Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User

Speedy nominations

If you have a legitimate candidate for speedy rename/merge/delete, place them here instead of under the date.
If something listed here is not a clear case for speedy, please re-list under the current date.

Category:Wikipedians Interested in the Salem Witch Trials

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians Interested in the Salem Witch Trials to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Salem witch trials

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse rename per nom. --Haemo 09:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian SCUBA divers

Propose deletion: Category:Wikipedian SCUBA divers

Rationale: Population zero, I was the creator a few years ago, but all divers seem to be in Category:Wikipedians who scuba dive, where I also moved. Uncontroversial, simple overlap and empty. Niko Silver 23:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DB-Author - can't argue with that. --Haemo 10:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New nominations by date

Please list new nominations at the top of the list for today's date.

July 3

Category:Genetic Marker M343

This is a category for Wikipedians with genetic marker M343, which according to the article M343 is "carried by most Western Europeans". Aside from the fact that being a carrier of a given DNA sequence has little or no relevance to encyclopedia-building, this category is used by only one user – incidentally, the same user who created the userbox which populates the category. There is also the issue that any possible collaborative potential is limited to one article only – M343 – so any collaboration can be handled on the article talk page.

Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Office

This category holds little or no potential for encyclopedic collaboration. The mere fact of using a given software can indicate an improved ability to contribute encyclopedic content about it only in limited circumstances, particularly when use of the software requires technical specialisation. This is not the case with Microsoft Office – a software used by tens of millions (if not more). The scope of this category is too broad to be of any real collaborative value.

Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use MySpace

Wikipedia is not a social networking site or a directory of MySpace users. Given the popularity of MySpace (and thus the broad scope of the category) and that practically no technical expertise is required to use MySpace, this category has no collaborative merit. Even if it had any such merit, the scope of collaboration is limited to essentially one article; any coordination could be better handled on the article's talk page. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - MySpace itself has several Wikipedia groups[1] that serve the purpose far better than this category can. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 17:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Elipongo, that is one of the best XFD arguments I have ever seen. Wow. Shalom ^Hello 21:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Elipongo's sterling argument.--WaltCip 21:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Elipongo's iron-clad argument. (Not sure if a speedy is warranted in this case.) Horologium t-c 21:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? It's a redundant category, and those are speedied frequently.--WaltCip 00:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not redundant within Wikipedia. External links can't be used as a speedy justification. Horologium t-c 00:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 2

Category:Wikipedians born in California

Also, the subcategory: Category:Wikipedians born in Oakland, California

Wikipedia is not a social networking site. Being born in a place does not endow someone with the ability to contribute encyclopedic content about that place (note: personal experiences constitute original research) or even necessarily an interest in editing articles related to that place (for that, there is Category:Wikipedians interested in a region). In addition, unlike the "by location" categories, these categories are not useful for requesting photographs as they say nothing about where a person currently lives. Finally, the two categories are used by just one user and are the only ones that group editors by place of birth rather than of residence.

Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --w p k t sfs 01:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Category:Wikipedians in California and Category:Wikipedians in Oakland already exist. However, I also found Category:Wikipedians from Texas, Category:Wikipedians from Iowa, and Category:Wikipedian Maine Natives, which were misfiled in the Wikipedians by ethnicity cat. I moved them over into Category:Wikipedians in the United States. Additionally, the userbox {{tl:User:Feureau/UserBox/Proud Americans}} contains both Category:American Wikipedians and Category:Wikipedians in the United States, so now Category:Wikipedians in the United States and all of its subcats also shows up in Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality. Gahhh. Userboxen suck. Horologium t-c 04:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- being born in a given state is a very trivial attribute, and belies no expertise which could be use to collaborate. --Haemo 10:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above and also it's redundant to Category:Wikipedians in California

Category:Wikipedians with social anxiety

This category merely expresses a personal mental condition, and neither an expertise in the subject area or any propensity for editing these articles at all. Category:WikiProject Psychology participants would be much better place to start than people merely afflicted with the disorder. With no potential for collaboration, this seems to have little use other than social networking. Dmcdevit·t 20:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into similar Category:Wikipedians with Social Anxiety Disorder. Yes, I am aware that Social Anxiety Disorder is a category in DSM-IV and the other is not, but we don't need both categories, and the the Disorder one is more specific. Horologium t-c 23:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After looking more at the size of each cat, and more closely at the articles to which each cat is linked, I think that the reverse of my previous suggestion might be more appropriate. Social Anxiety Disorder redirects to Social Anxiety (although the article is almost totally about the disorder rather than the more generalized term), and there are only 11 people in the Disorder cat, while there are 149 in the general cat. My personal preference would be to go with my original suggestion, and rename the linked article as Social Anxiety Disorder; however, a proposal to change the name of the article last year never seemed to establish a consensus (see Talk:Social anxiety). Horologium t-c 03:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians on the autism spectrum

Subcategories: Category:Aspergian Wikipedians, Category:Wikipedians with High Functioning Autism, Category:Wikipedians with PDD-NOS

This category merely expresses a personal mental condition, and neither an expertise in the subject area or any propensity for editing these articles at all. (Some searching turns up WP:NBAT which may be a more useful place.) Category:WikiProject Psychology participants would be much better place to start than people merely afflicted with the disorder. With no potential for collaboration, this seems to have little use other than social networking. Dmcdevit·t 20:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Invaluable. It profoundly affects a person's perception of life. ROGER ^TALK 20:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also in regards to Roger Davies...so? What difference does it make on wikipedia? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was thinking along the same lines as Elipongo. ROGER ^TALK 22:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I actually have had the opportunity to use this category for collaboration. There's an autistic teen who disruptively edits the Lord & Taylor article and we solicited advice from people in this category for some insight. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 21:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not going to suggest deletion or retention, but I would suggest that all the subcats in this category, if retained, end up in either Category:Wikipedians by mental condition or Category:Wikipedians by physiological condition; currently, this entire category in in both of the parent cats. There are many categories in that are in both the mental and physiological subcats, which is overcategorization. One might suggest merging both Category:Wikipedians by mental condition and Category:Wikipedians by physiological condition into the parent Category:Wikipedians by condition, eliminating the overlap. I would also support consolidating several of the Autism cats into one cat, as Category:Aspergian Wikipedians, Category:Wikipedians with High Functioning Autism and Category:Wikipedians with PDD-NOS are each listed separately under both mental and physiological, and as subcats of Category:Wikipedians on the autism spectrum in both mental and physiological. That is a little bit compulsive, to say the least. (small grin) We could spend days looking at possible consolidations in Category:Wikipedians by condition and eliminate many categories simply by consolidating the dups, without deleting anything. Horologium t-c 22:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold and removed the extra cats from the three subcats of Category:Wikipedians on the autism spectrum. Horologium t-c 23:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Elipongo. This cat also helps editors with a spectrum disorder, like myself, welcome other editors who have a disability on the spectrum, in turn encouraging them to stay or seek editing help from others who may be able to connect with them on a better level. --w p k t sfs 01:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~ Wikihermit 04:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elipongo. Pervasive developmental disorders effect one's perception of things, and, in particular, their communicative style, so I think that these categories can help in building an assumption of good faith on the part of autistic editors. I also disagree with consolidating the high-functioning autism, Asperger's, and PDD-NOS categories, as suggested by Horologium, because these are all distinct conditions, each with its own degree of effect. A person with high-functioning autism will be very different from a person with PDD-NOS. -Severa (!!!) 12:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You misunderstood my intent, which is understandable since I didn't state it very well. I did not want to merge them into each other, but each of those categories was listed four times-once each in Wikipedians by condition/wikipedians by mental condition and Wikipedians by condition/Wikipedians by physiological condition, and in each of those two cats as subcats of Wikipedians on the austism spectrum. I've already eliminated all of the extra cats; those three subcats appear only in Wikipedians by condition/Wikipedians by mental condition/Wikipedians on the autism spectrum. I agree with you that the three are not the same thing. Horologium t-c 15:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I personally think there is some value in this category. My own Aspergers affects the way I process information and write, and I think it would be worthwhile warning other users who might be working with me that it exists. For instance, I have trouble assessing the relative value of related information, so might include more information than needed if doing, for example, a synposis of a film or book. And if writing something with a series of steps, like instructions, I tend to specify absolutely everything. For instance, rather than saying "open the image properties" I'd probably say "right click on the image. A properties menu will appear. Click on image properties. The image properties box will open." it's not (just) being pedantic, but not being sure how much to assume other people already know. I've even written more here than was probably needed. Jodievdw 00:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who want the xx-s babel box level

This is a category for Wikipedians who want a certain type of userbox to be created populated by transclusions of one userbox. I believe this user category is unnecessary for the following reasons:

"Want" categories generally have limited value as they express a desire for something rather than any kind of ability or interest.
As far as I can tell, the proposal is no longer being discussed. In any case, the category is not needed as editors can create new userboxes without any sort of permission or coordination.

Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on this one. simply unnecessary.DGG 22:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary and proposal has not been discussed for eleven months. Stick a fork in the proposal and pull the plug on the cat. Horologium t-c 23:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --w p k t sfs 01:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Distributist wikipedians

Wikipedia is not a social networking site. This category provides little basis for useful collaboration. The only relevant article is Distributism, so any collaborative activity should be handled on that article's talk page. As a "user preference" – putting aside opinions on the validity of "by ideology" categories – do we really need or want a category for every single economic or political ideology? Perhaps an argument can be made for the general ones, but I think this is too specific. If kept, rename to Category:Distributist Wikipedians (i.e., capitalise "wikipedians").

Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is another political category, and should have been nuked with the others. Horologium t-c 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

Wikipedia is not the place to make fun of Hillary Clinton, despite how much fun it may or may not be. This category is divisive, misleading (it's a joke category, really), and nearly empty (the only member is the creator). It offers no potential for constructive collaboration and can be abused to coordinate POV-pushing or vote-stacking.

Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but only per that the only user in the category is the creator. --myselfalso 19:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Divisive and not in any way encyclopedic. Yet another userbox created with a superfluous category. Horologium t-c 19:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If they really were members, they wouldn't tell us. ROGER ^TALK 21:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It may be fun, but Wikipedia is not the place. Also, Roger makes a good point! --w p k t sfs 01:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ~~Roger's right, we wouldn't tell you...~~ I mean, there IS no conspiracy, really!—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 22:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Theoretical Communist Wikipedians

This is a category for Wikipedians who believe that "communism can be beneficial in theory". It is not even a general user preference, but rather an expression of a belief about one ideology. The category namespace is not the place to enumerate beliefs about every topic. It is in principle no different from Category:Wikipedians who believe peace can be beneficial in theory or Category:Wikipedians who believe war can be harmful ... in theory.

Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Particularly well-written rationale for deletion. Horologium t-c 19:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Wikipedian theoretical communists: "Theoretical" communism is different than the contrived examples given. Becuase of the so-called (but not really) communist governments of the world and the way American propoganda has shown them (see McCarthyism), the word has achieved a negative connotation and one must carefully specify that one is referring to literal communism and not Eastern Bloc style socialist government. This is the purpose of the term theoretical here, not to over-generalize or form a truism as Black Falcon implies. Hence, I would be inclined to compare this to any of the other categories (see Category:Wikipedians by political ideology) associated with political views which have arguable value as a declaration of bias. Of course, it appears there is a deletion nomination crusade going on through user categories right now, so that may not be a useful comparison. Incidentally, you may wish to consider the history of User:Christopher/userboxes/Communist Theory, which I am using, and that I created Category:Wikipedian theoretical communists three days before the userbox's author created the category being discussed. BigNate37_(T) 19:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To further comment on the crusade that appears to be going with respect to deletion noms for user categories, I would think that thinly-spread discussion across dozens of nominations all with the same motivation is not serving the best interests of the encylopedia and that we would benefit from a larger discussion around the merits of these similar categories before nominating them individually. Just a thought, for those of you making nominations. BigNate37_(T) 19:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spiritual Wikipedians

WP:NOT#SOCIALNET. This category is for users "with spiritual sense, regardless of whether they believe in spirits or not"; this vagueness precludes any potential for encyclopedic collaboration. It is mostly populated by an equally vague userbox that states: This user's spiritual beliefs are complex and personal. A simple category cannot capture complex beliefs and I contend that categories should not be based on something as vague as the possession of "spiritual sense". -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By the userbox definition, cannot be used for collaboration. No article link, and no clear meaning. Horologium t-c 04:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Porn Star Wikipedians

This is either (1) a category for Wikipedians who have "been in pornography" (quoted from the userbox) or (2) a category for Wikipedians who are pornographers. If it is the former, I think it should be deleted. Aside from the vagueness of the classification of "has been in pornography", starring in a pornographic video or magazine does not give one an ability to contribute encyclopedic content to porn-related articles (the addition of personal insights is prohibited as original research). If it is the latter, the category should be renamed to Category:Wikipedian pornographers and made a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by profession.

Delete as nom ~~(or rename)~~. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In my nomination, I asked for renaming "if it is the latter" (i.e., a professional category). Given Dmcdevit's comment below, this does not seem to be the case, and so making this a professional category would be misleading. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Rename/move~~ as per proposal Change to Delete as per Dmcdevit (below). Horologium t-c 23:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/move per proposal as well. ~ Wikihermit 04:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, I think renaming this into a "Wikipedians by profession" category wuld be quite useless, as this is used as a joke category. I highly doubt this user, who is also a ninja, pirate, mutant, academic, slut, breakdancer, etc. or this user, a pastafarian ninja environmentalist frood who enjoys indiscriminate pillaging, or this Navy Seal, professional chef, professional webmaster, professional DJ, professional photographer, professional broadcater, expert gamer, and advanced pianist who can program in 8 languages, or any of the other, are really porn stars? The category is inherently useless, and people should go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography instead. Dmcdevit·t 05:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to mention that the first user has social anxioity, also, you can discuss the deletion of that cat above... hehe... --w p k t sfs 14:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by Myers-Briggs type

And subcategories: Category:ENFJ Wikipedians, Category:ENFP Wikipedians, Category:ENTJ Wikipedians, Category:ENTP Wikipedians, Category:ESFJ Wikipedians, Category:ESFP Wikipedians, Category:ESTJ Wikipedians, Category:ESTP Wikipedians, Category:INFJ Wikipedians, Category:INFP Wikipedians, Category:INTJ Wikipedians, Category:INTP Wikipedians, Category:ISFJ Wikipedians, Category:ISFP Wikipedians, Category:ISTJ Wikipedians, Category:ISTP Wikipedians

Personality types offer no potential for collaboration. WP:NOT#MYSPACE. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Myers-Briggs typography is exceedingly general. A substantial portion of any population will fall into any given one of these categories. They also offer no way to collaborate using this information. As such, this has no collaborative merit. --Haemo 03:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and above. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - Hundreds of Wikipedians find it useful to list their Myers-Briggs type, and being confined to userpages, it does not make Wikipedia 'less encyclopædic.' --It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They find it "useful"? How? For what purpose is it "useful"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Haemo. Also, "hundreds of Wikipedians" do not find it useful to list their MB type. Rather, hundreds added the userbox, which automatically categorised them. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - none of these categories have been tagged for deletion. --- RockMFR 17:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've relisted this under July 2 and tagged all the cats. --- RockMFR 17:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All - Excellent categories. What Dmcdevit and confederates don't understand is that there is collaboration, and then there is that which facilitates collaboration. Editors who meet and greet in the light-hearted atmosphere of these categories ("Hey, you're a Myers-Briggs introvert too?") are more likely to go ahead and collaborate nicely with one another than editors who meet directly in the contentious atmosphere of article editing or article Talk. Nearly all these cats in CfD, though not collaborative in themselves, facilitate collaboration in valuable ways. I'm surprised all these Delete voters don't see this. JDG 19:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actively looking through a category for people of one's type is social networking pure and simple. The light-hearted atmosphere based on commonality of personalities can be achieved via the userbox. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That would make sense if someone were to propose deleting personality information off userpages, but I fail to see how any of that is a reason to categorize users by personality. You can just as easily see that someone is an introvert based on the userbox that populates this category. Dmcdevit·t 19:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to see one example of user categories like this leading to collaboration. You know what leads to collaboration? Wikiprojects. Not random user categories. That doesn't actually happen. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per what JDG said. --myselfalso 19:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JDG. Owen 20:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I can't see why these categories would ever be useful. I can't think of any reason for someone to browse this category while building the encyclopedia. There is no reason to ever need to have a list of people who have a particular M-B type. --- RockMFR 21:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - They do not harm Wikipedia's mission. As for collaboration, hundreds of business team-building programs use MBTIs or abbreviated MBTIs (such as groups like True Colors, etc.) to build morale and encourage collaborative effort. It's ridiculous to list these for deletion. אמר Steve Caruso 00:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not quite "ridiculous". It's actually the sort of question on which reasonable people may differ. I disagree with you, but I won't say your position is "ridiculous". -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my language. I shouldn't allow my feelings about how the page deletion systems here at Wikipedia have burned myself and others in the past trickle through to honest pursuit of resolution. My comment on ridiculousness was inappropriate. אמר Steve Caruso 00:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you've had bad experiences with deletions here. Do you think the system in place is failing to reflect community consensus, or are you unhappy with some of the community's standards? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is interesting to note that my type, although apparently representing only 2.1% of the U.S. population, is the second most filled category, but I don't see these categories assisting collaboration on Wikipedia in any way. Anyone who really wants to find other Wikipedians with their MBTI type can still use the "What links here" function on the userbox page. -Severa (!!!) 13:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 1

Category:Wikipedians who favor strict gun control and Category:Wikipedians against strict gun control

These two categories effectively group users according to personal POV. While another category might be used to find people interested in the articles on the topic, neither of these has much potential for that purpose, and they don't have much potential use at all outside of networking with others based on politics. Dmcdevit·t 23:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a POV advocacy category that has the potential to be divisive and carries no positive collaborative merit. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously pointless advocacy category. Perhaps create a new category for users interested in gun control? --- RockMFR 00:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advocacy. --Tony Sidaway 10:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[The user category] having failed an extensive background and drug check, delete.--WaltCip 14:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My first instinct would be to merge and rename, but I can't think of a new name, Wikipedians interested in gun control still sounds POV to me. I suppose that defaults to delete if nobody can think up of a better name. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 19:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Favouring or opposing an action does not automatically imply an interest in the subject. E.g., most people oppose mass murder, but most are not interested in editing articles about it. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who would like to earn a Barnstar

WP:NOT#SOCIALNET. The easiest way to earn a barnstar is to do something useful for the encyclopedia (technically, it should also be something that is likely to be noticed). However, a barnstar is really not much different from a regular "thank you" note, except for the "Ooh ... shiny" effect, and I don't think we should encourage the impression that it is. (Note: the category is populated solely by transclusions of User:Sawblade05/Userboxes/toearnbstar.)

Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of course. No point. Shalom ^Hello 20:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would never look at this category when presenting a barnstar, I don't know why anybody would. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 19:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-promotional, at best. Certainly not useful for collaboration. Horologium t-c 21:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no potential use for this designation. -- DS1953 ^talk 00:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who believe TINC

This is a category populated solely by Template:User TINC and is based on an inside joke. The userbox is all in fun and the essay is fine, but I think the category (a byproduct of the userbox) is unnecessary. It serves no collaborative purpose.

Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. TINC: There Is No Category. :) Shalom ^Hello 20:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is just silliness. And besides, we all know that there is no cabal, anyway. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 14:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another userbox with an unnecessary category appended to it. Horologium t-c 23:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 30

Category:Wikipedians with iPhones

Category:Wikipedians with iPhones - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Phenomenally a vanity category, somewhat élitist and utterly useless to the project. Sorry! Alison ☺ 02:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC) (and I know my iPhones)[reply]

Close and take it to WP:UCFD. Otto4711 02:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moved here as suggested above. --Bduke 10:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, serves no collaborative purpose. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - collaboration would be better served through the single relevant article's talk page. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 16:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of course. Shalom ^Hello 20:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With very exceptions, ownership of a product does not imply an above average ability or desire to edit articles related to that product. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cmon you have to let Swatjester show off! How about "Wikipedian interviewed by the New York Times"? LOL -- Y not? 23:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not myspace. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 15:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because I am lucky my phone has twelve buttons. This cat is useless. --w p k t sfs 01:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater

WP:NOT#MYSPACE, serves no collaborative purpose. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is actually to store all of the alma mater categories into one main family. - Presidentman 11:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Serves as a parent category to hundreds/thousands of useful categories. These are incredibly useful for collaboration on school and university articles and I myself have used them in the past for collaboration. --- RockMFR 18:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Serves as basic information about a user, allowing collaboration on an obvious subject.--Mike Selinker 01:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per JDG and RockMFR. JRG 03:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per all of the above. It quite clearly does provide a basis for collaboration. --Bduke 09:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I also meant all the subcats. I thought that was implied, sorry. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- NEVER ASSUME that ANYTHING is implied. Always assume your audience is composed of idiots who can't infer anything for themselves. Morgan Wick 17:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not touching this one... --Kbdank71 19:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good topic for a new essay: Wikipedia: Assume good stupidity--WaltCip 04:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, there is WP:ASS. :) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, I can't see what purpose this might serve. Riana (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're surrounded by it.--WaltCip 14:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is comparable to the "religion" debate from last weak, without the loaded baggage. This system of university listings has been established over years, and too many users find in meaningful to just throw it away. And of course there is the weak argument that alma maters of University X will want to collaborate on University X articles. Shalom ^Hello 20:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Serves an obvious collaborative purpose of connecting people who went to the same school. On top of that, there's the less legalistic and more realistic concern that people might just be interested in organizing categories like this on Wikipedia. To delete it would be to etch off the harmless hard work of a few like-minded people, to smash a sandcastle. Or break a butterfly on a wheel. Or what have you. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 07:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this. We're not myspace. --Tony Sidaway 10:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Bona fide collaborative potential (as per RockMFRM and Mike Selinker) should trump WP:NOT#SOCIALNET. WP:NOT#SOCIALNET should only be invoked in the absence of any real potential for collaboration, which is obviously not the case here.--Ramdrake 11:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The potential for collaboration here is enormous, considering the number of subcats contained within. Unlike a lot of the userbox-related cats, which often imply only a causal association with the subject, someone who graduated from a particular university is going to possess more than just trivial knowledge of their school. Horologium t-c 15:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The people saying "a lot of people find this meaningful" need to go read WP:EFFORT. Morgan Wick 17:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smash this sandcastle. You don't need a category to collaborate. --Kbdank71 19:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I went back and forth on this one for a while. There are some universities, MIT for example, that have complicated set of sub-articles; but I think that most universities only consist of a single page with perhaps a related page for its sports teams (UConn's a good example). I think that for most articles about universities/colleges, collaboration would be more efficient by using the talk page. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 19:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - many people identify more with their alma mater than with the city or state they are currently living in. Unless you propose to delete ALL "Wikipedian by X" categories, I can't see jettisoning this one. -- DS1953 ^talk 00:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

0-level categories

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 debate was Speedy Delete per precedent. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone didn't get the memo that 0-level categories were all deleted before. All should probably be speedied, listing for another admin to verify. VegaDark (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who like manga & Category:Wikipedians who like anime

WP:MYSPACE No collaborative purpose. Baring that, merge into Category:Wikipedians interested in anime and manga. -- Jelly Soup 01:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per your alternate suggestion. Bladestorm 02:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. bibliomaniac 15 ^{BUY NOW!} 03:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - interested in, yes. Ambiguous "like", notso much. --Haemo 08:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as per nom. Horologium t-c 20:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure why we should merge Wikipedians who have simply stated in a userbox that they watch/read anime/manga into the category for Wikipedians that collaborate on these articles, when they have added themselves by their own choice. When someone goes searching for help in a user category, it would be useful if they actually found someone who works in the articles, and these people are not necessarily that. This would dilute Category:Wikipedians interested in anime and manga's usefulness. Better to delete outright and allow the original members to add themselves to the "interested" category of their own accord. Dmcdevit·t 01:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that a large majority of users under "interested" are also under the other two categories. That mixed with Dmcdevit's comments leads me to believe that deletion would be the best option. -- Jelly Soup 01:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the both of them. It doesn't help the encyclopedia to know who is interested in what, only who is able and willing to contribute. Users who fall under this category should join WikiProject Anime and manga and collaborate there. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 19:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dmcdevit. --Kbdank71 19:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 29

Category:Wikipedians Who Have Amd Sempron

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete right on this one. Too narrow. DGG 19:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this is pretty much unambiguous. --Haemo 08:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dmcdevit. As for the above comment, this category does not include any users (let alone "a number"). It includes only the template. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Category is empty. Even the creator doesn't use the userbox. Horologium t-c 23:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who visit U.S. States

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. under the same rationale used to delete Category:Wikipedians who visit countries. Same idea, smaller scale. Horologium t-c 15:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the next above. --Haemo 08:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this would nearly include all American Wikipedians by default, as Americans can visit a different state anytime they go on the interstate or U.S. Highway system. - Presidentman 11:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who think the many worlds interpretation is true

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not useful for collaboration, only two members in group (and three userbox pages). Horologium t-c 15:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Might be useful if better populated, since it is relevant to editing. DGG 19:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the category "Wikipedian qualified to have a useful opinion on the subject" is probably about as populated as this one; and I doubt there's any overlap. --Haemo 08:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any category that begins "Wikipedians who think..." anything is on shaky ground. Don't people know that Wikipedians don't think?? :) ... Shalom ^Hello 20:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreeing with Haemo, this group is unlikely to serve any purpose since members' opinions probably have little relevance with their knowledge and ability to contribute on the subject. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 13:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who survived Philmont

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although this has more users than the following cat, it's still not something that is useful for collaboration. The userbox is adequate to note the experience. Horologium t-c 15:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since there are quite a few articles in Category:Philmont Scout Ranch, this category presumably is a basis for collaboration. --Bduke 09:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per JDG and Bduke.Rlevse 12:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Wikipedia is a community, so this tag is a community-building one, as much as any sports-team fan or anime otaku. Chris 21:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:NOT#SOCIALNET. Morgan Wick 17:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above keeps.Sumoeagle179 23:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedians who have visited Philmont. - Presidentman 13:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who survived ROCS

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not useful, only one person in group. Horologium t-c 15:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This one, unlike Category:Wikipedians who survived Philmont is not a basis for collaboration, and is redundant with that category. --Bduke 09:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who summarize

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a group to which everyone should belong. Non-collaborative and can be expressed solely through the userbox. Horologium t-c 16:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everyone should leave an edit summary. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 23:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hdt83. --Haemo 08:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To summarize:ILIKEIT. People on both sides of the iisue need to stop with photocopier-style !votes. Horologium t-c 19:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horologium - I'm just trying to balance things out here. There are at least 3 Deletionists leaving these bot-like votes, so we need a little Inclusionist action here. User:Bduke left me a rather snitty message to the effect I was doing more harm than good. That message prompted me to peek back to this page and, lo, while there were almost no Keep votes in any of these subcats when I was wearing out my ctrl - v keys the other day, now there are plenty. I feel like Johnny Appleseed. JDG 15:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to you on your talk page. Suffice it to say that I disagree with your characterization of me. Horologium t-c 15:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it is true that everyone should be in this category, the vast majority could not be. Have a look through recent changes if you don't believe me. The collaborative purpose is to improve observation of WP:HOW and the Manual of Style, if that isn't a valid reason for a user category/template, I don't know what is. Adam McCormick 01:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How does this category improve observation of WP:HOW and WP:MoS? I agree with you that far too many people don't use edit summaries correctly (or at all), but this category does nothing to correct the problem. It's fundamentally a supercilious and somewhat sanctimonious "I'm better than the unwashed masses" category that does nothing to further collaboration. If you want to increase usage of edit summaries, push for a change that would require all editors to include an edit summary with each edit. This category is not going to accomplish that goal, however. Horologium t-c 02:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It improves them the same way leaving a message on a talk page does, by creating community recognition of those who follow the rule and the best practices. What does having Barnstars accomplish if not to reinforce that the community values those that follow the guidelines to the best of their ability. I would much rather enchourage the right choice and leave it up to each individual editor than to force everyone to leave an edit summary. I want to increase the spirit of cooperation that leads to edit summaries and to help people see what edit summaries are good for. The userbox itself doesn't accomplish that goal, but it does encourage it. You say it does nothing to facilitate collaboration but I put it to you, would you rather collaborate with someone who is concientous enough to summarize all their edits or someone who doesn't believe that helping other editors is worth their time? I'm sorry you percieve following the rules and guidelines as sanctimonious but I'd prefer to celebrate those who follow them to the letter. Adam McCormick 04:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand that we are not discussing the userbox, which would remain after the category is deleted, don't you? (Userbox deletion would be discussed at WP:MFD.) The category itself is not useful for collaboration, because nobody is going to look for people who use the edit summary block to work together on an article, especially since there are only two people in the category. Horologium t-c 12:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pandering to me. Yes, I thouroughly understand that this is a category being deleted, but as I created the box and category in tandem, it's a bit hard for me to seperate them. Under the argument that there just aren't enough people in the category, I'm fine with this being deleted, but "Previous Deletion" is a CSD category and so I would not want to be kept from recreating the category should (significantly) more users add the box to their pages. Adam McCormick 18:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no attempt to pander on my part; when you started discussing the userbox, an alarm went off in my head; there are a lot of people who don't realize that deleting the category does not delete the userbox as well. As to the category being recreated, I think my position on the category should be manifestly obvious from my earlier response, but if some 50 or more users were to add the userbox, that might be sufficient justification to bring the subject up for discussion; if you were to recreate it, I would strongly suggest that you add something on the talk page addressing the issue, so that if an editor adds a speedy tag, he will see the note in place. I still believe that the category does not have a place, regardless of the number of users in the category, but I am not the be-all and end-all of what does and does not belong here. Horologium t-c 19:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Edit summaries should be a given, everyone should use them. --wpktsfs 01:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Should" being the operative word, most edits don't have them Adam McCormick 03:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who remember the Canadian soldiers

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nice sentiment, but not useful for collaboration and can be expressed through a userbox. Horologium t-c 16:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do, but I don't think a category helps me with this, or writing an encyclopedia. --Haemo 08:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by Bible translation preference: English Standard Version

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Potentially divisive, non-collaborative, can be expressed through the userbox. Horologium t-c 16:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per JDG. And how anyone could suggest this is divisive is beyond me. Let's leave this as is. JRG 03:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This might have a purpose on Wikisource, which hosts at least three Bible translations into English - but not here. Shalom ^Hello 20:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians Who Use Lifehacker

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; furthermore, any reason why you haven't just nominated the majority of Wikipedians by website for deletion under the same reason? ~ Booya ^Bazooka 13:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who have visited all of the U.S. States

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a userbox category. No collaboration potential. Horologium t-c 16:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the users in this category are there because they added the userbox, which categorised them automatically. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- JDG took the words out of my mouth on this one. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JDG – it's the business of wikipedians to regulate the encyclopedia, not each other. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 07:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can see the potential utility of a category for users who have travelled extensively around certain areas, but "all of the US states" is quite arbitrary. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 18:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Visiting a state does not endow one with an improved ability to contribute encyclopedic content about it nor necessarily any kind of interest in the state. The breadth of this category (all U.S. states) makes it doubly unusable. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unpopulated. - Presidentman 13:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I might want to start the "Users who have been to every provence in Canada" cat, Wikipedia is not myspace. --w p k t sfs 14:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who visit National Parks

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under the same rationale used to delete Category:Wikipedians who visit countries. Same concept, smaller scale. Horologium t-c 16:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good argument by Horologium. Shalom ^Hello 20:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who believe True Love Waits

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a subcat in Category:Wikipedians by religion. It should already be marked for deletion. Horologium t-c 16:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to precedent mentioned by Horologium - decision has been made to remove "beliefs" categories. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 19:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who decline to state a party affiliation

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a "not" category, and it's not useful as a consequence. Horologium t-c 16:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who do Bookcrossing

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who hike in Grand Canyon

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no potential for collaboration; can be expressed through a userbox. Horologium t-c 16:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge into parent - Only one member, the cat's creator, and it's been that way for months. Would have some potential if it actually had some members.

June 28

Category:Heterosexual Wikipedians

WP:MYSPACE. This is completely unhelpful and indiscriminate, like the handedness and gender categories which were previously deleted. No potential for collaboration. Dmcdevit·t 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - On the order of 97% of all humans fall into this category. Being heterosexual serves no conceivable collaborative purpose. --Haemo 00:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think 90-95% is more accurate, but the principle still stands. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but I'd like to note that a serious storm will be kicked up if the opposing categories are nominated, especially since there is already a WikiProject in place. Deleting this cat is likely to instigate a rather WP:POINTish nomination of the LGBT cats. It's not going to be from me, but almost certainly somebody will do so, using this as precedent. Just something for participants in this discussion to consider. Horologium t-c 01:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand the problem. Categorizing based on homosexuality is no more useful for collaboration than heterosexuality. I don't think it would be disruptive to nominate them. Dmcdevit·t 03:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I more-or-less agree with you, insofar as there is a (very large, active and well-run) WikiProject in place. However, I think that suggesting deletion of those cats is going to encounter opposition. There is a good deal of duplication, overlap and interlinking in that subcat (which should be addressed, and really shouldn't be that controversial) but unlike the Hetero cat, which is useless for collaboration, many of the various LGBT cats can be useful. There are a lot of LGBT sub-cultures that don't have much in common except for their sexual orientation, and a Lipstick lesbian is most likely not going to be able to contribute much to a discussion about the Bear Community (to choose two wildly divergent and currently extant subcats). Horologium t-c 03:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is impossible. Anybody who's not in this category is considered automatically gay or bi! This doesn't work one bit.--WaltCip 04:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No way this could be used to build the encyclopedia. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This will leave a gap in the parent Category:Wikipedians by sexuality meaning someone will come along and re-create this category again just to rebalance the parent cat. Perhaps Wikipedians by sexuality should also be deleted or renamed? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 09:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Would contain the majority of all users by default, so it is not useful. VegaDark (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Who are you people to restrict terms Wikipedians choose to define themselves with? The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. I am for almost pure "libertarianism" on all non-encyc pages, and for strict quality control of encyc. pages. You folks are mixing up the two and are trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody here is restrict terms with which Wikipedians choose to define themselves. Categories are not about self-definition; they are about grouping pages. Anyone is free to define oneself as they choose on the text of their user page. Dmcdevit·t 23:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Understand this - the precedence that we have based the user category nominations on for the past year: we categorize for CATEGORIZATION, not for SELF-IDENTITY. You seem to dislike the whole UCFD process altogether. Why not nominate WP:UCFD for deletion, then, if you feel it so unjust?--WaltCip 04:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kinky Wikipedians

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least re-name to "Wikipedians interested in BDSM". --Haemo 00:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename per Haemo. -- Jelly Soup 00:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~or rename per Haemo~~. It may be interesting to know that someone is kinky, but not particularly relevant to encyclopedic collaboration. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am striking my suggestion to rename for the reason that being X does is not equivalent to being interested in X (e.g., someone who is married is not necessarily interested in editing marriage-related articles). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The rename is not a good idea; not all kinky sex is BDSM-related. If there is enough support, someone can create a WikiProject for "Alternative Sexuality" or something along those lines. Horologium t-c 02:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who wish not to be male

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Many members of the Wiki-community are Trans and do not want to be Male. This people find it painful. --Brianna Goldberg 20:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Category:Transsexual Wikipedians is the larger, more appropriate group. Nobody has proposed deleting that group. Horologium t-c 02:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Wikipedia isn't a support group. --Kbdank71 20:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as a "wish" category. People wish to have, be, or not be many things, but none of them are relevant to building an encyclopedia. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. bibliomaniac 15 ^{BUY NOW!} 01:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Black Falcon.Horologium t-c 02:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Creates precedent for any other "wish" category. VegaDark (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Oh, darn, this quest to rid Wikipedia of any inter-affiliation is so tiresome. There are plenty of people with gender dysphoria who would not consider themselves transsexuals, for a multitude of reasons. Some people also use this tag alongside 'wishes not to be female', because they affiliate themselves with neither gender. If the nominators are so concerned about 'wishing,' perhaps the category could be renamed to Wikipedians with gender dysphoria. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use Windows Live Mail

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As it is a very popular e-mail service. - Presidentman 11:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment-shall we start categories for people who eat very popular brands of pickles? How about people who use very popular brands of toothpaste? If we keep this, it should be merged into Category:Wikipedians who use Windows Vista, as it is a subset of that group. Windows Live Mail only runs on Vista systems. Horologium t-c

Delete - Its simpler in this case for editors to collaborate via the single relevant article's talk page rather than via a category.—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nominator, Elipongo, and my comment above. If kept, should be merged. Horologium t-c 12:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We don't have a standard on "Wikipedians who use (brand of software)," so in absence of one, we should keep them all.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Using a general product does not mean one can contribute encyclopedic content about it (remember, no original research). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use KDE

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason to delete popular software categories. - Presidentman 11:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We don't have a standard on "Wikipedians who use (brand of software)," so in absence of one, we should keep them all.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The standard for user categories is whether they hold collaborative potential. Content contributions to article should be supported by reliable sources on the subject; the simple fact of using a given software does not give users access to such sources, knowledge of such sources, or even a desire to search for such sources. I see no reason to retain this category. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use Adobe software

And subcategories: Category:Wikipedians who use Adobe Flash, Category:Wikipedians who use Adobe Illustrator, Category:Wikipedians who use Adobe InDesign, Category:Wikipedians who use Adobe Photoshop

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The Photoshop category is one of the most useful collaborative categories we have. These users have experience using Photoshop and can be extremely helpful when dealing with images. --- RockMFR 16:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per RockMFR. If I had to get an image fixed beyond what I was capable of, this cat would be where I looked. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have to agree with RockMFR on this one. This is an example of a category that can be used to further the encyclopedia. Horologium t-c 23:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per RockMFR. - Presidentman 11:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We don't have a standard on "Wikipedians who use (brand of software)," so in absence of one, we should keep them all.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RockMFR and Hologrium. This category is directly relevant to a skill that can be used for improving the encyclopedia. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete parent category only - I object to how these categories are organized. Does it really matter that these four products are made by Adobe? I think it would be much more useful to follow the model set by Category:Wikipedians by text editor and create a category such as Category:Wikipedians by graphics editor. Pulling these into an Adobe category doesn't hold any significant meaning for our purposes. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 19:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This might not be a bad idea. Either way, it's just an organizational decision. Either we'll have one category in Category:Wikipedians by software or four. --- RockMFR 21:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RockMFR. --w p k t sfs 01:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use SpamCop

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural question: any reason why this category is named three times?--Ramdrake 12:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing other than my error. Thank you for cleaning it up for me. Dmcdevit·t 16:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We don't have a standard on "Wikipedians who use (brand of software)," so in absence of one, we should keep them all.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The standard for categories should be whether they are at all useful for encyclopedic collaboration. A category for users who "know how to report spam to blocklisters" is not particularly useful. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who play EVE Online

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have categories for many games, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who play Kingdom of Loathing

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have categories for many games, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who play Lineage 2

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have categories for many games, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who play Sega Genesis/Mega Drive games

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This helps with collaboration on our many Sega Genesis articles. Yes, we have broad WikiProjects, but their member categories aren't very helpful when it comes to specific systems. --- RockMFR 16:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have categories for many game systems, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use Rate Your Music

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have categories for many websites, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The category is for users who "have an account on Rate Your Music." OK ... so what? How is this useful for encyclopedia-building. Aside from the fact that any potential usefulness of this category is limited to one article only, Wikipedia is not a social networking site for other websites. Also, the existence of other potentially equally inappropriate categories does not validate the existence of this one. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who listen to 78 RPM records

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It may indeed be useful to be able to find people who have the equipment to play 78 RPM records. Back in the days when I still had a turntable, it didn't even have a 78 RPM setting and I couldn't even play those old records at a slow setting because the stylus just skittered out of the groove. Those records would play just fine on my dad's antique windup Victrola, though. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Useful how? Just because the equipment is rare does not make the owners any more likely to collaborate on something. Dmcdevit·t 23:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lots of people have unplayable 78s in their attics, a lot of it may very well be out of copyright by now and could certainly help fill up the dearth of material over at Wikipedia:Featured sounds and on Commons. Being able to find other Wikipedians who can play and digitize those sounds can be of great use to the project. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use Sputnikmusic

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have categories for many websites, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How is it useful to know whether another user has an account on another website? Also, the category includes only one user. Finally, the existence of similar (potentially equally inappropriate) categories does not validate the existence of this one. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 27

Category:Hanuman Devotee

Rename to Category:Wikipedian Hanuman devotees, or just delete. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, the creator of the category, give full Support to rename this category.

ARUNKUMAR P.R 08:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the deletion of Category:Wikipedians by religion. Being a member of a religion does not endow one with the ability to contribute encyclopedic content about that religion. Also, religious categories are potentially divisive. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename perhaps to Wikipedians interested in Hanuman. It still may be a little specific but I hoping to find more people to collaborate on Hanuman-related (ie. The Hindu epic Ramayana related) articles. Gizza^Discuss ^© 04:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would require changing the text of the userbox. Someone who is a "Hanuman devotee" is not necessarily interested in editing articles related to Hanuman. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I won't mind if someone changed the text. At the moment, it doesn't serve too much purpose. Gizza^Discuss ^© 00:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Are we seriously going to have a "Category:X devotees" for all 33 million forms of God in Hinduism? Baka man 04:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broaden or delete If the creator wants to keep the userbox as it is, I prefer deletion of the category. If the text in the userbox changes to User interested in the Ramayana I would like to keep the category as a useful tool for finding users to improve Ramayana (which includes Hanuman and more) articles. Gizza^Discuss ^© 05:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Category:Wikipedians who are zombies~~

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 debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This one is a no-brainer (pun intended). Joke categories are not helpful to Wikipedia. VegaDark (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-sense category, which has no redeeming value whatsoever. --Haemo 09:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. bibliomaniac 15 ^{BUY NOW!} 21:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. -- Jelly Soup 00:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedu Delete. Nonsense category; another example of userbox creation spilling over into cats. Horologium t-c 02:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BRAINS!!!! per nom.--WaltCip 18:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DEATH Death to the zombies! Wait, aren't they undead? I'm confused, anyway speedy delete. Nonsense. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 23:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A make-believe categorization can't help build the encyclopedia. It should also be noted that this category is an orphan, it's recursively listed as its own parent. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Users of The Bat!~~

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 debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong naming convention, not to mention useless. VegaDark (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete using an email client is very general, and does not imply any level of expertise in subject matter. No collaborative merit. --Haemo 09:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second that. Delete.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another category with only one user. Not useful for collaboration. Horologium t-c 23:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
~~June 26~~
~~Category:Wikipedians with the knack~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MYSPACE. This has no collaborative pottential. Dmcdevit·t 19:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 22:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a Dilbert joke, not a collaborative purpose. --Haemo 05:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who use Imperial measurements~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MYSPACE. This has no collaborative pottential. Dmcdevit·t 19:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I stated below. —MJCdetroit 20:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - serves no collaborative purpose. It's a broad, general, attribute with no clear expertise involved. The fact that it might make Wikipedia more "fun" is not a reason to keep it. --Haemo 05:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Until the U.S.A. undergoes full metrication this category will be too broad. When the day comes that it is rare to find people who know that a pint's a Pound the world round, we can revive it. (Oh wait, that's United States customary units, but you get the point anyway) —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Meaning of Life Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MYSPACE. This has no collaborative pottential. Dmcdevit·t 19:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value. And everyone knows that the real meaning of life is 42. MER-C 09:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The category namespace is not the place to espouse one's personal beliefs. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who keep Halal~~
~~WP:MYSPACE. This has no collaborative pottential. Dmcdevit·t 19:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete - literally billions of people do this. It's too general to ever serve a collaborative purpose. --Haemo 05:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - See my comment below for Wikipedians who keep kosher but fill in Halal related articles instead. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 22:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly suggest centralizing the discussion in the "kosher" section immediately below. --Eliyak T·C 16:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not such a good idea. While the concepts are similar, the religious beliefs behind them are quite different, and moving a muslim who observes Halal into a category describing Jewish dietary restrictions might be seen as insulting or needlessly provocative. My suggestion for this is Keep. I would recommend a delete before a merge for this cat. Horologium t-c 17:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. I only wanted to centralize the discussion. Obviously the categories are not identical. --Eliyak T·C 19:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A reasonable user preference category, and an exception to the "no foods" dictum from a year back.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep consistently with the kosher cat below. -- Y not? 00:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Wikipedians who keep kosher~~

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 debate was keep Category:Wikipedians who keep kosher and merge Category:Wikipedians who keep Kosher (capitalised) into it. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MYSPACE. This has no collaborative pottential. Dmcdevit·t 19:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who keep Kosher added to this nom (note caps). --- RockMFR 22:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - see my comment on Halal. --Haemo 05:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & merge - There shouldn't be two categories, but there is plenty of collaborative potential for articles such as Kosher foods, Kashrut, Hechsher, Kosher tax, Mashgiach, Kosher wine, Cholov Yisroel, Glatt, etc. ad nauseam. Kashrut can be a complicated and confusing subject and being able to find others who know and keep those laws can aid greatly in improving the many articles that relate to the subject. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 22:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Using a userbox that announces adherence to a set of dietary rules is not the same as contributing to the articles, or even being knowledgeable in the topic. If I were looking for collaborators, I'd go to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish culture. Dmcdevit·t 01:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Unless they changed the relevant userboxen since last I looked (admittedly a while back) this category isn't included in them.~~ I had to specifically add it to my user cats on the bottom of my user page. As to making an inquiry at WP:JEWC, you may not realize this but many (and if I may be so bold as to say, most) Jews don't keep Kosher at all. Many who do only do so to a limited extent. Those who have a good working knowledge of Kashrut aren't as common as it may seem at first; especially if you yourself live in one of those cities where there happen to be many observant Jews. Frankly this user category is indeed the fastest and easiest way for Kashrut knowledgeable people to find each other for collaboration or for someone to find us to pose a query. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 05:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong about the userbox, Template:User kosher includes it. My mistake. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 08:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge per Elipongo. bibliomaniac 15 ^{BUY NOW!} 01:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dmcdevit. -- Jelly Soup 01:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. ——Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & merge I came to vote delete, but was convinced by Elipongo's reasoning. Kashrut can be an opaque and confusing system, and I very much expect that people who practice it know substantially more than others about its various intricacies. This is useful for collaboration. nadav (talk) 09:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Merge, per Elipongo. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge as per Elipongo. Horologium t-c 12:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A reasonable user preference category, and an exception to the "no foods" dictum from a year back. (What is the "Merge" referring to?)--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who want to Save Jeeves~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MYSPACE. This has no redeeming value. Dmcdevit·t 09:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Riana (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No collaborative potential; can be expressed via userbox. Horologium t-c 22:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see how this category could be used to build the encyclopedia; besides Jeeves is already beyond saving.—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tim Q. Wells 06:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who want to live in Istanbul~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MYSPACE. This has no redeeming value. Dmcdevit·t 09:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Riana (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "wanting" to live somewhere cannot help anyone, ever, improve the encyclopedia. --Haemo 05:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and Haemo. Horologium t-c 22:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Mixed-handed Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MYSPACE. As with Category:Left-handed Wikipedians and Category:Right-handed Wikipedians, this has no redeeming value. Dmcdevit·t 09:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- None of these types of categories has any particular value to Wikipedia, but they do have value to Wikipedians. The erosion of all these encyclopedially-irrelevant, yet socially-interesting categories is taking some of the fun out of being a Wikipedian, and may result in a gradual exodus of valuable editors. I cannot offer any reason why this category in particular is more important to keep than others of a similar ilk, but I give this "vote" on the basis that I am opposed to the removal of such categories in general, and I'm a mixed-handed Wikipedian! -- Scjessey 13:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are conflating the category with the user page. No one is limiting your self expression, but you don't need a category for that. Dmcdevit·t 19:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit to this category. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --I completely agree with Scjessey. Yes I do know the difference between categories and user space. If you take the "fun" (as scjessey put it) and interesting quirks away from wikipedia; you'll only make it a sterile, dull place. Unless the category is somehow divisive (which none of these seem to be), then I don't see the harm in keeping them. Go find something else to delete like this: Tossed salad. —MJCdetroit 20:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I was uncler. My point was that deleting a categry does not take the fun out of anything. You can still say this on your user page, without the useless category. How does the category make it less dull? Dmcdevit·t 06:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of dmcdevit's nominations in today's log. They are indiscriminate user categories with no practical value. I'm not too concerned about social communication between users that the categories might enable. Shalom ^Hello 03:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Knowing who is mixed handed or not is not helpful to any aspect of wikipedia in the least. If users wish to have this information, they can do it on their userpage. Having a category is pointless. VegaDark (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - being "fun" or "social" is not the point of a userpage. This is an encyclopedia, not Myspace. --Haemo 05:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "None of these types of categories has any particular value to Wikipedia". Enough said. MER-C 09:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hey, everybody! Let's play "User Category"! Let's all come up with a funny category, and everybody will join it and have fun and laugh! ... See how LOW we're getting when we have to resort to THIS kind of "social gratification"? --WaltCip 04:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, Dmcdevit, and Shalom. Horologium t-c 13:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
~~June 25~~
~~Category:Wikipedians with Cubes of Ultimate Power~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose. Furthermore, this category only has one user in it. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one user in the category. No real purpose to aid in collaboration. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 05:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too specific to be collaborative.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 22:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the category barely makes sense, let alone serves any collaborative purpose. --Haemo 05:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a one-user category with no article links. Interest in (whatever) game can be expressed through the three userboxen created by the user for this topic. Horologium t-c 13:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians with Brain Cancer~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose. Furthermore, this category only has one user in it. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too specific to be collaborative.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who use XMMS~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose. Furthermore, this category only has ~~one user in it.~~ --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has more than one user in it > Rugby471 ^talk ⚔ 16:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete using a given music player is a very general activity which belies no special expertise in the subject matter. No collaborative merit. --Haemo 09:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and Haemo. If there are categories for Winamp, QuickTime, RealPlayer, Rhapsody, or any others, they should go too. (The ITunes cats just got nuked.) Horologium t-c 18:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have lots of categories for software use, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who play Nintendo 64 games~~
~~WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too specific to be collaborative. Would be better served with a WikiProject.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are over 500 WPedians in this category, all of whom apparently find it appropriate. This is not divisive. I do not support removing any widely used category on the vague grounds of not social network or no useful purpose. The thought that 3 or 4 people here can tell the general group what to do in circumstances like this is just paternalism. I don't use boxes of this sort, but i don't see why I should interfere with those who do unless there is a good reason. WP is not myspace, but there are distinct social aspects in WP; that isn't why people ought to be joining primarily, but it is a factor--we can & should call this a community. DGG 22:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one claimed it was divisive. The argument is that they are directed towards social networking, not encyclopedia-building. You seem to be saying that the reason for it inclusion is just because a lot of users use it, regardless of merit. You can disparage deletion discussions as "paternalism" all you want, but the suggestion seems to be that categories with many users in them can never be deleted, even with a nomination at the relevant forum, which strikes me as illogical. Dmcdevit·t 00:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would require a stronger reason than any put forth to revoke what they choose to do, and I'd want to see what arguments the users could raise. I doubt more than a very few know of these discussions. "Not encyclopedic" and "no useful purpose" are rather flexible and unspecific arguments & can be applied to anything disliked. I'd like to see for each category, with individual arguments, whether any harm could actually be shown, and what benefits could be found--but not at the rate of 50 per day, but with time enough to discuss each one. DGG 05:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one is alleging that something has to "do harm" to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia, simply being inappropriate is enough. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site, and just because you consider social networking harmless, does not mean we should accept excessive, wasteful concern for networking instead of the encyclopedia. Dmcdevit·t 06:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do not see any reason how this creates a social network and how it serves no collaborative purpose. Each of these users could very easily contribute towards WP:NINTENDO, and as for the social networking, it's no more Myspacey as the userbox. Have these 500 users created the N64 cabal all of a sudden? Have they all of a sudden started to talk about how Super Smash Bros. is the greatest game on Earth? If they needed help verifying information on that article, could they ask someone else in this category? I think the answers are apparent in all these questions. bibliomaniac 15 ^{BUY NOW!} 00:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, those are some nice strawmen, but no one has really uggested any of the wild accusations you imply. It's interesting that you mention WP:NINTENDO, because if I were looking for assistance, I'd ask someone in Category:WikiProject_Nintendo_members. Dmcdevit·t 00:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe this can help with collaboration on our many N64 game articles. --- RockMFR 22:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Category:WikiProject_Nintendo_members groups people willing to contribute to Nintendo articles more effectively. Redundant and prime for abuse. MER-C 09:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~How is this possibly abusive? --- RockMFR 16:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete - literally billions of people do, or have done this. It is far too general, and does not imply any level of interest in writing articles about it. No collaborative merit. --Haemo 09:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Billions of people play Nintendo 64? That's completely wrong. --- RockMFR 16:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that at some point in time, at least 1 billion people have played a Nintendo 64. Maybe not all at once, but given its popularity and ubiquity, I'd say it's a fair bet. --Haemo 22:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No really, that's complete crap. However, how does the number of people who have played it have anything to do with this category? --- RockMFR 23:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The generality of a category of action reduces the ability of people to collaborate on it. Catgeory:Wikipedians who use Windows or Category:Wikipedias who drive cars would be so broad as to be entirely useless for any encyclopedic purpose. --Haemo 00:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

do you then accept the appropriateness of the possible categories Catgeory:Wikipedians who do not use Windows Category:Wikipedias who do not drive cars? (incidentally, have you any data for your assumption that almost all WPedians have played these games?) DGG 19:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does that non sequitur have to do with this discussion at all? Surely just because a category is argues to be unnecessary because of broadness does not mean that its opposite must be necessary. Catgeory:Wikipedians who do not use Windows is an absurd category no matter how many people could fit in it, as there is no potential for anything useful to come out of it. This is an encyclopedia. Dmcdevit·t 23:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have lots of categories for game systems, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Wikipedian autodidacts~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose. Furthermore, this category only has one user in it. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actually, there are NO users in this group; the "one member" is itself (it's a member of its own group). A little recursion seems to be common with many of these less useful categories. Horologium t-c 00:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no collaborative merit, and empty to boot. --Haemo 09:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who use Windows 2003~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

&Delete only 5 users.DGG 22:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have lots of categories for software use, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who use Windows Server 2003~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have lots of categories for software use, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians by pet~~
An subcategories: Category:Wikipedians who love cats, Category:Wikipedians who love horses, Category:Wikipedians who own Tamagotchis, Category:Wikipedians who own birds, Category:Wikipedians who own cats, Category:Wikipedians who own cockroaches, Category:Wikipedians who love dogs, Category:Wikipedians who own dogs, Category:Wikipedians who own fish, Category:Wikipedians who own guinea pigs
~~WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are a great many WPedians in this set of categories, all of whom apparently find it appropriate. This is not divisive. I do not support removing any widely used category on the vague grounds of not social network or no useful purpose. The thought that 3 or 4 people here can tell the general group what to do in circumstances like this is just paternalism. I don't use boxes of this sort, but i don't see why I should interfere with those who do unless there is a good reason. WP is not myspace, but there are distinct social aspects in WP; that isn't why people ought to be joining primarily, but it is a factor--we can & should call this a community. There are better things to do than trying to delete inoffensive categories. DGG

Keep. I see no reason how this category makes Wikipedia more like a Myspace. Suppose, for instance, I would like to verify information on the Cockroach article that may need some personal experience. A category sure beats sifting through a whole bunch of userboxen looking for someone who has a cockroach for a pet. bibliomaniac 15 ^{BUY NOW!} 00:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we cannot "verify information" by requesting personal anecdotes from someone with them. That's directly contrary to verifiability guidelines --Haemo 01:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedians by parenthood. Having a pet is no more collaborative than having a child. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Knowing who "owns" or "loves" certian animals is absolutely useless to Wikipedia. If people want to collaborate on articles relating to these animals, they should have an appropriately named category, such as "Wikipedians interested in collaborating on cat related topics". VegaDark (talk) 03:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per above. No collaborative potential, asking these people for information regarding pets would be original research. MER-C 09:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per MER-C. Category:Wikipedians interested in dogs and the like are valid categories, but owning or loving a pet does not imply an interest in editing articles related to it. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Wikipedians who are semi pro gamers~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I think only professionals would need to be consulted.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who play table football~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are many WPedians in this category, all of whom apparently find it appropriate. This is not divisive. I do not support removing any widely used category on the vague grounds of not social network or no useful purpose. The thought that 3 or 4 people here can tell the general group what to do in circumstances like this is just paternalism. WP is not myspace, but there are distinct social aspects in WP; that isn't why people ought to be joining primarily, but it is a factor--we can & should call this a community. One ed. doesnt think it helps social function; 184 think otherwise. There are better things to do than trying to delete inoffensive categories. I think it might be a good idea to ask the users here for comments--it affects them, it does not affect Dmcdevit, Cordesat, , Flonight, or me. DGG 23:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - playing table football is a very general activity which millions of people do. It belies no special expertise or incentive to contribute to an encyclopedia. No collaborative merit. Oh, and I believe that ensuring that Wikipedia does not begin the slow slide into becoming a social networking site based around an encyclopedia is a very good thing to be doing. --Haemo 09:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have lots of categories for games, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who play alternate reality games~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose. Furthermore, this category only has one user in it. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pages in Category:Alternate reality games can get out of hand when a particular game is active and people want to spread every minor clue or speculative material that exists. Any users in it may be consulted as potentially familiar with the notability of individual ARGs at AfD. There's only one user because s/he has not listed it on userbox pages for others to see. –Pomte 22:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete un-needed overlap with the individual games. just one user. DGG 22:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have lots of categories for games, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who play Zone~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose. Furthermore, this category only has two users in it. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have lots of categories for games, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians by political organization~~
~~WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a users personal opinion towards any organization does not comment on the validity (or NPOV) of their contributions.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC) ].[reply]

Keep there are many WPedians in this and the included categories, all of whom apparently find it appropriate. This is not divisive. I do not support removing any widely used category on the vague grounds of not social network or no useful purpose. In grouping the contained categories together it has a function, like categorization in general. The thought that 3 or 4 people here can tell the general group what to do in circumstances like this is just paternalism. I don't use categories of this sort, but i don't see why I should interfere with those who do unless there is a good reason. WP is not myspace, but there are distinct social aspects in WP; that isn't why people ought to be joining primarily, but it is a factor--we can & should call this a community. There are better things to do than trying to delete inoffensive categoriesDGG 22:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a variation on Wikipedians by organization, which does allow for collaboration.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I and many people in the community believe that such categorizations are valuable for the Wikipedia community. Allowing people to feel at home on Wikipedia helps to keep people here and that is clearly important to our collaborative goal of improving the encyclopedia. Owen 20:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's heavily populated and no good reason has been given for deleting it. ROGER ^TALK 20:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Wikipedians who support Amnesty International~~
~~WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, personal opinions add no validity to any contribution you might make.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are many WPedians in this category, all of whom apparently find it appropriate. This is not divisive. I do not support removing any widely used category on the vague grounds of not social network or no useful purpose. The thought that 3 or 4 people here can tell the general group what to do in circumstances like this is just paternalism. WP is not myspace, but there are distinct social aspects in WP; that isn't why people ought to be joining primarily, but it is a factor--we can & should call this a community. One ed. doesnt think it helps social function; 277 think otherwise. There are better things to do than trying to delete inoffensive categories. I think it might be a good idea to ask the users here for comments--it affects them, it does not affect Dmcdevit, Cordesat, Esprit15d, Flonight, or me. DGG 23:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, DGG, it *is* divisive; I, for one, do not support many of the aims of Amnesty International, nor do I appreciate their criticism of my country for its application of the death penalty, something which is supported by a sizable majority. I don't advoate deleting the userbox (I find it irritating, like many, but what people put on their personal page is their business), but this spills over into the rest of the project, when it should be confined to user pages (and only user pages). Horologium t-c 23:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - supporting an organization is a very general thing, and belies no special expertise or incentive to contribute to articles about it, or anything else. Has no collaborative merit -- I also feel that preventing Wikipedia from becoming a social networking site is a very good thing to be doing. --Haemo 09:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP has had to some extent the role of a social networking site since the day it began; you are of course completely right that it should be much more than a social networking site, and appropriately this element is a very small portion of WP. I don't think these categories put it into danger. DGG 19:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as DGG. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as: 1)not a likely source of social networking, if any, 2) some of the supporters of this organization may be very cognizant about it and 3)supporting Amnesty International as a category may help POV situations by disclosing up front a potentially significant ideological position.--Ramdrake 11:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fine as a userbox, lousy as a category. The "ideological disclosure" cited by Ramdrake can be expressed through a userbox. This should have been deleted with all of the other political categories. Horologium t-c 18:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 1)The "other political categories" (I take it you mean Wikipedians by political ideology) in fact didn't get deleted so your argument is void 2)There are people opposed to having userboxes on their user page and who will use categories instead. What is wrong with giving users a choice?--Ramdrake 18:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Hologrium's argument is not void as long as he or she believes the other political categories should have been deleted. In fact, the argument is contained primarily in the first two sentences. (2) There are no users in this category. It is a parent category for one other category. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, raising another category as an example when in fact that category was kept is kind of a counter-example to me. If the other category should serve as an example, I see that it would be an argument to keep it.--Ramdrake 19:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a variation on Wikipedians by politics, which does allow for collaboration.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a "support" category and for an organisation whose actions are controversial. It is essentially a less divisive version of something like Category:Wikipedians who support the Provisional Irish Republican Army. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you mean you consider Amnesty International as some sort of paramilitary organization??? I see a world of difference between the two; I would even venture that Amnesty International is possibly less controversial than PeTA.--Ramdrake 18:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe ... of course not. I view AI to be an organisation whose actions are controversial for many, not unlike the IRA or PETA. Now, it may be less controversial than PETA or the IRA, but it's still controversial. I support AI, but I also recognise that many dislike it. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the precision. However, I can't help but wonder what makes people think controversial==divisive. That's not obvious to me. But that's a philosphical discussion for another place and time. :)--Ramdrake 19:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - same as above. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 05:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm ... I recommended deleting the category. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Wikipedian DC Downsizers~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Great userbox, lousy category. Should have been deleted with all of the other political categories. Horologium t-c 18:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians with World Citizenship~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep 3 eds. think it has no purpose--199 think otherwise. Rampant paternalism. DGG 23:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a "not" category; and "rampant paternalism" is not a reason to keep an article; voting is evil. --Haemo 09:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ever hear of "blind following the blind" DGG?--WaltCip 18:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Though I oppose the unprofessional manner in which it was nominated, and though I think it would make a very good userbox, I really can't see any significant collaborative potential here. Bladestorm 18:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fine as a userbox, lousy category. How does this aid collaboration? The premise behind the category is fundamentally a political statement, and this should have been deleted with all of the other political cats. Horologium t-c 18:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Strict Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose. Furthermore, this category only has two users in it. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too broad to be collaborative. Actually just an "other" category.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, broad, subjective, useless. --Xiaphias 15:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two users only, and not a very obvious category. It's defined only as "not libertarian".DGG 02:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete undefined category (not linked to an article) with only two members. Not category, as stated in category page. Horologium t-c 11:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Self-educated Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who are ex-cadets~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Goth Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would like an actual explanation of exactly how this harms the encyclopedia. Those who find such categories to serve a purpose needn't use them. If we made everyone vote yes or no when they joined, only then would it be excessive. DGG 23:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 22:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- WP:NOHARM is not a valid inclusion criterion. --Haemo 05:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- strike, disregard, and discount the WP:NOHARM vote W.E.P.--WaltCip 04:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians by keyboard~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And subcategories: Category:Wikipedians who use Dvorak keyboards, Category:Wikipedians who use Plum keyboards, Category:Wikipedians who use TypeMatrix keyboards

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep fortunately, WP is not bounded by one editor's imagination. I see those using Dvorak keyboards a being a particular type of people, ultra-rational/geeky/willing to be out of step in an obvious way, and it can be very useful to bring their view of things into a discussion. The lack of imagination of those who give the same arguments every time does perhaps seem a little noticeable. Perhaps they should go in a (hopefully small) category. (non-serious) DGG 03:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete using a particular keyboard belies no special skills or merits beyond using a keyboard of that type. Assertions that we can stereotype people in a way which would be sufficient to provide any merit whatsoever based on their choice of keyboard defies all common sense and is probably offensive to boot. I know I wouldn't like being labeled a "geek" because I use a particular keyboard type, and I definitely wouldn't want Wikipedia keeping a category because they endorse that characterization. --Haemo 09:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as per Haemo. I was not going to !vote on this until I saw DGG's comment and Haemo's response. DONOHARM indeed. Horologium t-c 18:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians by internet access~~

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 debate was delete all. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And subcategories: Category:Wikipedians who contribute in cybercafés, Category:Wikipedians who use AOL, Category:Wikipedians who use COX High Speed Internet, Category:Wikipedians who use Rogers Internet, Category:Wikipedians who use Sprint Mobile Broadband, Category:Wikipedians who use WightCableNorth Internet

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete incredibly trivial, and in no way allows users to work together. --Haemo 09:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have lots of categories on software use, so there's no reason to delete these.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians by peer-to-peer network~~

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 debate was delete all. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And subcategories: Category:Wikipedians who use BitTorrent, Category:Wikipedians who use Gizmo Project, Category:Wikipedians who use Soulseek

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have lots of categories on software use, so there's no reason to delete these.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
~~June 24~~
~~Category:Pyromaniac Wikipedians~~
~~It's a fun category, for sure, but it's not one that helps the encyclopædia. Bl a st ^{[improve me]} 25.06.07 0354 (UTC)~~
Delete, considering this is illegal an arguably unsettling, such a collaboration (if any) should be discouraged..--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pyromania isn't illegal. --Xiaphias 15:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well arson is, which this usual leads to, hence the disorder. This isn't talking about candle burners.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 21:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep doesnt actually advocate setting fires, just a light touch. Good for the encyclopedia. DGG 23:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is being a pyromaniac, arsonist or not, good for the encyclopedia? Dmcdevit·t 14:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think the "light touch" noted by DGG is a valid point, but also believe that the userbox (without the category) serves that role adequately. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:User cz~~

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 debate was merge into Category:User cs. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User cz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge / Redirect into Category:User cs, convention of Category:Wikipedians by language, see also List of ISO 639-1 codes. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge, no reason for duplication. Bl a st ^{[improve me]} 25.06.07 0359 (UTC)

Merge as incorrect code. –Pomte 22:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Use only standard ISO cats for languages. Horologium t-c 18:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who listen to video game music~~
~~WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. No redeeming value. MER-C 08:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Bhadani (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This shows wikipedians that are interested on contributing in relevant sections about video game music. Such category can help cooperative works. This isn't pointing to any likes or dislikes. E&M ^(talk) 20:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Every VG featured article has or needs an audio section, plus we have many articles devoted to video game music and soundtracks. Certainly can help collaboration. --- RockMFR 17:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that is why I would contact someone in Category:WikiProject Video games members for help, not someone who merely states they listen to it, without any expressed expertise or desire for editing related articles. Dmcdevit·t 19:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be reasonable to assume that someone who listens to video game music would be more likely to have knowledge of and be interested in collaborating on such articles than someone who is a general member of the WikiProject. Contacting the latter would be a spammy stretch as they in no way implied interest in editing video game music-specific articles. –Pomte 22:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a wiki. If that category isn't specific enough for you, do something about it. Dmcdevit·t 14:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a few eds. think it has no purpose--the people who use it think otherwise. Let everyone decide for himself himself. Rampant paternalism. Rule-creep. DGG 23:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have given no reason why the category is useful. Dmcdevit·t 14:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Distinctly pointless. Guy (Help!) 14:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have lots of categories on music choice, so there's no reason to delete these.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers~~
~~WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ Merge with "Wikipedians who use Mac OSX", and "Wikipedians who use iBook G4 computers". -Much as I dislike macs, an easy way to find people with personal experience with macs and osx could, at least conceivably, aid in collaboration. Bladestorm 06:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:WikiProject Macintosh members is thataway. This category is just for social networking purposes, not collaboration. Dmcdevit·t 06:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why it's necessary to assume bad faith here. That said, after thinking about some of the other proposed categories for deletion, I'm slightly changing my vote. Bladestorm 06:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how anything I have said indicates bad faith has anything to do with it. Lots of people come to Wikipedia and create inappropriate content mistakenly. Requesting deletion is not an assumption of bad faith on the part of those people. Dmcdevit·t 06:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may have overstated my point, but I think that saying, "This category is just for social networking purposes, not collaboration" (emphasis mine), jumps to a conclusion, to the exclusion of all others. In any event, we both know the other's opinions, so let's see what others have to say. :) Bladestorm 07:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the Wikiproject participant category groups people willing to contribute stuff relating to Apple products more effectively. Redundant and prime for abuse. MER-C 09:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Bhadani (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MER-C. Also apply !vote to all other such categories currently up for discussion. Bl a st ^{[improve me]} 25.06.07 0401 (UTC)

weak keep or consider a merge per Bladestorm. JoshuaZ 14:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have lots of categories on hardware use, so there's no reason to delete these.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Wikipedians who use iBook G4 computers~~
~~WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with "Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers" -There is potential for collaboration. Bladestorm 06:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per points made re: Category:Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers. MER-C 09:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Bhadani (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge' per Bladestorm

Keep this and all other categories of this sort except the empty one and the ones with only one user. This is a rampant paternalism. Adding up the number of people who have spoken for deletion, its about 10. Adding up the people who use these categories, is probably about 10,000. It is of course possible for all 10 thousand to be wrong and the ten to be right. But I think users determine what categories they think useful. Action here is only needed about particular tones that are actually divisive or otherwise disruptive. The people who decided what's encyclopedic are the editors in general by consensus, and they have clearly decide. The consensus is a thousand to one against.
~~I dont use these categories--i find them useless to me. But I dont see why other people who find them useful should bother me in the least. This is user space. DGG 23:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Keep. We have lots of categories on hardware use, so there's no reason to delete these.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Wikipedians who use Mac OS X~~
~~WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with "Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers" -There is potential for collaboration. Bladestorm 06:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per points made re: Category:Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers. MER-C 09:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge per Bladestorm. JoshuaZ 14:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have lots of categories on hardware use, so there's no reason to delete these.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Care to offer a reason to keep these, and everything else you pasted this non-argument to? We do have lots of crap, but that is no reason to keep crap. Dmcdevit·t 07:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Bladestorm. --w p k t sfs 01:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Bladestorm. If you somehow run Mac OS X on a non-Macintosh computer you can created your own category.SteveSims 03:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Skeptical Wikipedians~~
~~WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skepticism is quite relevant to encyclopedia building, as we need readers and editors who do not take content at face value. There are many articles for them to collaborate on. Although I'm skeptical of the likelihood of any substantial collaboration, the potential should not be eliminated merely by the above arguments. Wikipedia is not MySpace, but Wikipedia is still a community. There's no evidence that the category is being used for MySpace-y purposes. –Pomte 06:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed there is evidence. Editors interested in collaborating on skepticism-related articles, a good thing, should populate Category:WikiProject Rational Skepticism members. Instead, this category is populated by uerboxes like User:One/Userboxes/User skeptic, which do not express interest in collaborating, which is easily done with {{User WikiProject Rational Skepticism}}, it expresses a user's personal opinion, skepticism. That is what is Myspacey, and inappropriate, about it. Dmcdevit·t 06:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then it seems the userbox should be deleted as well as the category that comes along with it. Skepticism is not an opinion, and editors are encouraged to put forth their (rational) opinions anyway, especially if it's relevant in some way to the encyclopedia. The users not in the WikiProject should be notified of it if this is deleted. –Pomte 08:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that joining the WikiProject is better, so there is little need for this category. Delete the category but not the user box. --Bduke 07:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Redundant to superior Wikiproject participants category. MER-C 08:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Wikipedian zodiac skeptics~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. No redeeming value. MER-C 09:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. JoshuaZ 14:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I dont see why it should bother anyone. Removing for the sake of removing is WP:POINT. I dont want to dictate to other wpedians what has redeeming value or not. DGG 00:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, sir. Read the above policy stated by the nom before you call a spade a club.--WaltCip 04:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who support the Jade Ribbon Campaign~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. No redeeming value. MER-C 09:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who support the World Food Programme~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. No redeeming value. MER-C 09:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who support Médecins Sans Frontières~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. No redeeming value. MER-C 09:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Burner Wikipedians~~
~~WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too specific to be collaborative. Even too specific for a Wikiproject.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit to this category. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Wikipedian Burners~~
~~WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a well known cultural event, interpreted loosely, about which there are articles. Collaboration is needed. Merge the other one into here or vice versa. DGG 00:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Burner Wikipedians. We certainly don't need two of these.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit to this category. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Wikipedians who homeschool~~
~~WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. No redeeming value. MER-C 09:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep there are many relevant articles, so the collaboration opportunities are there.DGG 23:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit to this category. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Deaf Culture Wikipedians~~

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 debate was keep. Owen 21:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. No redeeming value. MER-C 09:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They may have useful information or perspectives on Deaf culture.--T. Anthony 02:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per T. Anthony". Users in this category may contribute additional information not known by the general public without it being original research.--Ramdrake 03:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Deleting this cat would be tantamount to deleting gay Wikipedians. Deaf culture is a distinct culture and being able to collaborate with persons (both deaf and those raised by deaf parents) would be a huge asset both in regards to language, subculture, and physiology - not only in the US, but abroad.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 12:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per above. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - distinct and important culture. ← ROGER → ^TALK 19:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the proviso that Category:Wikipedians who are deaf is kept. One category is appropriate, but two is overcategorization. There are very few people who fit into this category that do not also fit into the more general cat. Horologium t-c 23:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Deaf Wikipedians~~

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 debate was keep. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it is unlikely that you will need to be able to hear to contribute to Wikipedia as most of Wikipedia is displayed on a screen which you need to see (except maybe the spoken articles and a couple of media files). --_Hdt83 ^Chat 08:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is very unlikely that you need to be American to contribute to Wikipedia since millions of non-Americans speak English and have access to a "screen," but that cat exists. The same goes for Wikipedians in their 20s, Wikipedian historians and Wikipedian programmers. The categories aren't about ability to use a screen; they're about identifying people who will be able to collaborate and contribute in their areas of access and expertise.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 12:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 09:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There might be articles on specific conditions that cause deafness and some of these people might be more knowledgeable on that than average.--T. Anthony 02:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per T.Anthony.--Ramdrake 03:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per T.Anthony; additionally, if there are any issues (and these may be non-obvious) that affect the ability of deaf Wikipedia editors to contribute, this would potentially be a good index of people willing/able to help those users.--Traumerei 05:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per T. Anthony. Additionally, being deaf affects language, so this is highly related to Babel. Since there are a variety of sign languages in the world, some of these people might be fluent in more than one (I have deaf friends who are fluent in American Sign Language and Japanese Sign Language), which could be a huge resource - especially if they can quickly find each other and/or be contacted.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 12:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Anthony and Traumere. JoshuaZ 14:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per above. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Traumerei. --- RockMFR 17:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' per -T. Anthony —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 00:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but delete Category:Deaf Culture Wikipedians. Both categories are not needed, and this one is the more precise category.Horologium t-c 00:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are two different things. You can be deaf culture and not deaf (raised by deaf parents, for example), and you can be deaf but not deaf culture (deaf who can speak and weren't around other deaf, for example).--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 20:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per T. Anthony. --Legion 18:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -I can't think of many user categories that would be valuable for collaboration if this one isn't. Bladestorm 18:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Demoscener Wikipedians~~
~~WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, doesn't match any of the aforementioned criteria. // Gargaj 08:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you found this category useful in finding other editors interested in demonscene articles, such as those in Category:Demoscene? How many of them have you collaborated with, and to what extent? It would be really informative for this discussion. –Pomte 08:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If so you can create a Wikiproject with it's own non-social networking category. Either way, we shouldn't have social networking categories like this. Delete. MER-C 09:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProjects often go inactive, and one can do more productive things than to create one. The user category serves as a more direct way for communication. Of all places, I don't see why demosceners would use Wikipedia for social networking. Why would another category called Category:Wikipedians in WikiProject Demoscene suddenly eliminate any potential social networking? –Pomte 09:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I want to network, then I go to Pouët, Scene.org or do it via Facebook and not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the latest place I would choose for networking of any kind that goes beyond finding and identifying other editors who are knowledgable about a subject and can help with related articles. My to-do list is already long and the best way to get a subject covered in a new article is to ask for help from somebody who can help and also has probably some interest to actually get his hands dirty and contribute to the article. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for reasons that Gargaj stated. I see absolutely no reason to delete this category. It's one of the very few user categories that actually make sense. DiamonDie 09:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a specialized type of media,and we need to know where the experts are. DGG 00:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The subject is niche and even more so in the English speaking parts of the world. As DGG already pointed out, this is an important means to find other editors that are familiar with the subject to be able to coordinate efforts to cover this vast but still specialized and niche topic properly in Wikipedia. The category might gets replaced by a full blown project and make the category obsolete, but until then is it everything we have. It is hard enough to get people motivated to contribute to Wikipedia and to coordinate efforts. Don't make it harder by removing the bit structure and organization that exists today --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as useful as any other user category. Not used for spamming or afd vote gathering, and the rationale of not myspace doesnt apply in this case any more than it applies for Category:User violinists. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 15:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Hyphy Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. No redeeming value. MER-C 09:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too specific to be collaborative.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep that is, I can't see much use for it because I don;t exactly understand what it signifies, but 18 wikipedians think otherwise. If it's meaningful to them, and it does not harm the encyclopedia, the category should stay.DGG 03:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Homeless Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. No redeeming value. MER-C 09:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedian Teetotalers~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. No redeeming value. MER-C 09:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep those who find them not useful or not appropriate to their style of interaction should not use them, and vice versa.DGG 23:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless another solution is found. -- Jelly Soup 00:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Hacker Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC) WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D3l3t3 per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1)31337 per above. No redeeming value, superseded by Category:Wikipedians by programming language. MER-C 09:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - same as above. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 00:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Sabbatarian Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. No redeeming value. MER-C 09:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Nudist Wikipedians~~

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 debate was keep. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a collaborative purpose, ask all these users to verify and contribute to List of social nudity places. There's Timeline of non-sexual social nudity for the academic bunch, and events for the active bunch. –Pomte 06:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Bhadani (talk) 09:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep these tend to be hard articles to source, and its good to know where to find help.DGG 00:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but think, though a bit immoral, that DGG is spot-on right; this is a user category where the horse speaks for his master. Keep.--WaltCip 18:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no reason why this should be deleted. __meco 19:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems a pretty strong user preference.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Punk Wikipedians~~
~~WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Already listed below, under #June 22. You should probably state your deletion position there. –Pomte 06:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is a merger proposal. I've pointed up here for the deletion nomination. Dmcdevit·t 06:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~June 23~~
~~Category:Wikipedians who use iPods~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. E&M ^(talk) 23:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no collaborative merit. Using an iPod is very general, and will not help anyone collaborate on articles. --Haemo 23:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value. Wikipedia isn't myspace. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We don't need to categorize people who "use" IPods. Rename to "Interested in IPod topics" if you want to collaborate. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Religious Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. Note that this is different from the "Wikipedians by religion" category: whereas it was argues that identifying with a religion offered potential collaborative networks, this category, of Wikipedians who are simply "religious" clearly doe not. As such, it exists solely for social networking. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no collaborative merit. Being religious is very general, and is too broad to every foster any working together of users. --Haemo 23:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for expressing a personal religious/political opinion. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is just as useful, many people have a general religious outlook without specific identification. Just as relevant for editing. DGG 23:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who support Citizen Media~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for expressing a personal religious/political opinion. MER-C 03:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We don't want a "support" category for every group. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who support HD DVD~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no collaborative merit. "Supporting" a standard will not help anyone work together - it implies no expertise, and merely expresses a consumer preference. --Haemo 23:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a soapbox for expressing consumer preferences. MER-C 03:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We don't want a "support" category for every technology. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a former member of Category:Wikipedians by technology politics; other members include Category:Wikipedians who support Citizen Media and Category:Wikipedians who oppose regional lockout. Citizen Media might actually be an area people could collaborate on, although I'd prefer we all stay away from advocacy categories. Beyond that, I'd say these should go. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Anti-communist Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for expressing a personal religious/political opinion. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Not" category. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Anti-socialist Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for expressing a personal religious/political opinion. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Not" category. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Anti-fascist Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for expressing a personal religious/political opinion. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Not" category. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Anti-Denominational Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for expressing a personal religious/political opinion. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Not" category. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who oppose regional lockout~~

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 debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC) WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no collaborative merit. Whoop de doo? I cannot conceive of any purpose where grouping people in this fashion would help the encyclopedia. --Haemo 23:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a soapbox for expressing views related to digital rights management. That's what the Electronic Frontier Foundation is for. MER-C 03:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All Support/Oppose categories should be deleted. If people want to collaborate, they can create "interested in" categories. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on that, Rename to 'Wikipedians who are interested in Regional Lockout'. -- Jelly Soup 00:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. VegaDark (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Haemo. I disagree with the proposal to rename as opposing something does not automatically imply an interest in editing articles related to it. I oppose lots of political ideologies but cannot recall ever having edited an article on one. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who support peace in Sri Lanka~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no collaborative merit. Supporting peace is simply an expression of someone's preferences -- it doesn't imply any ability, or expertise, in the subject area, and thus cannot be used for collaboration. --Haemo 23:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for expressing a personal religious/political opinion. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All Support/Oppose categories should be deleted. If people want to collaborate, they can create "interested in" categories. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Optimist Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no collaborative merit. If this category was about the Optimists, then it would work. But it's not, it's just about people who are optimistic. This cannot help people work together. --Haemo 23:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being an optimist does not imply any sort of specialised knowledge of or ability to contribute content to articles related to optimism. The category is also too broad to be useful for collaboration. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Pessimist Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no collaborative merit. See my comments on Optimist Wikipedians. --Haemo 23:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a pessimist does not imply any sort of specialised knowledge of or ability to contribute content to articles related to pessimism. The category is also too broad to be useful for collaboration. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Peaceful Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No collaborative merit or relevance to encyclopedia-building. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Meritocratic Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no collaborative merit. This article is about people who "favour meritocracy". I cannot see any way this will help people work together. --Haemo 23:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a broad "support" category. Supporting meritocracy doesn't imply any ability or desire to edit articles related to meritocracy. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per non, Haemo, Black Falcon. Horologium t-c 18:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians by number base preference~~

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 debate was delete all. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And all subcategories: Category:Wikipedians who like base thirteen, Category:Wikipedians who like binary, Category:Wikipedians who like decimal, Category:Wikipedians who like duodecimal, Category:Wikipedians who like hexadecimal, Category:Wikipedians who like octal, Category:Wikipedians who like quinary, Category:Wikipedians who like senary, Category:Wikipedians who like sexagesimal, Category:Wikipedians who like ternary, Category:Wikipedians who like vigesimal

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all no collaborative merit. Liking a particular base does not help anyone work together. --Haemo 23:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

0xDE1E7EA11 - no redeeming encyclopedic value. I can't see how liking one particular number system aids you in contributing. MER-C 04:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Who cares what number base "preference" users have? Isn't helpful at all. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep on this one. Of all the topics raised, this is most specifically relevant to WP editing. DGG 04:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How? --Haemo 23:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who support Blu-ray~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no collaborative merit. See my comment on "Wikipedians who support HD DVD" --Haemo 23:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a soapbox for expressing consumer preferences. MER-C 03:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All Support/Oppose categories should be deleted. If people want to collaborate, they can create "interested in" categories. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who use Skype~~
~~WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete no collaborative merit. Using Skype is very general, and does not infer any expertise which could assist in articles. --Haemo 23:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value. Wikipedia isn't myspace. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is relevant as indicating people who will be available via this communication channel--I know it's a little controversial to rely on it instead of WP talk--so all the more relevant. DGG 19:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have lots of categories on software use, so there's no reason to delete these.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as this actually may help people to get in touch with each other; it facilitates collaboration in that sense. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Wikipedians who use the iTunes Store~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no collaborative merit. Using iTunes, or the store, is very general and cannot help people work together. --Haemo 00:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value. Wikipedia isn't myspace. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who use iTunes~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no collaborative merit. Using iTunes, or the store, is very general and cannot help people work together. --Haemo 00:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned in the discussion nominee. E&M ^(talk) 02:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value. Wikipedia isn't myspace. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:IRCTunes supporters~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no collaborative merit. Also, only one user. --Haemo 00:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value. Wikipedia isn't myspace. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All Support/Oppose categories should be deleted. If people want to collaborate, they can create "interested in" categories. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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-smoking Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit. Smoking is very general. Not smoking is even more general. Not doing something is definitely not a reason to collaborate -- and smoking is not something people will collaborate around anyways. --Haemo 03:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value. Wikipedia isn't myspace. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Not" category that I have been trying to get deleted for months. Does not help to categorize people by what they do not do. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Smoking Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit. Smoking is very general. Smoking is not something people will collaborate around anyways. --Haemo 03:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom—arf! 04:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value. Wikipedia isn't myspace. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Left-handed Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC) WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit. Being left-handed, although uncommon, is not that rare. Also, it offers no way for people who share this attribute to work together -- contrary to popular opinion, lefties are not actually different from the rest of us in any meaningful way. --Haemo 03:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value. Wikipedia isn't myspace. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All people are either left or right handed, no need to ever go looking for left handed people in this category. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep left-handed people have to face challenges in this world where 90% of the population is right-handed and just about all implements are made for right-handed people. There is a potential for collaboration at least on items made for left-handed people.--Ramdrake 12:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm a lefty, but it's not something to which I am particularly predisposed to collaborate, and I'd bet that I'm not alone on this. It's sort of like having green eyes; it's unusual, but not something that needs a category of its own. Horologium t-c 23:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians with Cataplexy~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value. Wikipedia isn't myspace. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Utilitarian Wikipedians~~
~~WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete per nom ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If a category by itself cannot serve a collaborative purpose, then how can any? Utilitarianism is a huge position in ethics and the pages in Category:Utilitarianism need serious attention from people knowledgeable in it. –Pomte 03:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Labeling oneself as a utilitarian by slapping a userbox on a user page does not make one an expert in the subject area. People who are not utilitarians may still be experts, and people who label themselves as such may edit in completely different areas, despite a philosophical leaning in one direction. Dmcdevit·t 19:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit to this category. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Wikipedians who use Google Earth~~

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 debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit. Using a popular software program does not make anyone more likely to work on it in an encyclopedic fashion. --Haemo 03:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value. Wikipedia isn't myspace. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have lots of categories on software use, so there's no reason to delete these.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of people can use Google Earth, but this categories implies nothing about using it to contribute encyclopedic content. The existence of similar categories does not validate the existence of this one. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who like Red vs. Blue~~

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 debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value. Wikipedia isn't myspace. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have lots of categories on media preference, so there's no reason to delete these.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Liking something does not imply an increased ability to edit articles related to the topic or even necessarily an increased desire to do so. The existence of similar categories does not validate the existence of this one. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Irreligious Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit. So what? No liking something does not induce anyone to working on articles together in any constructive way. --Haemo 03:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for expressing a personal religious/political opinion. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't this category have disappeared with all of the other "Wikipedians by Religion" cats? It was a subcat and was included in the deletion discussion. Horologium t-c 01:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians with irregular sleep schedules~~

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 debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit. I am in this category -- however, I can't even begin to think of how this would help me work with another editor, let alone be inclined to do so. --Haemo 03:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A lot of people have irregular sleep schedules and knowing your sleeping habits dosen't really help out Wikipedia. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 03:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above—arf! 04:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and all of above ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value. Wikipedia isn't myspace. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is certainly relevant to working--it is important to know who is likely to be around at odd hours. There might be possibly even more useful ways of doing it (e.g. WPedians who are likely to be available between 07:00 and 09:00 UTC) people have even mentioning their time zone as a factor in RfAs, and it has not been challenged there--this is particularly relevant for admins. DGG 19:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, Haemo, and Hdt83. Horologium t-c 20:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians experiencing mental health issues~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit. Way, way too broad to be of any use for collaboration. --Haemo 03:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Too vague a category to aid in collaboration. Seems to be there for people who are unwilling to specifically identify themselves in one of the other child cats of Wikipedians by mental condition—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 22:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Hyperopic Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being farsighted does not equal special knowledge of the condition, or a desire to collaborate on the one or two articles that might relate to the condition. Horologium t-c 20:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who believe in Santa~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit. Believing in Santa will not help anyone, ever, write an encyclopedia article ever, and certainly will not help them work together on one. --Haemo 03:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for expressing a personal religious/political opinion. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest delete possible - Utterly rediculous this category has survived so long. By no means useful in any way. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at LONG LAST.--WaltCip 21:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although I'm quite sure Santa doesn't qualify as either a religious or a political figure, so WP:NOT#SOAP doesn't apply here.--Ramdrake 21:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who believe in an afterlife~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit. Way too broad to be of any collaborative merit - lots of different faiths, and non-faiths believe in one. That doesn't mean they'll work together on an article about it. --Haemo 03:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for expressing a personal religious/political opinion. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We don't want a "who believe in" category for every topic. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Pollotarian Wikipedians~~

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 debate was deleted by Black Falcon. MER-C 12:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Vegetarian Wikipedians as apparently narrowly focused -- only a few members. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. Either works for me. If pressed, I'd lean towards Merge. Horologium t-c 02:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Pesco/pollo vegetarian Wikipedians~~

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 debate was deleted by Black Falcon. MER-C 12:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Vegetarian Wikipedians as apparently narrowly focused -- only a few members. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. I'm fine with either. If pressed, I'd lean towards Merge. Horologium t-c 02:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Car-free Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for expressing a personal religious/political opinion. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if this is for wikipedians who support the car-free movement the creator should have named the category to represent that. This could be speedied as recreation of Category:Wikipedians who don't own automobiles. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Straight edge Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit. Any collaborative merit this could have is minimal, and subsumed by other, more functional, templates and categories. The Myspace factor of this is over the top. --Haemo 03:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians with alcohol problems~~

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 debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The category has no collaborative purpose. Wikipedia is not and is not suited to be an help website. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit. Lots of people have alcohol problems, and that doesn't make them likely to work together on articles. --Haemo 03:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value. Wikipedia isn't myspace. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't see what use users would have going through this category looking for users. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
~~June 22~~
~~Category:Wikipedians who use AOL Instant Messenger~~

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 debate was delete'. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is possibly the ultimate WP:NOT#SOCIALNET category. There is no collaborative possbilities here, other than (possibly) the AOL Instant Messenger article. Not encyclopedic in any way, shape or form. Horologium t-c 00:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Horologium t-c 00:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit. Millions of users do this. Too broad to ever aid in collaboration. --Haemo 03:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. No collaborative merit whatsoever—arf! 04:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a soapbox for expressing consumer preferences. No redeeming value. MER-C 03:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who drive cars~~

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 debate was delete all. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This category has no collaborative merit. The ability to drive a car is irrelevant to the ability to contribute encyclopedic content about cars. Category for professionals – mechanics, automotive engineers, stunt drivers – might be useful, but this generic category is not. In addition, the ability to operate a vehicle is a sufficiently broad property that I don't expect it to have any meaningful connection with a desire to edit articles about cars. This nomination also includes:

Category:Wikipedian hybrid vehicle supporters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – the category namespace is not the place for supporting or opposing social issues

Category:Wikipedians who drive Land Rovers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Wikipedians who like Mercedes-Benz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – this category does not even suggest ownership of or knowledge about Mercedes-Benz, but only a positive feeling toward the brand

Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit. Virtually everyone has this skill -- it will not help anyone work together. --Haemo 03:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. VegaDark (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not significant or particularly unusual.--T. Anthony 02:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not facilitate collaboration. Riana (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Punk Wikipedians~~
Suggest merging Category:Punk Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians who listen to punk

Nominator's rationale: The two categories are essentially redundant. However, whereas a weak argument for collaborative potential could be made for the second, the title of the first implies a social networking purpose that goes against current policy. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Punk Wikipedians is proposed for deletion above. I don't think listening to punk music is necessarily the same as being "punk" anyway, is it? Dmcdevit·t 06:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Political Compass Categories~~

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 debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC) This is a group of seven interrelated categories, all of which are tied to User:The Thadman/Userbox/PolCompass. There are six political categories and one that relates specifically to the Political Compass test. Political categories were supposed to be nuked, but these were missed. The final category doesn't facilitate collaboration.[reply]

Category:Economic Neutral Wikipedians

Category:Economic Left Wikipedians

Category:Economic Right Wikipedians

Category:Social Authoritarian Wikipedians

Category:Social Libertarian Wikipedians

Category:Social Neutral Wikipedians

Category:Political Compass Wikipedians

(Note that I have this userbox on my page, and will be affected by the category deletion as well. That's fine with me; I am happy with the userbox alone.) Horologium t-c 19:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All, as nom. Horologium t-c 19:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: These are identical to the previously deleted WP:UCFD#Category:WSPQ Wikipedians ones below, I must have missed it. It is not necessary to find someone of your own, or any other, political persuasion to foster collaboration, and the net result of these categories is to group users according to point of view, or, at best, to provide for social networking between likeminded users. Dmcdevit·t 19:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Dmcdevit. The userbox adequately serves the purpose of self-identification. The categories are unneeded and unproductive. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - actually ideologies could help; this is just a grab back of factoids. Cannot aid in collaboration. --Haemo 03:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not everyone uses userboxes or even accepts them. Also it gives some sense of the political makeup of the place without being as problematic or partisan as the older political categories.--T. Anthony 02:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-These categories were created expressly for the userbox. I doubt that even one person on Wikipedia without the userbox is in any of these categories. Horologium t-c 02:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians with Acrophobia~~
This is a user category used by only one user. Since the concept of height does not exist in an electronic world, it is not relevant to acrophobes' ability or inability to contribute to the encyclopedia. It also serves no collaborative purpose, not in small part due to its broadness. A lot of people have a fear of heights, but there is no reason to assume that they have an inherent propensity or improved ability to edit articles related to acrophobia, except perhaps by recounting their personal experiences (which is not encyclopedic).
Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While there is no reason to assume any specific person in this category has "an inherent propensity or improved ability to edit articles related to acrophobia", it is reasonable to assume that some of them do (the same assumption, it seems to me, is fair for any category - no certainties, just possibilities). However, I would not oppose deletion on the basis of a population of less than four users, with no prejudice to recreate if there are more users identifying with this category.--Ramdrake 18:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it has one user, the creator, with very few edits and only pop culture-related ones. Even if people with a fear of heights were potentially more knowledgeable (which I doubt; it is a common affliction that most people have never even seen the doctor for. I'm no more knowledgeable about bruises or allergies), then whether they have it or not is irrelevant: they should be expressing that expertise, so we don't have to wonder. If the category leaves us wondering, then it isn't serving the supposed purpose of indicating depth of knowledge. Dmcdevit·t 19:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might argue that any category with only one member is a problem, whether for articles or users. With that in mind, this should probably be merged or deleted. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit to this category. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Wikipedians who don't wish to become administrators~~

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 debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC) This category is either pointless or divisive. Interpreted simply as a harmless expression of one's lack of desire to be a sysop, the category is unnecessary as it is possible to express that position through the userbox. I can understand the existence of a category for administrator hopefuls seeking advice or nominations, but why would anyone look through a category of people who don't want to be admins? The userbox may be a quick way of preempting nomination offers, but the category itself has no value. The category can also be interpreted as a divisive statement against the role of admins and/or against administrators themselves.[reply]
I think the former (innocent but useless) is the more likely of the two, especially since most (if not all) editors in the category were placed there automatically by a template. However, in either case, I think the category ought to be deleted.

Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Another "not" category. A pox on all UBX creators who add categories to every creation. Horologium t-c 18:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I honestly can't see any specific encyclopedia-building insight particular to this user cat. Makes a nice userbox, though; just not a proper usercat. :)--Ramdrake 19:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "not" categories are very rarely collaborative. This is not one of the rare exceptions.

Delete per above. Very little (if any) redeeming value. The statement on the top of my talk page would do just fine. MER-C 09:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, has a specific purpose, and certainly isn't simply a "not" category. It exists so that others don't waste their time planning to nominate the people in this category. Since there are some users who go around habitually attempting to find good potential candidates, this category is a helpful way for those who don't wish to be asked about adminship to avoid it, and save the would-be nominators trouble as well. (I suppose they could do this even without the category, but do you really want them breaking 3RR repeatedly just so that people won't nominate them?) As for the argument that the userbox works just as well, some people don't like userboxes. As such, the category is serving a purpose beyond that of the userbox, is helpful to collaboration on RfA by providing an opt-out list for nominations, and deleting it would have no benefit. --tjstrf talk 09:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I also think that persons who do not want to become administrator may indicate so on their user page. No one is going to nominate anyone without at least reading the user page. --Bhadani (talk) 09:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is useful to know who does not want to become an administrator. However, people can write this on their userpage. The purpose of categories is to seek out people in a group - There will be no purpose to ever go looking through this category. VegaDark (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For convenience as it'd presumably be quicker than searching random user pages for this information.--T. Anthony 02:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But why would you be looking for people who don't wish to become administrators? The reason this would be useful is if you wanted to nominate someone, but then saw they did not want to be an admin-Info you can get by looking on their userpage, we don't need a category. Having a category would imply there would be some value to specifically seeking out those who do not wish to become admins, and I can't think of what that value would be. VegaDark (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are 246 user pages (and subpages) that transclude the userbox. There are 272 user pages (and subpages) in the category. Some may be substituted, but I'm not going to check because it's a waste of time. We know there exist people who prefer categories to userboxes, so it's definitely possible.. If you want to delete this category, please identify and alert all users who are using this category as the only means of informing others that they do not wish to be nominated. –Pomte 22:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who would like to learn more languages~~

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 debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a language school. The desire to learn more languages is commendable, but it does not aid encyclopedic collaboration in any way. It does not imply any knowledge of any non-English languages nor does it specify an interest in any particular language. Furthermore, the category is basically redundant to existing low-level (i.e., level 0 or 1) Babel categories.
The subcategories were recently considered for deletion (but not the parent category) and the discussion ended with a decision to "merge" (see here). However, I think the main category itself is unnecessary.

Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as I voted in prior round. It's fine for a userbox, but it's a "not" category, and therefore useless for collaboration. Horologium t-c 17:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we're not a language school, and not knowing something cannot help build an encyclopedia. --Haemo 03:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who visit countries and child cats~~
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Parent category was discussed at WP:UCFD#Category:Wikipedians who visit countries with a decision of delete. The child categories were not nominated, although 2 comments did advocate their deletion as well (no objection was noted), and as a result the parent cat was emptied, but not deleted. After discussion with the closing admin, I've agreed to nominate the children here for clarity. Suggest that the children be deleted now, which should also allow the parent cat to be eliminated completely. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The categories included in this nomination are:

Category:Wikipedians who visit countries
Category:Wikipedians who have travelled to France

Category:Wikipedians who have travelled to Greece

Category:Wikipedians who have travelled to Italy

Category:Wikipedians who have travelled to the UK
Delete perforce, if the parent cat has already been through UCFD and the verdict was delete (unanimous, to boot), this nomination should probably even be speedied. into deletion--Ramdrake 14:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. If the parent isn't worthy, then the subcats cannot be worthy either. Horologium t-c 15:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Visiting another country does not suddenly endow people with the ability to contribute encyclopedic content to such articles. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all visiting a country will not help you work with others on articles. --Haemo 03:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete all. Per nom and don't have encyclopedic contribuition. E&M ^(talk) 02:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Could be useful for getting images of locations as a visitor would presumably be more likely to photograph things than a native would. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 00:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that purpose is served by a general "Wikipedians who visit countries" (which countries?) category or "have travelled to" (past tense) subcategories. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this rubbish. --Tony Sidaway 10:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- DS1953 ^talk 00:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Wikipedians in wheelchairs~~

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 debate was Delete ^demon^{[omg plz]} 10:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — an abuse of the category system. --Cyde Weys 08:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no apparent collaborative merit. --Haemo 08:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Such Wikipedians can offer specific insight on some handicap-related articles. Alternately, could be merged to some supercategory like "Handicapped Wikipedians".--Ramdrake 10:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge per Ramdrake. Mike R 15:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. What specific insights? Any insights unsupported by a source are, by definition, original research. There is no little encyclopedic collaborative merit to this category. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Insights as to proper wording on subjects dealing with people with disabilities, to give but one example. In any text, how you say it is as important as what you say. Also, these people are likely to be more familiar with some research items with regards to disabilities and readaptation - not a certainty, just a likelihood, but in my mind clearly enough to refute the affirmation that there can be no encyclopedic collaborative merit to this category. Clearly, there is probable reason to believe it can serve some encyclopaedic purpose.--Ramdrake 17:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm ... although I doubt that there is much collaborative merit to the category, your argument is convincing enough for me to replace "no" with "too little" and change my "delete" recommendation to "weak delete". To be honest, I don't think anyone would approach another user to say "I see you've noted that you're handicapped; would you like to help with this handicap-related article?" Maybe it's just me, but I don't see it as a likely occurrence. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I can see that a non-handicapped person would probably have great misgivings about doing this; a handicapped person might actually find this category useful for that purpose. As I am on the concerned side of this particular category, it didn't occur to me that a non-handicapped person would hesitate using this category.--Ramdrake 19:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be specific I don't see myself as in a wheelchair, but I do use one. (At home I crawl, scoot, or roll, but that is usually too slow to go long distance.) There are certain brands of electric wheelchair that I'd have studies or information packets on, but that the average person may not. I'm not sure an article on the Turbo or Per-Mobil is desired, but if it were I might have more information at my place than most people would.--T. Anthony 02:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who use Zen Nanos or MuVo N200s~~

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 debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. Could be useful in finding other Wikipedians to collaborate on articles relating to these devices, but maybe a more broad category, such as "Wikipedians who use Creative MP3 players", would be more useful. Mike R 15:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too specific. A broader category is still not an appropriate category, as there is little collaborative potential for the cat. Even a merge with iPod users, portable CD player users, and portable cassette player users to "Wikipedians who use portable music devices" will not create a useful category. Horologium t-c 15:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Horologium. I use a wide variety of electronic devices, but that doesn't mean I know anything about them beyond how to use them. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. I certainly do not know about any sources relating to them. I think this category would not be too different from Category:Wikipedians who use toasters. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a soapbox for expressing consumer preferences. MER-C 03:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Too specific. VegaDark (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have lots of categories on hardware use, so there's no reason to delete these.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who use Treo~~

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 debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP If this category has no collaborative purpose what about Category:Wikipedians who use iPods? It has the same relevant information, so it should be deleted too? By the way, the category points to an userbox, that automatically adds everyone who uses it to the category. E&M ^(talk) 14:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The userbox can be edited so that it no longer automatically categorises users. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Could be useful in finding other editors to collaborate on topics related to this device. Mike R 15:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I use both a Treo and an iPod, but both facts are unencyclopedic and do nothing to further the project. Other editors with these interests could still be located by forming WikiProjects and by looking at whatlinkshere on the userbox transclusions. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per After Midnight. A lot of people use a lot of electronic devices ... that doesn't mean they can or have an interest in writing about them. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the category includes just one user. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per rationale given in above nomination. Horologium t-c 17:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a soapbox for expressing consumer preferences. MER-C 03:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have lots of categories on hardware use, so there's no reason to delete these.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who use Unicode~~

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 debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no apparent collaborative merit. I do too - that doesn't mean I'm going to boo with other users who do. --Haemo 08:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It may possibly be useful, and causes no harm. Loom91 13:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether it does no harm, the argument is that it does not foster collaboration. We delete "harmless" pages that are simply inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Dmcdevit·t 19:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Using something does not automatically imply an interest in it or an ability to write on it. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ĎĚĽĚŤĚ - no redeeming encyclopedic value. You use Unicode every time you run a Java applet or application anyway, so it's overly broad. MER-C 03:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who use wireless connections~~

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 debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no apparent collaborative merit. Using a wireless connection is very general, and does not make anyone inclined to work with another user who does so. --Haemo 08:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Haemo. Mike R 15:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Haemo. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Haemo. Horologium t-c 17:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who use Bluetooth technology~~

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 debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per arguments for wireless category above. Mike R 15:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too general to be useful. Also, editors who use a given technology are not automatically endowed with the ability or desire to edit articles about that technology. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who use personal digital assistants~~
~~WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete - no apparent collaborative merit. Using a PDA does not make anyone more inclined to write about them in an encyclopedic manner. --Haemo 08:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my arguments on "Wikipedians who use" categories. In general, use of a device does not automatically give the ability or desire to contribute encyclopedic content about that device. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per rationale given in Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedians who use Zen Nanos or MuVo N200s. Horologium t-c 17:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have lots of categories on hardware use, so there's no reason to delete these.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the existence of those other (potentially equally inappropriate) categories validate the existence of this one? Perhaps some of the others are worthy of deletion as well. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit to this category. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Wikipedians who listen to Pete Rock~~

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 debate was Delete ^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Could be useful in finding other Wikipedians to collaborate on topics related to this artist. Mike R 15:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, Category:WikiProject Pete Rock participants is useful for that purpose. This is useful for finding Wikipedians who listen to him regardless of knowledge or propensity for contributions to related articles. Dmcdevit·t 19:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per below: WP:UCFD#Category:Wikipedians who listen to Madonna. MER-C 09:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have lots of categories on music preference, so there's no reason to delete this.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dmcdevit and also because the category contains only one user. The existence of other (possibly equally inappropriate) categories does not validate the existence of this one. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who listen to Madonna~~

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 debate was Delete ^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Could be useful in finding other editors to collaborate on Madonna-related topics. Mike R 15:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Compare Category:WikiProject Queen participants with Category:Wikipedians who listen to Queen. The first one is for collaboration; the second one is for social networking and creating Myspacey home pages. Dmcdevit·t 19:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dmcdevit. The music you listen to has no relevance to Wikipedia and hence this category has no redeeming value. MER-C 09:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)`[reply]

Keep. We have lots of categories on music preference, so there's no reason to delete this.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dmcdevit and also because the category contains only one user. The existence of other (possibly equally inappropriate) categories does not validate the existence of this one. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who dislike High School Musical~~

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 debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no apparent collaborative merit. Liking something is rarely collaborative -- disliking it is definitely not. --Haemo 08:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Dislike" categories should go, obviously. Mike R 15:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Not categories are a not. Horologium t-c 15:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Haemo. This could perhaps be used to collaborate on vandalising the article. Only joking ... please don't get any ideas. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Not" category. VegaDark (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who play Kya Dark Lineage~~

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 debate was Delete ^demon^{[omg plz]} 10:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The two editors currently in the category, User:Hotspot and User:Lanky are both aware of each other and both are currently active on the Kya: Dark Lineage article. I do not know what role, if any, the category played in their collaboration, but I do think that this fact is relevant to this discussion. Perhaps the "collaborative potential" of the category has already been exhausted; perhaps it served no such purpose in the first place. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- How dare you try to get rid of it, its not a category for an article, its for wikipedias who like kya dark lineage, there are other categories just like this and they aren't in question for deletion!!! it will grow you know, i made this category becuase i love kya dark lineage and i want to know who else plays it! and why does it say myspace in the beginning? i hate myspace i would never go there!-hotspot

Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, all categories must somehow contribute to the encyclopedia. MER-C 03:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- its not fair other games get a category!-hotspot

Organizing users by genre of game may be more useful -- if we keep up one category for every game released, we'll quickly drown in a sea of categories that won't tell us anything more than a quick glance at the article's history page. I would favor deleting this category, on those grounds, but it's far from being the only one. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have lots of categories on game preference, so there's no reason to delete this.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my first comment. Any collaborative potential that this category may have had has already been exhausted. Also, the existence of other categories does not validate the existence of this one. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Ovo-lacto Vegetarian Wikipedians~~

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 debate was only one page to merge, and already in upper category, so delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no apparent collaborative merit. --Haemo 08:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into more broad vegetarian category. A vegetarian category would be useful for someone trying to find other editors to collaborate on topics related to vegetarianism, vegetarian cuisine, etc. Mike R 15:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Haemo. The category contains only one user (the other two pages are the userbox and a WP page) who is already classified in Category:Vegetarian Wikipedians. Thus, a merge is not necessary. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Black Falcon. Would have supported a merge if the larger cat was not all-inclusive. Horologium t-c 18:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who listen to the Police~~
~~WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Keep. Could be useful in finding other Wikipedians to collaborate on topics related to this band. Mike R 15:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As with the others, this merely indicates Wikipedians who listen to them regardless of knowledge or propensity for contributions to related articles. Dmcdevit·t 19:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... would genre categories offer more potential for collaboration? Also, this category in particular appears to be completely empty. If this is the result of foul play, that's bad; if this is natural, then the category should probably be deleted. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the userbox is used by only one Wikipedian. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The category is used by only one editor, which both "keep" arguments above seem to have overlooked. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have lots of categories on music preference, so there's no reason to delete this.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of other pages does not validate the existence of this one. Perhaps the other "categories on music preference" are inappropriate as well. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit to this category. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Wikipedians who drink alcohol~~

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 debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no apparent collaborative merit. Drinking alcohol is exceedingly general and will not lead anyone to work together. --Haemo 08:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Haemo. Mike R 15:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Drinking alcohol does not give the ability to contribute encyclopedic content to articles about alcohol. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and take out its mirror image Category:Wikipedian Teetotalers at the same time. We don't need either cat. Horologium t-c 19:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. VegaDark (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who play White Wolf Games~~
~~WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Keep. Could be useful in finding other Wikipedians to collaborate on topics related to these games. Mike R 15:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are White Wolf games really that specific (or a unique genre) to justify such an argument? I'm not challenging your recommendation, but am genuinely curious. For instance, I would not find this argument convincing if it was Category:Wikipedians who play football or Category:Wikipedians who play cards. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Wikipedians who play role-playing games. Potentially useful category, I think, but too narrow in scope. My opinion. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have lots of categories on music preference, so there's no reason to delete this.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you quite sure you're reading the discussions you're participating in? ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit to this category. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Wikipedians who can solve a Rubik's Cube~~

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 debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no apparent collaborative merit. So what? --Haemo 08:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Haemo. Mike R 15:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "So what?" about sums it up. It's a neat ability to have, but it has no relevance to the encyclopedia. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value, especially when one has a screwdriver. MER-C 03:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. VegaDark (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Submissive Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete. VegaDark (talk) 07:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a social networking site. Per current policy, non-article pages should be targeted toward the organisation or improvement of articles or to the provision of "a foundation for effective collaboration". User categories are appropriate only if they further collaboration; this one does not.

Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this has no collaborative potential. Dmcdevit·t 08:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — an abuse of the category system. --Cyde Weys 08:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no apparent collaborative merit. I can only see one use for this and... uh... yeah. --Haemo 08:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was going to stay out of these, but, wow, there's only one user in this category. No reason he needs an entire cat to identify this preference on his userpage. ergot 15:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are actually 14 people who have the userbox, but 13 of them have the usercat transcluded. Not sure what happened there... I'm not going to !vote on this one, because it ties into some areas where my personal biases are relevant. Horologium t-c 21:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
~~June 21~~
~~Category:Hippy Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Dmcdevit is absolutely correct in the lack of collaborative purpose for this category. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit. --Haemo 01:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This doesn't help collaboration at all—arf! 01:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No collaborative merit. A hippie without access to sources can contribute less than a non-hippie with access to sources. The identity itself makes no difference. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No linked article, feels very MySpacey. Horologium t-c 02:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. VegaDark (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Paradoxical Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Dmcdevit is absolutely correct in the lack of collaborative purpose for this category. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An interesting category and self-identification, but it holds no collaborative potential. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit. --Haemo 01:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no collaborative value, not linked to an article. Horologium t-c 02:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. VegaDark (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Nocturnal Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Dmcdevit is absolutely correct in the lack of collaborative purpose for this category. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit, though I could definitely qualify. --Haemo 01:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. VegaDark (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Horologium t-c 21:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Schizophrenic Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Dmcdevit is absolutely correct in the lack of collaborative purpose for this category. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit; having a medical condition does not lead to any sort of expertise on it. --Haemo 01:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No collaborative merit; also, the category contains only one member. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no collaborative merit—arf! 01:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedians who play StarCraft~~
~~WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete per nom, Dmcdevit is absolutely correct in the lack of collaborative purpose for this category. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit. --Haemo 01:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Could be useful in finding other editors to collaborate on topics related to this game. Mike R 15:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if collaboration is needed this could be done through a WikiProject. Also, only the category would be removed, not the userbox - so whatlinkshere for the transclusions will still be available. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what's the point? Less than 160 userpages have the userbox, whereas ~182 unique users are in the category. The userbox is optional. The category is more inclusive and easier to use. –Pomte 09:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that categories aren't used for collaboration, WikiProjects are. Feel free to save a list of the users in the category to your userspace prior to deletion to save for future WikiProject creation. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: while I've closed the below three categories as delete (Protoss, Terran, and Zerh players), I don't feel it would be appropriate to delete this particular category without a wee bit more discussion. As I've involved myself with the discussions below, I'll avoid commenting beyond that. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & After Midnight. Pepsidrinka 21:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As mentioned by After Midnight, a WikiProject might be useful here; there was a lot of interest in this game when it first appeared. Horologium t-c 21:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have lots of categories on game preference, so there's no reason to delete this.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Protoss Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete, the pylons to support this many Wikipedians are too expensive. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Dmcdevit is absolutely correct in the lack of collaborative purpose for this category. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit at all. It doesn't even make sense. --Haemo 01:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but I will reconsider if anyone proves they belong to this particular species. :)--Ramdrake 02:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this category is a sub of "Wikipedians who play Starcraft". Still, I see no redeeming value.--Ramdrake 15:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no redeeming value whatsoever, and just plain stupid. MER-C 03:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Too specific for collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Terran Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Dmcdevit is absolutely correct in the lack of collaborative purpose for this category. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit. --Haemo 01:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but I'll reconsider if someone manages to prove they don't belong in this category. :)--Ramdrake 02:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless, all-inclusive category. Horologium t-c 03:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pointless. Mike R 15:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this category is a sub of "Wikipedians who play Starcraft". Still, I see no redeeming value.--Ramdrake 15:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value. Wikipedia isn't a game clan forum. MER-C 04:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Too specific for collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Zerg Wikipedians~~

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 debate was kekekekekekekekekekeke (also, delete). – Luna Santin (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Dmcdevit is absolutely correct in the lack of collaborative purpose for this category. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit. --Haemo 01:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't help collaboration at all, and feels a little myspacey—arf! 03:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this category is a sub of "Wikipedians who play Starcraft". Still, I see no redeeming value.--Ramdrake 15:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no redeeming value whatsoever, and just plain stupid. MER-C 03:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Too specific for collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Permawake Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Dmcdevit is absolutely correct in the lack of collaborative purpose for this category. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit. I'll bet insomnia is another user category --Haemo 01:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly merge/move to something to the effect of "Wikipedians with sleep disorders" or some such, to at least lump these together (which seems to magnify any collaborate merit they might have). Not having found similar categories while I was searching, though, we could also arguably delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pepsidrinka 21:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Wikipedian homebrewers~~

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 debate was no consensus or keep depending on how you call it -- either defaults to keep. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Dmcdevit is absolutely correct in the lack of collaborative purpose for this category. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - does not appear to have collaborative merit, but change my mind! --Haemo 01:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This one, unlike most of the others, actually has some potential for collaboration. In fact, the article to which it is linked is currently tagged as being America-centric. Someone interested in improving that article could look for someone elsewhere (Germany, Belgium and Australia pop into my head immediately) and see if they are willing to work on expanding the article. Horologium t-c 02:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I really don't understand why editors insist on wasting their time trying to delete userboxes when there is so much constructive work to be done in the encyclopedia. This catagory obviously has significant potential to aid in collaborations. Loom91 13:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obvious collaborative purpose. Mike R 15:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Horologium. To me, this seems to be more of a "by profession" category. I don't see "obvious" or "significant" potential to aid collaboration, but I think a case could be made. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Dyslexic Wikipedians~~
~~WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete per nom, Dmcdevit is absolutely correct in the lack of collaborative purpose for this category. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit. --Haemo 01:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It could be useful to know when a Wikipedian is dyslexic. Mike R 15:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it could be useful, but how could it be useful to an encyclopedia? Dmcdevit·t 04:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Delete. ~~I agree that it could be useful to know when an editor is dyslexic, but~~ that purpose is filled by the userbox. I'm having a hard time thinking of a use for the category itself. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep while the userbox would also be useful, I would point out some people seem allergic to them out of principle. Having an alternate way of tagging those who want to tag themselves in this way would make sense.--Ramdrake 20:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of what benefit to the project is tagging oneself as dyslexic? Dmcdevit·t 04:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as apparently without collaborative merit; in response to Ramdrake's concern over users uncomfortable with userboxes, that's accomplished easily enough by writing "by the way, I'm dyslexic" on one's userpage, no? We don't really need categories for everything, and as much as I can sympathize, this really strikes me as social networking, personally. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pepsidrinka 21:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot think of any way in which finding dyslexic users could be useful to writing any article. Being dyslexic does not imply a connection with being knowledgable about dyslexia. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 13:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit to this category. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Nominalist Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Dmcdevit is absolutely correct in the lack of collaborative purpose for this category. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit; I'm not sure how this could be used for anything. --Haemo 01:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no way you can get a group of nominalists to agree on anything other than the name. (grin) Horologium t-c 02:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Pacifist Wikipedians~~
~~WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete per nom, Dmcdevit is absolutely correct in the lack of collaborative purpose for this category. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The category itself has little or no collaborative merit. Any potential for collaboration is already realised through WikiProject Military history. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Black Falcon. Horologium t-c 02:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit to this category. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Metalhead Wikipedians~~
~~WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete per nom, Dmcdevit is absolutely correct in the lack of collaborative purpose for this category. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit; liking something does not make one likely to contribute to it. --Haemo 01:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Wikipedians who listen to heavy metal. I am, of course, assuming that people affiliating "with the culture of heavy metal music" list to heavy metal. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Black Falcon. Unless we're uncomfortable recategorizing people without giving them notice, in which case delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merging would be unhelpful. Category:Wikipedians who listen to heavy metal is jut as useless, an should be deleted too. These are users who listen to heavy metal, not users who have declared an interest in collaborating on those articles. Category:WikiProject Metal members already exists. Dmcdevit·t 14:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit to this category. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Black Falcon. Dmcdevit - I disagree with you, at least one of these categories could be of assistance to the WikiProject. Just because I listen doesn't mean I want to join a wikiproject, but expressing an interest through a category shows I wouldn't mind being asked an opinion. Ga rr ie 07:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Omnitheist Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Dmcdevit is absolutely correct in the lack of collaborative purpose for this category. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, given that the article Omnitheism was deleted at a recent AfD discussion. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no article=no category. Horologium t-c 02:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 03:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Single Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Single Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This nomination also includes: Category:Married Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Per current policy, all non-article pages should be targeted toward the organisation or improvement of articles or to the provision of "a foundation for effective collaboration". Pages in userspace are (rightly) given significant leeway on this matter, but these pages are in the category namespace. These categories are so broad as to render them useless for the purpose of furthering collaboration. There is no subject that single people can inherently contribute about that married people can't, and vice versa.
Both articles were nominated for deletion in June 2006; the nominations were closed as "no consensus": see here and here.
Note: Most of the users in these categories are there because they use one of at least six userboxes. The userboxes are NOT the subject of this deletion nomination.

Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless and until someone can show me an article or two on which single people would have a better insight than non-single people (whatever their status maybe).--Ramdrake 22:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit. --Haemo 00:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Ramdrake. Horologium t-c 02:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value. Wikipedia is not a social networking site. MER-C 03:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, but how else will I have an easy list of whom to hit on? Ok, I think I'll manage. delete JoshuaZ 14:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Thin Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a social networking site. A person's weight has little or no relevance to his or her ability to edit, editing interests, or editing strengths. So, this category does not provide "a foundation for effective collaboration" and thus violates the "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site" provision of WP:NOT.

Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, as I can conceive that some people in this category might contribute on articles such as anorexia, amenorrhea, even though that's far from a given.--Ramdrake 22:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete -I'd actually rather not even suggest a possible correlation between 'thin wikipedians' and anorexia. As a side note, 'Wikipedians interested in eating disorders' probably could make a decent category. But I don't see any potential use for this one. Bladestorm 23:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. How thin is thin? It can't be conclusively defined because it's subjective. bibliomaniac 15 ^{BUY NOW!} 00:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tghat doesnt apply here--the users define themselves in. This is not article space.DGG 00:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot think that "thin" is at all a property which would aid in collaboration. --Haemo 00:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete social networking sites are a great place to put how thin you are! --_Hdt83 ^Chat 01:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This one surely doesn't assist collaboration at all...—arf! 01:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value; arbitrary. MER-C 03:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Thin is subjective, among many other reasons to delete this. VegaDark (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as with the others. paternalism. DGG 00:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Myopic Wikipedians~~

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 debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category does not conceivably facilitate cooperation. I can only see it helping nearsightedness, but even that's suspect (just because I wear glasses doesn't mean I can contribute effectively to the article).

Delete as nom. Bl a st ^{[improve me]} 21.06.07 2139 (UTC)

Keep thanks, a new category for my page! It'll help me bond with other myopics! -N 22:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Wikipedia is not a social networking site. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The category provides no potential for encyclopedic collaboration and is thus in violation of current policy. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral although I'm sure people would be quick to call me near-sighted if I voted this way or that. (Sorry, just had to!).--Ramdrake 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no apparent collaborative merit. --Haemo 00:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — an abuse of the category system. --Cyde Weys 08:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep It is conceivable that some of the more extreme people in this category could be helpful for making variations of Wikipedia that are easier for people with vision problems to use. JoshuaZ 14:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite far-fetched. In fact, I don't know what you have in mind. I am short-sighted; that means I have to take my glasses off to see the computer. I don't think there is much that a website can do for vision problems that glasses can't. Dmcdevit·t 19:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no potential for collaboration. Dmcdevit·t 19:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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