Category talk:Nonexistent people

	This category is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles
Category	This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Biography Category‑class

	Biography portal This category is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Category	This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Isn't putting Santa Claus on here a little unnecessary? Seems more fictional to me...

This category should also include the article Women who want to date me. — JIP | Talk 18:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Borat[edit]

Borat is a fictional person, not a nonexistant person. Please change the category to reflect this. 2/20/07

Jara Cimrman is missing..

Pope Joan[edit]

What exactly are the criteria for inclusion in this category. I understand that someone must claim that they exist. But to what level of certainty do we demand that they are "nonexistent". From what I understand from the Pope Joan article the jury is still out. Others in this category seem gray as well. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the people[edit]

Some people believe that these people on the list actually exist.--67.10.200.101 22:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jara Cimrman is missing..

Praxedes[edit]

Although this article states that Praxedes is considered to be legendary, there is nothing in the Praxedes article itself giving any information on the controversy, except a vague mention that not all accounts agree. 75.171.12.244 (talk) 09:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]