Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kbdank71 (talk | contribs) at 15:44, 2 September 2008 (→Category:Black Kids: Closing debate; result was deleteClosing debate; result was delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< August 25 August 27 >

August 26

Category:Non-article New Jersey pages

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. Categories remained empty for 4 days+. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Non-article New Jersey pages - Template:Lc1
Category:Template New Jersey pages - Template:Lc1
Category:Category New Jersey pages - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: This category and its sub-categories have all been superceded by the current assessment scale categories. All categories are empty. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 00:03, 27 August 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.

Category:Children of Presidents of Romania

Category:Children of Presidents of Romania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete - I don't see a good rationale for this particular category, since all of these people are children of the same president of Romania (one guess which president), and there's no real likelihood of others achieving notability in the immediate future. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the daughter of our current president, Elena Băsescu, is quite notable (she's currently the General Secretary of the Youth Organization of the Democrat-Liberal Party), but no one wrote an article about her. bogdan (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neoconservatives

Category:Neoconservatives - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I thought about speedily deleting this as re-created material previously deleted as a result of CfD consensus, but since it's been a year and a half since the last discussion (2007 Feb 7), I thought it better to bring the proposal here. To summarise the previous consensus, it was thought that "neoconservative" was a controversial and relatively vague term that is often used as a pejorative, or at the very least in a POV way. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep -- Neoconservatism is now a well defined political/social movement with very many well-known, self-described adherents. Many books, scholarly articles, and magazine articles have been written by Neoconservatives who self-identify as such. Additionally, more than a few books have also been written by or about Neoconservatives and Neoconservatism, e.g., Neo-conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea (ISBN 1566632285), The Neocon Reader (ISBN 0802141935), They Knew They Were Right (ISBN 0385511817), The Neoconservative Revolution (ISBN 0521545013), Neocon Middle East Policy (ISBN 0976443732), along with many others. --Wassermann (talk) 04:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Questions How do we address the issue of inclusion criteria, then? To be included, do they need to be a self-described neoconservative? Are those involved with the Project for the New American Century automatically neoconservatives? What about those like Michael Lind or Francis Fukuyama, who have distanced themselves as of late from the movement? What about neoconservative "forerunners" who were active before the term was invented, like Scoop Jackson? Because of the roots of the movement, can this be a subcategory of Category:Trotskyists? What about previous uses of the term, like it being applied to Nazi thinkers Carl Schmitt and Arthur Moeller van den Bruck? Is this limited to American neoconservatives? If so, why? What about the problem of using "neoconservative" as an epithet, sometimes an anti-Semitic one? I think these issues need to be settled before we agree that the former consensus to delete has changed or should be overridden. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The term is used too widely and wildly to be useful. What it is is not even fully agreed to by everyone.--T. Anthony (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DLand's comment at the original CfD and per Good Olfactory here. (too nebulous a term) --Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Multi-racial musical groups

Category:Multi-racial musical groups - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Over-categorisation, per WP:OCAT#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 21:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think this could be an encyclopedic topic given the history of Jazz in the U.S. and the Music of South Africa. Granted the current list is more about Hootie & the Blowfish than the Benny Goodman Orchestra, but there is potential here. -MrFizyx (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Was thinking about nominating this myself, yesterday... Metao (talk) 08:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - So a group qualifies because they have members of different races? I don't know that I'd even support listification of this. - jc37 10:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thats all it took to keep your band from touring the southern US under Jim Crow (which incidentally was so named for a song). On the other hand I wouldn't now propose a category for multi-racial baseball teams. -MrFizyx (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If categorizing by mixed gender is trivial, then so is categorizing by gender. There doesn't seem to be a clear criterion, as MrFizyx pointed out. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (not surpising since I created it I guess). When I noticed again that the American Breed was bi-racial, I realized that this is a part of rock and roll history that is not particularly well known. It was rare enough when Hootie & the Blowfish came along, but I doubt that 1 of 100 American fans of "Bend Me, Shape Me" have any idea that this 1960s band was multi-racial. I remember checking in a couple of months later and being astounded at how quickly the category filled up compared to a couple of others that I have started. I guess it is hard for me to imagine that it is "notable" that the American Breed is from Chicago, or that it was formed in 1966 and disbanded in 1969; and that it is "notable" that Hootie are University of South Carolina alumni and that they are a quartet; but it is somehow "non-notable" that they are bi-racial groups. Can someone please explain that to me? Shocking Blue (talk) 11:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess one way of looking at the difference is that facts like year of formation and town/state/country of origin are things that one might put in the lead of the article, for instance. However, I notice that in the case in point (American Breed), it currently states "interracial" in the lead, which strikes me as odd. Not from some political-correctness point of view, but more from the fact that we don't put "all black" anywhere in e.g. the Destiny's Child article, nor for that matter "all white" in the Oasis (band) article. Nor do we say that "Samuel L Jackson is black" (or similar) in the Samuel L Jackson article. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 18:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point was not that year or city of formation is not notable (even though it was actually Cicero rather than Chicago itself in the case of the American Breed); they certainly are. But why keep track of the "quartets" among musical groups, and why is year of disbanding notable, particularly these days, when it is hard to come up with even an obscure 1960s band that has not reformed at least once. I agree with your point about interracial; "multi-racial" is what I came up with rather than "bi-racial" because there are some "tri-racial" bands like Deee-lite (and I just left "multi-ethnic" alone as being ultimately meaningless). And I would concede that perhaps it is of more historical significance as someone else pointed out below. Also, the category would have no meaning for some types of musical groups; it would be more notable for a full symphony orchestra to be singly racial than multi-racial for instance. Regardless, there are close to 100 bands listed already in the category, which shows that there is some interest out there in this distinction. Shocking Blue (talk 20:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete However I think this issue is of enough historic importance to merit an article. Maybe something like Racial integration in popular music in the way we have Baseball color line. For example The Del-Vikings and Booker T. & the M.G.'s being multi-racial was likely significant then as segregation was still an issue. However to have this as a category may not make much more sense than to have "multi-racial golf courses" as a category even if that was also an issue once.--T. Anthony (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Siblings of Presidents of the United States

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Siblings of Presidents of the United States - Template:Lc1
Category:Parents of Presidents of the United States - Template:Lc1
Category:Children of Presidents of the United States - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Just being sibling of a president doesn't seem like it's notable enough of a criterion. Why not siblings of vice presidents? Mothers of presidents? Etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI there is a Category:Parents of Presidents of the United States. -MrFizyx (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've reconsidered, especially after seeing the other categories added. Parents we must keep given the arguments of User:Americasroof below. I give a weak keep on children since not many people grow up in the White House. At the moment I'm neutral on siblings. I have to agree that you've now bundled too much here. -MrFizyx (talk) 04:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear Keep for All - Nobody ever suggested that "notability is inherited". What you're ignoring is the fact that each of those articles passes notability, and in most cases it's principally as a direct result of their close family relationship to a US president. That being the case, grouping them in these categories is just an obvious and straightforward basis for this set of categories. Cgingold (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - The overriding rule according to WP:Note is If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. There are numerous books that bundles the parents together here, here, here, and here. It clearly passes the third party notability test. Nominator has overly bundled this nomination and improperly linked the President's nomination (which I fixed). Americasroof (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but police. Being a relative of a president is a notable chacteristic of a person, but not a chacteristic that confers notability on an otherwise NN person. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:22, 27 August 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.

Category:Lebanese blogs

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: upmerge as nominated and delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Lebanese blogs to Category:both parents
Nominator's rationale: Merge - small category with unclear growth potential. This is the only Blogs by country category that we have. No objection to recreation should such a tree develop but for now it's not needed. Otto4711 (talk) 19:59, 26 August 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.

Category:List New Jersey pages

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete as empty. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:List New Jersey pages - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Redundant purpose to Category:List-Class New Jersey articles; cat is empty. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 19:29, 26 August 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.

Category:Tom T. Hall songs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Tom T. Hall songs to Category:Songs written by Tom T. Hall
Nominator's rationale: Hall did write these songs, although he didn't perform them. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:10, 26 August 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.

Category:Black Kids singles

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Black Kids singles to Category:Black Kids songs
Nominator's rationale: per usual conventions in Category:Songs by artist and in Category:Singles. Occuli (talk) 12:12, 26 August 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.

Category:Black Kids

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Black Kids - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Categories for a band appear to be non-standard. Metao (talk) 10:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except of course there's also this recent CFD and this recent CFD and this recent CFD so the supposed "shift in consensus" is not so clear-cut as you'd like to paint it. The albums and singles are all linked through the main article as well as an extensive navigational template and the categories are appropriately parented in their respective ...by artist trees. Absolutely no need for a category to hold them along with the main article and the discography article. Otto4711 (talk) 22:50, 26 August 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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Comic book publishing companies

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 15:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Comic book publishing companies to Category:Comics publishing companies

This cat is broader than just American comic book publishers. And "comics" is the preferred term, per long-standing consensus at WP:CMC. (See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English and WP:NCC) - jc37 08:18, 26 August 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.

Category:Comic book stores

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 15:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Comic book stores to Category:Comics retailers

Per Category:Retailers. - jc37 07:55, 26 August 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.

Category:Comic book terminology

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 15:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Comic book terminology to Category:Comics terminology

Most terms apply to more than just to American comic books. And "comics" is the preferred term, per long-standing consensus at WP:CMC. (See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English and WP:NCC) - jc37 07:18, 26 August 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.

Category:Songs by Bob Gaudio

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 (multiple songs have now been added to category). Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Bob Gaudio to Category:Songs written by Bob Gaudio
Nominator's rationale: To match all other songs-by-songwriter cats. Either that or delete, there's only one song in it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 05:19, 26 August 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.

Category:Songs by Bob Crewe

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Bob Crewe to Category:Songs written by Bob Crewe
Nominator's rationale: Naming conventions for all other songs-by-songwriter cats. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 05:18, 26 August 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.

Category:Comic book storylines

Rename Category:Comic book storylines to Category:Fictional storylines in comics (or Category:Storylines in comics)
To match the example of: Category:Fictional storylines. - jc37 03:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional content in comics subcats

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 all. Kbdank71 15:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Comics characters to Category:Fictional characters in comics
Rename Category:Comics locations to Category:Fictional locations in comics
Rename Category:Comics objects to Category:Fictional objects in comics

To match the convention of Category:Fictional, including the examples of:

Category:Fictional characters
Category:Fictional locations
Category:Fictional objects

And also to match the previous consensus at WP:CMC (now noted in WP:NCC, under lists) that "...in comics" is to be used for fictional content, compared to "Comics x" which is (in general) only used for RL topics. - jc37 03:50, 26 August 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.

Category:Associations of students

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Student organizations. Kbdank71 15:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Associations of students to Category:Student associations
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Basically, the current name is less likely to be encountered in English; the current name sounds stilted. Unfortunately, Student association is a redirect to Students' union (Category:Students' unions is - quite rightly - a subcategory of the category up for renaming, since the two terms are not synonymous). Category:Students' associations would also be a reasonable alternative to the current name. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 26 August 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.

Category:Scientologists by Nationality

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This was moved here from the previous day's CFDs. Cgingold (talk) 01:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. I don't know what you mean by {{subst:cfm}} i.e. where and how I am supposed to use that? 2. I have added Scottish and Welsh subcategories but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_Scientologists is still showing English Scientologists as the only subcategory. What have I done wrong? 3. I notice that some Scientologists are listed as if they have 2 nationalities e.g. Doug E. Fresh (Barbadian and American) I expect because he is of Barbadian descent but lives in the US. So would it be OK to do the same for Hossam Ramzy who is Egyptian but lives in the UK? 4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Scientologists Is this list compiled by hand? There are people in it whose entry doesn't even mention Scientology e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Prepon, and vice versa, people who have a Scientology category who do not appear in this list e.g. Marc Koska

Also, I wanted to make these a numbered list - is that possible in WP and can one set up WP so I get alerted by e-mail when you reply to this? Johnalexwood (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • First, it appears that you've changed your mind here, and no longer oppose splitting Category:British Scientologists into sub-cats. If that's the case, we can close out this CFD. (Or have I got that backwards?)

Yes, sorry, forgot to tell you that. Once I thought I had got the hang of it, I decided that we might as well leave well alone. How do I close the CFD then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Welsh_Scientologists seems to be sorted now - many thanks. All ready for when a Welsh Scientologist pops up.

Also sorted now I hope, see: Hossam Ramzy Didn't mean to do that - just pasted the wrong text.'

      • Strictly speaking, people should only be listed by their nationality, but sometimes, if they've lived in another country for a very substantial part of their life, an editor will use that category as well.

Well Hossam is Egyptian but has lived in the UK for decades.

      • People should never be included in categories when there is no assertion of fact in the text of the article to validate those categories. When I come across that sort of thing, I will either add the info myself -- with a cited source, whenever possible -- or else I raise the issue on the talk page, asking for other editors to either provide the info or remove the category. (There's also a cleanup template that can be added at the end of the article, but I don't recall it's name at the moment.)

OK - it makes sense to me for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Scientologists to be made up of all entries that already have a Scientologist category of any description.

      • Numbered lists are not possible in categories.

OK, thanks

      • Sorry, but there's no email alert (wouldn't that be nice). You'll just have to keep checking back like everybody else. At least you get that bright yellow-orange band across the page when there's a new message on your talk page.

Yeah, that's noticable.

One last thing - David Gaiman (and undoubtedly other Scientologists around the world) still practices his religion of birth (Judaism) but is also a Scientologist (that's just the way it is with Scientology), so the cat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Converts_to_Scientology sort of fits but it implies that he has converted away from Judaism, which he hasn't. In any case, I ought to add http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:English_Jews and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_Jews to his entry as well, no? Johnalexwood (talk) 21:12, 26 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_26&oldid=235833161"