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.
Delete since empty. There are some characters in the film series, I believe many of the human ones, who are unique to the series. However it appears that at present they lack articles, and having watched most of the film series, I have to admit I think their lacking articles makes sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2017 (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.
Delete. Non-defining and trivial. For one thing, smoking is a thing people can quit doing, so lots of people would both belong and not belong here at the same time. (Schrödinger's category!) And for another, everybody filed here right now is a person who was alive in the mid-20th century when smoking was the norm, rather than the exception as it is today — we did not always know how dangerous it is, kids — so this would be an unbrowsably massive megacategory if it were added to every single person who could somehow be verified as having been a smoker at some point in their lives. Bearcat (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A potentially huge, non-defining category with potential for endless debates about inclusion. (Do people stay in cat if they quit?) DragonflyDC (talk) 04:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think we have a fairly strong consensus that people who quit smoking belong in the category. That said, shouldn't FDR be in here, although that is the other problem. We have few if any other categories with the name "celebrity", because it is hard to define. World-wide smoking may actually be at present the habit of a majority of the world population, at least as of 25-year-ago it was on the rise in China while declining in the US. It seems assumed this is meant to just cover tabacco smokers, but that is not explicitly stated, so people who smoke other substances would seem to belong here as well. Lastly, do they have to be well known for smoking, or just be well known and smoke? Also, while people who smoked on screen in film or TV would probably clearly fit, how often does someone have had to smoked to belong here? If we had a person who it said they smoked once in their life, and never tried it again, do they belong?John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 14 August 2017 (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.
I had completely forgotten that category (I created it). But I do wonder if it may be more useful that it seems, after reading this article [1] in today's Atlantic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks a clear definition. The congressional baseball shooting clearly does not belong. Many of the people targeted there have been critical of many of Trump's actions. The category is too ill defined.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2017 (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 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.
Nominator's rationale: Of the four things in this category, only one significantly "depicts" Bette Davis, the mini-series Feud. Vogue mentions her name, Bette Davis Eyes discusses a woman with a facial feature that resembles Davis and the comic book contains what based on the article is a cameo along with dozens of other Hollywood stars. With only one article legitimately fitting the category I do not see any need for it. Crewman Capote (talk) 05:55, 7 August 2017 (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:merge. The reverse merge option hasn't been discussed as such, so this closure is without prejudice against an early fresh nomination about the correct name of the category. (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Female criminals. Ottawahitech has an idiosyncratic and unsupported belief that the term "female" is insulting to women. Before they were indef blocked, they had a habit of creating and populating duplicate or unnecessary categories. Now they seem to advancing an argument about transgender people which suggests that they mean well but may not be familiar with the issues and politics of trans identity. Merge this category and any similar categories created by Ottawahitech. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2017 (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.
