< December 30	January 1 >

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

The result of the discussion was: procedural close; already deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Ophthalmology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete This WikiProject no longer exists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• C1 Empty. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 15:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Japanese occupation money to Category:Japanese invasion money

Nominator's rationale: Rename: There is a Wikipedia article Japanese invasion money. Also in Google "Japanese invasion money" gives 4,630 hits, while "Japanese occupation money" only gives 965 hits. GCarty (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match main article.-choster (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose rename article to match category (i.e. I favour "occupation"). You don't invade by waving banknotes, but they are a symbol of ongoing occupation. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's something to take up with numismatists, not CfD.-choster (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to match the contents (not just the name) of the main article and references found therein for money issued by the Japanese military upon invading and occupying countries. Correct historical terminology should be used, not just something that WP makes up. Hmains (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as nominated. The current name looks like a bit of a neologism. The proposed name is certainly more common. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: administrative close: nothing left to do, as Scott Alter has pre-empted the process by making the change. Per discussion below, the change apparently had to be made prior to the heat death of the universe. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Ophthalmology articles to Category:Ophthalmology task force articles

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a routine move as a result of the independent and inactive WP:WikiProject Ophthalmology being repurposed as a task force under WP:WikiProject Medicine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close and relist -- This is an adminstrative category for talk pages not a category for article space. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist where and how? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I am aware, there is no separate discussion venue for administrative categories (other than Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion and Wikipedia:User categories for discussion). --Scott Alter 03:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:WikiProject Ophthalmology task force articles. Not sure of the spelling of task force. This is still a form of a wikiproject and the category name needs to reflect that. Renaming into the main name space needs to be avoided. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nominator. The proposed category name is consistent with all other categories of task forces. Not all administrative-type categories of WikiProjects begin with the prefix, "WikiProject." Take a look at Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments. All of these categories for WikiProject article assessment do not contain "WikiProject" or "task force." Most importantly, the proposed category name is consistent with other WikiProject Medicine task force categories. Additionally, the name formatting is consistent with task force categories of other WikiProjects (such as Military history and Philosophy). --Scott Alter 03:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, the bigger question should be which is the proper rename? Should they be in the main name space or in the 'wikiproject' name space? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Categories belong in the Category: namespace, of course. There is no "WikiProject" namespace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you are referring to moving all talk page articles categories to the pseudo-namespace Category:WikiProject (analogous to the pseudo-namespace Wikipedia:WikiProject), then this is a much broader issue that this one category alone that would require a large discussion. Thousands of categories of talk pages do not use Category:WikiProject. If you feel that they should all be changed, then the discussion should be brought up in a more prominent place (perhaps somewhere within WP:1.0). In any case, current conventions support the nominator's proposal. Additionally, as ((WPMED)) was just updated for the Ophthalmology task force, and it uses the format "Category:specialty task force articles", this category is almost empty anyway. It was populated by a template (((OphthoWikiProject))) that is no longer in use. --Scott Alter 07:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (changed from rename). This category was only populated from templates. In the time since this category has been put up for deletion, the two templates that had populated this category (articles from ((OphthoWikiProject)), category from ((expert-subject))) are no longer used. Additionally, the proposed new category has already been created and put into use. Therefore, there is nothing left that needs to be done with this category - it is extraneous and can simply be deleted. --Scott Alter 16:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did you create the category before the CfD ended? You obviously knew it was ongoing. Why pre-empt the discussion conclusion? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a background, this category was solely populated by a template that was used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Ophthalmology (so you could argue that it never belonged in CfD in the first place). All of the medicine specialty WikiProjets were being converted to task forces of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. This process which included changing project banners to use ((WPMED)), which categorizes articles in "Category:specialty task force articles". Now, let me provide a time line for you. First, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ophthalmology was converted to a task force. Then, changes were initiated to be made to ((WPMED)) (it was fully protected at the time). At the same time, this CfD was created. Once the changes to ((WPMED)) were made, I replaced the usage of ((OphthoWikiProject)) with ((WPMED)). This moved articles from Category:WikiProject Ophthalmology articles to Category:Ophthalmology task force articles. I was not about to wait weeks (it's been almost 2 now) for this CfD to close, which was preventing me from finishing the task force conversion. Essentially, the discussion to convert Wikipedia:WikiProject Ophthalmology to a task force of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine implied that this category would be changed as well - since WikiProject Ophthalmology no longer exists, and all other task forces of WPMED use the new format. --Scott Alter 13:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete all but Category:Sadism per discussion. Category:Sadism deleted as empty. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sadism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Borderline Personality Disorder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Sociopathy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Psychopathy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Essentially superfluous, meaningless, and subjective. These categories don't establish what they are supposed to include and some conflate real and fictional topics. They are also redundant to various cats and subcats already existing under Category:Psychiatry. Application of these categories relies on armchair psychiatry on the part of WP editors (not to cast scrutiny on the creator, but he's in the habit of this). Similar categories of this ilk have been previously deleted for just this reason. See for example the CfDs for Category:Narcissim and Category:Hubris, both of which the creator re-created in the same round as creating these and which have been marked for speedy under G4. The same arguments apply here. IllaZilla (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. "Essentially superfluous, meaningless, and subjective. These categories don't establish what they are supposed to include and some conflagrate real and fictional topics. They are also redundant to various cats and subcats already existing under Category:Psychiatry." I would add they also are redundant and duplicate cats and subcats under Category:Psychology. Articles on psychiatric/psychological traits, diagnoses etc. need to be supported by references per WP:MEDRS, not pop cultural books and other questionable sources. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: In retrospect not entirely necessary. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I was really puzzled as to what happened here, until I looked into the edit history for Evil Genes, the lone article that was in all of the new categories. Although Jupiter Optimus Maximus (hereinafter referred to as JOM) did technically create the categories, the real author is actually User:Barboakley, who added them to that article despite the fact that they didn't yet exist. Evidently JOM came across the article, saw the redlinked categories, and decided to create them. Btw, User:Barboakley appears to be the author of the book in question, as well (actual name Barbara Oakley). Cgingold (talk) 06:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good point actually, meaning that WP:COI is a factor in the debate with regards to Ms Oakley. You're right about my chain of thoughts. There are a good deal of articles relating to psychopathy, sociopathy, narcissism, etc so it seemed like a good idea at the time to create them. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I would agree that Category:Psychopathy, Category:Sociopathy, and Category:Borderline Personality Disorder should be deleted as they are already covered by Category:Personality disorders and Category:Abnormal psychology. However, I think it's possible that Category:Sadism could be put to good use, if as I suspect there are multiple articles dealing directly with some aspect of that subject. So I'm going to hold off making a recommendation on that category until I finish looking for such articles. PS - I sure hope those topics didn't actually get conflagrated... I mean, it's bad enough when they get conflated. :) Cgingold (talk) 06:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I agree about sadism. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- If we need this at all it should be a parent category "psychological traits", but I expect it is adequately coverd under psychology. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The rationale for this nomination is very bad, for the following reasons:
  1. Sadism, BPD, sociopathy and psychopathy are not "psychological traits". These are psychiatric disorders (personality disorders, to be exact). There is a difference. Consequently, the comparison with hubris does not hold.
  2. These are not "meaningless" nor "subjective". E.g. BPD is coded as F60.3 in the ICD-10 classification, and I don't really think that the World Health Organization is engaging in "armchair psychiatry" here.
  3. If there are articles that don't belong into these categories, the solution would obviously be to remove them, and not to delete the categories altogether.

I'm not saying that these categories should not be deleted, it's just that I wish people would be more careful in how they nominate, especially when deletion is concerned. GregorB (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -
• Only Borderline personality disorder is a psychological or psychiatric disorder, specifically a personality disorder and has a specific definition in psychology. It does not need its own category, as it would be the only item in the category.
• Psychological trait a general term in psychology, used in relationship to trait theory. There is no list of "psychological traits" that have any meaning in the field of psychology.
• Sociopathy and psychopathy are general terms used in days gone by, and now used by the lay public primarily to convey various meanings. They do not exist in the two diagnostic handbooks in use for psychologists and psychiatrists - DSM-IV or ICD-10. There is a research scale that uses the term, Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) but this is not used to diagnose psychopathy. Therefore, whatever sociopathy or psychopathy is defined as depends on the source or the dictionary used, not on professional standards, per WP:MEDRS, the standards for reliable sources used for psychology articles. Sadistic personality disorder was previously used in an outdated diagnostic manual, but has been discarded and has no specific psychological use outside the use by the general public.
• If you want a category for sadism, put it under S&M or someplace like that. Read Sadism and masochism as medical terms to explain that sadism and masochism are not medical terms in professional use today.
• You are free to populate the Category:Sadism. Just do not put it under a psychological/psychiatric diagnosis. Perhaps it would go under Category:BDSM.

—Mattisse (Talk) 01:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The semantics about the wording of the nomination notwithstanding (as I'm not versed in psychology nor psychiatry), it is nevertheless the case that the categories do not specify a specific relationship to World Health Organization definitions and thus their application is subjective. In the absence of specific inclusion criteria, the categories are applied using the "armchair psychiatry" of WP editors (ie. Fictional portrayals of psychopaths going under Psychopathy). Also as mentioned, they appear to be redundant to more specific existing categories under Category:Psychology: see Category:Mental illness diagnosis by DSM and ICD. Umbrella categories are currently used for groups of related disorders: Category:Personality disorders for example is the most specific and appropriate subcategory for all articles relating to such disorders. The comparison to Narcissism and Hubris applies because the cats were all created in the same round, by the same person, and applied in the same way. Now, if it is believed that proper inclusion criteria can be applied to these categories and they can be adequately populated and placed properly within the family of existing categories, then by all means do so. But I made the educated assumption that, given the apparently fine level of organization of the existing cats and the number of editors clearly with close knowledge of the relevant fields, if such things could be done they would probably have been done already. And since I lacked the knowledge of where to place them within the existing category trees, and could not see how to fix the problems of their application, bringing them here to CfD seemed the thing to do. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Categories aren't supposed to provide definitive classification of subjects. Putting Fictional portrayals of psychopaths in Category:Psychopathy seems a perfectly reasonable thing to do, if you quit looking at this process as "diagnosing patients" and start looking at it as "If the general reader is interested in this subject, which articles might s/he want to read?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: With regards to Borderline Personality Disorder, think of the great number of sexist slasher films like Fatal Attraction and The Hand That Rocks The Cradle all of which feature women with BPD as antagonists. There's room for them in the category. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment: Various celebrities such as Marilyn Monroe and Joan Crawford have been diagnosed with BPD. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disney landmarks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Category is subjective as there is no official declaration of what a "disney landmark" can be SpikeJones (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree w/ the nominator. There is no definition of what constitutes a "Disney landmark" and therefore it does not appear to be a term used by the company itself, and application of the category basically relies on the POV of editors. It appears to constitute any of the various theme parks' attractions which are big, or have the words "mountain" or "castle" in the name, or are the central attraction of the park. While there may be appropriate distinctions between various types of theme park attractions (say, "Disney resort castles" or "Disney resort bodies of water"), this doesn't appear to be an appropriate one. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per all previous comments. Otto4711 (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: do not rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tanks of the post-Cold War period to Category:Modern tanks

Nominator's rationale: The "post cold war period" is a very awkward and unproffesional name. "Modern tanks" would be a better one Patton123 12:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep / Consider Rename The name is less than ideal, but it describes clearly what's in the category. The proposed rename would be far more vague than what we have now. I will be happy to consider a rename, but I don't support "Modern tanks". Alansohn (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that modern has problems. My fear here is that in the military this may be the correct term. I'll try and find a related project and drop a note on the project's discussion page. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Ummm Just renamed in the opposite way a year ago per WP:MILHIST discussion.-choster (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all tanks are "modern" since they exist only after 1900. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 04:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - "modern" is quite an ambiguous term, and can mean anything from "20th century" to "within the last decade" to "post WWII". There's too much room for generalization, whereas the current name is very specific. Cam ^(Chat) 06:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Cam, the term 'modern' is far too ambiguous. Skinny87 (talk) 11:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose the current name follows the pattern found in the sister categories in Category:Tanks by era and 'post cold war' is a term used in many military/political articles. Hmains (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- The term "modern" is vague: How modern? Since 1989, or since 1960 or 1945? However, the category should be provided with a short headnote explaining its scope, and the template on it should be removed, as inappropriate to categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per choster and the original CFD. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 07:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep all (batch close of parent and subcategories listed below). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Machine guns by caliber (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete It's sub cats have been nominated for deletion; it's not needed IMO, we don't have a cat like this for rifles or pistols or any other type of firearm. Patton123 12:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All - These all look like perfectly valid and useful categories to me. They're not "redundant" - rather, they improve navigation by separating out the machine guns from the other sorts of firearms. Cgingold (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'll abstain from the discussion as far as voting is concerned, but I'd like to point out that the pistols do not enter the picture here simply because the Category:Firearms by calibre does not currently hold any of the popular pistol calibres (such as e.g. 9 mm). A category such as Category:9 mm pistols (or rather Category:9 mm pistols and revolvers) would make sense, because 9 mm firearms other than pistols and revolvers are comparably rare. Not so with e.g. Category:7.62 mm machine guns - nothing remarkable about this particular intersection of attributes. GregorB (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all - we do have Category:Firearms by calibre and it seems perfectly sensible to split out machineguns as in Category:7.92 mm firearms. There might be some advantage in changing the spelling of caliber, for consistency. The calibre of any gun is a defining characteristic, especially when ordering ammunition. (Why is Category:8 mm machine guns not included?) Occuli (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:7.92 mm machine guns[edit]

Category:7.92 mm machine guns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete This cat is mostly redundant to Category:7.92 mm firearms and isn't needed. It's current contents can go in its parent cat Patton123 12:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:12.7 mm machine guns[edit]

Category:12.7 mm machine guns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete This cat is mostly redundant to Category:12.7 mm firearms and isn't needed. It's current contents can go in its parent cat Patton123 12:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:7.62 mm machine guns[edit]

Category:7.62 mm machine guns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete This cat is mostly redundant to Category:7.62 mm firearms and isn't needed. It's current contents can go in its parent cat Patton123 12:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - This category has not been properly tagged for CFD. Cgingold (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian Aces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This recently-created category is redundant to Category:Canadian flying aces, which is two years older and also properly named. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment not all aces are aerial aces, there are such things as tank aces and sub aces. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 04:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• All the same, this category is clearly intended for flying aces, as you can see from the lone sub-cat which is its entire contents. Do we even have any articles about other kinds of aces? Cgingold (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think there are like 5 Canadian tank aces (tanker in command of a tank)... if we don't have articles on them, someone should definitely write them up. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 09:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete redundant and does not match all brother, sister, and cousin categories of this subject. Hmains (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Canadian flying aces, after checking for and removing any who did not fly. If there are tank aces, we can have a separate category for them. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There's isn't anything to merge, since the only thing in it is a single sub-cat that's already in Category:Canadian flying aces. Cgingold (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Abyssal has provided a good reason that was alleged to not exist. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UFO-related phenomena (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete No reason that this should be a separate category from Category:UFOs ScienceApologist (talk) 08:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The category serves a useful purpose by grouping and isolating phenomenon that are closeley associated with UFOs but not necessarily ufological in nature (eg if they are legitimately paranormal, the abduction phenonenon could represent demonic activity unrelated to UFOs, while cattle mutilations could be covert government experiments). Abyssal (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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