category. Davshul (talk) 10:01, 17 July 2011 (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 Hudson Bay Quebec

 * 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * people from hudson bay quebec


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is not an administrative division of Quebec. And it is misspelled, since it should be Category:People from Hudson Bay, Quebec; All the other categories under Category:People by region in Quebec, which is the parent of this category, are official administrative divisions of Quebec. As this is not an ecological category, and people are not divided by ecological region, this should be deleted. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Not only is it not an official region, it would be unusual for anyone to talk about someone being "from" Hudson Bay, Quebec. Hudson Bay is, well, a bay. It's still full of water. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Good catch. I see the sole article now in the category is adequately categorized by territory and region, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete When I pointed it out ?yesterday? I thought at first it was some kind of administrative division.  Clearly it's not. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The one person in this cat is actually said to be from Nunuvat, and just born in Quebec.  We normally do not consider place of birth to be notable, so this might properly be an empty category, even if we did decide that villages along the cost of Hudson Bay where people make their living fishing in the bay could in theory be properly but under this name.  There are small islands in the bay itslef, but these are all part of Nunavut, so they are a different issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete obviously unencyclopedic and per the concurrent nom aboveCurb Chain (talk) 07:28, 12 July 2011 (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.