Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Mysterious people

The following discussion comes from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, where it is currently listed as unresolved. It may be reviewed again in the future in the light of evolving standards and guidelines for categorization.21:32, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Mysterious people

Hopelessly vague and subjective. Lunchboxhero 23:02, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

• It's POV. Who's to say what makes a person "mysterious?" What criteria were used? Most importantly, why is this distinction considered significant to begin with? Delete. --Ardonik.talk() 23:10, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
• It may be POV, but it's a nice collection of interesting people, ranging from clearly very mysterious to somewhat mysterious. I vote Keep'. --ssd 04:48, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Highly inappropriate as a classification. Postdlf 17:34, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Propose to approach this in a more wikipedia:categorization of people way. E.g.:
  • Give user:ssd (who created the category), and others, the opportunity to insert a workable definition of what mysterious people should be in this category;
    • I didn't create it. I just looked at it and thought at least three of them were certainly very mysterious,and possibly only notable because of their mysteriousness. Some others probably don't belong there. --ssd 05:03, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Consider whether some kind of merging with List of borderline fictional characters (that contains several definitions of why people can be mysterious/partly fictional) would be useful. (--Francis Schonken 14:35, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC):)

    I don't think the mysterious people I saw were even slightly fictional. Not sure how that fits a merge. --ssd 05:03, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Please sign *after* your posts, Francis, not before them. And the reason we add the cfd notice, is exactly in order to give people the opportunity to give a reasoning for the category and why they feel the name is appropriate. This process currently taking place is the "opportunity" given. Aris Katsaris 14:40, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC) (I posted a reply to this comment on user talk:Aris Katsaris --Francis Schonken 19:13, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC))
• Delete. --Gary D 19:18, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, I don't see any harm in keeping it. It's light hearted and interesting. -- KneeLess 22:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, the name is vague to the point of being inane. -Sean Curtin 00:58, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Definite Keep. This is an interesting little clearing house for all sorts of anomalous individuals. Sjc 04:48, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It is too vague at the moment, but I think that can be mostly cleared up by adding appropriate guidance to the category page. I would suggest this:

This category is for people about whom there is, or was for a long period, an unusual lack of knowledge as to their identity or immediate origins. It should not include people who simply have few facts known about their lives, as, for instance, because they are reclusive.

By these criteria, Pynchon and Salinger should be removed from the category. R. S. Shaw