January 1
Category:Songs by Frank Loesser
- 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) 04:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Songs by Frank Loesser to Category:Songs written by Frank Loesser
- Nominator's rationale: Naming conventions. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:49, 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.
Categories for pre-Germany years
- 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- The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:1849 in Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete I believe these categories should be deleted, as Germany did not exist between 1813 and 1849 inclusive. Terrakyte (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request withdrawal for nom, as I have become convinced that a country can be defined as "distinguished by its people or culture or geography", which I believe shows Germany did exist in 1813, 1833, and 1849. 217.44.215.61 (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC) (Terrakyte)[reply]
- Delete both. The former contains only a musical piece composed and performed in Vienna, only "German" in a much broader sense; the latter took place in the Free City of Frankfurt which is unlikely to be large enough to justify a history by year branch.-choster (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just in case you missed, I have nominated three categories for deletion. Terrakyte (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Choster, that and Germany didn't exist until 1871. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep unless better reasons for deletion are advanced. Germany, like Italy and Ireland (which also has an 1813 category), may not have been politically unified or independent in 1813, but it had existed as a recognised country for about a thousand years. To pretend otherwise is just silly. All these countries have dozens if not hundreds of articles and categories using the terms. Check out Kingdom of Germany. Johnbod (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "but it had existed as a recognised country for about a thousand years. To pretend otherwise is just silly." What is your source regarding your assertion that Germany was recognized as a "country for about a thousand years"? I hope my preceding sentence didn't come across with an accusing tone, that wasn't my wish. The kingdom/Holy Roman Empire vanished by 1806, 7 years before the earliest year of the categories. As for Italy and Ireland, they too should not have categories with those names in them for years when they did not exist, imo. After 1806, until 1871, the closest thing to a nation-state Germany was the Confederation of the Rhine, the German Confederation, and the North German Confederation, which I don't think anyone has argued represented a nation-state Germany, but rather a semi-union of German states.Terrakyte (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are confusing "country" and "state". Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Country equates to political division. No political division was known as Germany between 1806 and 1871. Terrakyte (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to 'yearxxxx in the Confederation of the Rhine/German Confederation'. Prussia was a notable separate entity and years 1866-1871 are a mess :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. We have Category:19th century years by country, a standardized pattern for years and modern-day states, no matter when they have been founded, see e.g. Category:Years in Italy which starts in 12th century, while the Italian state has been united in the 19th. It might have some merit to propose a complete reorganisation of these categories, but it's a bad faith attempt to try eliminating only certain German entries from this categories. Same for renaming them, as there is no need yet for regional subcategories. For comparison, a Category:Years of the 19th century in Poland exists even though no Polish state existed at all between 1795 and 1918. Pro-delete users Terrakyte and Piotrus surely know about that, as they often contribute to Poland-related articles, that's why I repeat the bad faith accusation especially since new user Terrakyte and veteran admin Piotrus have been in contact, and Piotrus was subject to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2 in which he was admonished to avoid edit-warring. Calling Germany in 1866 a mess, tongue in cheek or not, certainly does not help. Watch it, Piotrus.-- Matthead Discuß 03:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Matthead, please be mindful of your own arbcom restrictions, findings and remedies, much more relevant then anything related to me (what edit warring? why bring it up, if none occured at this article? to slander my name? surely not...). Please avoid assumptions of bad faith: I have been in contact with Ter, but this CfD is solely his initiative (anyway, I voted rename, not delete), so please apologize for your assertion that I am (presumably) a bad influence on him. By mess I meant mirroring it in our category system. Calling countries in a given period a mess is not offensive; Poland was in administrative "mess" during the times of fragmentation of Poland, and at other periods as well, and saying so is certainly not offensive.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I understand why Matthead views my nomination as a bad-faith effort. I don't think there's anything I can say that will completely prove that it wasn't. When Matthead said "It might have some merit to propose a complete reorganisation of these categories, but it's a bad faith attempt to try eliminating only certain German entries from this categories", I inferred that he was suggesting that if it was a good-faith nom, I would have tried to get rid of all categories with the same principled problem that the country didn't exist at the time. I didn't have such a plan (though I think it is a good idea to take a fresh look at the guideline of names for categories of years for countries that didn't exist) when I nominated; I was reading the Battle of Heligoland (1849) article, and I noticed the Category:1849 in Germany. I decided afterwards that I should nominate the category for deletion, as Germany didn't exist at the time. I nominated it, and then I decided to look for other categories that might have the same problem. I found them, and changed the nomination to include them as well. I don't know if what I have said regarding my account of why I started this nomination will convince everyone, but it is the truth. I didn't know about the Category:Years of the 19th century in Poland before I started this nomination. I imagine some people might disbelieve me, but it is the truth (I don't mean to sound repetitive). As Matthead has stated, I am a "new user", and I am still trying to get familiar with Wikipedia. If anyone is wondering how I am familiar with CFD, but not with the Category:Years of the 19th century in Poland, the best response I have to that query is that I have focused on some aspects on Wikipedia so far, and not others. Plus, as far as I can recall, I have not done any edits to 19th century Poland articles, especially with regards to categories. I have focused on 20th century Poland articles, at a time when Poland existed. As I said, I am a new user still trying to get a grip with the inside-out of the project. User:Piotrus and I are in regular contact, but only to assist each other for the project, especially considering how we worked together to create an article at a time when I really wasn't that versed with Wikipedia policies. As I said, I don't know what I can say that can convince you Matthead my nom isn't bad-faith. I'm just a person who saw an error with a few categories and decided that they should be deleted. Terrakyte (talk) 12:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The country, if not the state, of Poland existed as Congress Poland within the Russian Empire, and is not analogous to Germany. But that does not answer the point that most of these categories contain only single entries. There is no reason why Category:November Uprising for instance must be listed in a country by year category, when it can be added directly to the history of country category. I would also apply WP:OSE here, and see the Italy categories renamed and deletion considered for many of the others. -choster (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I also would like an examination to be made of whether other categories should be deleted or re-named if they are covering countries for years when those countries didn't exist. Terrakyte (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Maybe the nominator and the opponents change their minds after reading the by now only article of this category, Paulskirchenverfassung - actually the first constitution of the German Empire. Also, it is just making stuff complicated for no reason to have this distinction between "Germany" or "states of Germany" or "confederation of German states" or whatever. Current Germany is also nothing but a confederacy of German states. And we don't have categories like "1997 in the Federation of German states", or do we? If we reduce the "Germany" category to states that actually called themselves just "Germany", that category would be pretty empty. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
The Empire existed in name only. The Revolutions of 1848 in the German states brought about many united German political organizations, but they exercised no real power, as the leaders of the individual states held onto it. Germany since 1871 has been recognized as a country, however. Terrakyte (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As a state you mean. It has been a country since the first millenium. Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Country equates a political division. No political division was known as Germany between 1806 and 1871. Terrakyte (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong, I'm afraid. Johnbod (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please could you show me why. I assure you I am not trying to be obstinate; I will happily cancel my noms if I am shown that Germany did exist in 1813 and 1833, as I have done for the 1849 category. 86.149.49.231 (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC) (Terrakyte)[reply]
- Your comment "Country equates a political division" is neither true, nor if I may say so, very grammatical for someone sporting a "native speaker of English" userbox. Did Poland cease to be a country at various points? Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please show how "Country equates a political division" isn't true. The Oxford English Dictionary (2006 edition), defines a country as "a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory." No nation identifiable as Germany with its own government existed between 1806 and 1871, with the exception of the short-lived German Empire of 1849. "nor if I may say so, very grammatical for someone sporting a "native speaker of English" userbox" I found that statement to be very uncalled for. How would you like it if I questioned your grammatical ability? I do not believe I have done anything wrong against you, so why have you resorted to what you have said? I may not have displayed a perfect grammatical ability, but I thought my points had been conveyed, and I certainly didn't think someone would use that to direct something against me which I consider very rude. I ask that you apologize. As for Poland, I would like to refer you to the partitions of Poland. 86.149.49.231 (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you mean the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, that is meaning 1a. I suggest you look at meaning 1b. "a territory possessing its own language, people, culture, etc." Meanings 3 & 5 are also relevant. I thought I was referring you to Partitions of Poland. Johnbod (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did mean the Concise version. Which edition are you reading from? I can't find the other meanings you have listed. Also, "I thought I was referring you to Partitions of Poland". Apologies if I have missed this, but where were you referring to the partitions of Poland? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.49.231 (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mine is 1995, but I think it unlikely they have dropped it in the meantime. Johnbod (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll copy all the definitions of country in my 2006 edition: 1. a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory; 2. districts outside large urban areas; 3. an area or region with regards to its physical features: a tract of wild country. Princeton wordnet also defines a country as:
- state: a politically organized body of people under a single government; "the state has elected a new president"; "African nations"; "students who ...
- the territory occupied by a nation; "he returned to the land of his birth"; "he visited several European countries"
- nation: the people who live in a nation or country; "a statement that sums up the nation's mood"; "the news was announced to the nation"; "the whole country worshipped him"
- an area outside of cities and towns; "his poetry celebrated the slower pace of life in the country"
- area: a particular geographical region of indefinite boundary (usually serving some special purpose or distinguished by its people or culture or geography); "it was a mountainous area"; "Bible country" [1] 86.149.49.231 (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe these definitions demonstrate that a country is a political entity, and no political entity was identifiable as Germany between 1806 and 1871, with the exception of the German Empire of 1849. 217.44.215.61 (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You avoid saying whether you have 1a and 1b as I do. Note also the Princeton nos 2 &
45. These definitions do not show what you think. Johnbod (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I hadn't avoided. As I said, "I'll copy all the definitions of country in my 2006 edition", which means it doesn't have the 1995 1a and 1b. I think we can agree that a 2006 version takes precedent over an 11 year-older one. As for number 2 and 4 of Princeton, please could you present your interpretation of them. 217.44.215.61 (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant Princeton 5, not 4 (miscounted #s). Do these really need explaining? Johnbod (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Damn. I misread 5. A country can be defined as "distinguished by its people or culture or geography". Convinces me. Withdrawing nom. 217.44.215.61 (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I don't really want to get involved in this debate, but I think you two need to draw back. I can sense some hostility from Terrakyte, but I also believe Johnbod is being a bit rude and patronizing, especially when he criticized Terrakyte's grammar which I think wasn't justified. As I said, I don't want to get involved, but I think you too should be a bit more respectful of each other. BlueVine (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- General comment. Perhaps this and all similar categories should be renamed and/or differentiated between histories and administrative entities: for example, there is no doubt that there was Category:1813 in German history, and Category:1813 in the Confederation of the Rhine. They are, however, not totally inclusive of each other. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update This is Terrakyte. I am having some trouble atm accessing my account. I have discovered that the German Empire of 1849 did have its own navy which fought at the Battle of Heligoland (1849), which to me suggests that the Empire did have real power, contrary to what I said above. I am therefore convinced that a political division identifiable as Germany did exist in 1849. Consequently, I would like to withdraw my nomination of Category:1849 in Germany for deletion. I still support my noms of the other two categories, since I cannot find evidence that a political division identifiable as Germany existed at those times. 86.149.49.231 (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All of this is nonsense. It is well established that categories and articles for America, Italy, Germany, Ireland and other countries do not wait for them to achieve political union or independence. Exceptions, like Great Britain and the Soviet Union are political and relatively few. Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As User:Choster, and User:Piotrus suggested, maybe all categories covering years for countries when those countries didn't exist should be re-examined. I also support this idea. I would like to note the adage "If a million people make a mistake, it's still a mistake". 86.149.49.231 (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- or in this case, three :) Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ouch. :) 86.149.49.231 (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gulp....you're joking, right? Johnbod (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although for the categories presented here, I do not think deleting them would cause much harm. However, the idea of Germany has been in discussion for hundreds of years before unification in 1871. The very term Germania has been in existance since at least Roman times (See Merriam-Webster. Please do not go so far as to declare all references to Germany before 1871 as irrelevant. There are at least two senses of Germany in discussion here. One is the state with distinct borders and government. The other is the geographical region in central Europe occupied by German-speaking peoples. imars (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly, the country! Johnbod (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have withdrawn the nom, Johnbod, which makes pushing the point seem pretty pointless (pardon the pun). 86.149.56.215 (talk) 20:18, 4 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.
Films by year and decade
Category:2008-2009 New Years Honours
- 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:2008-2009 New Years Honours (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete Fairly pointless category. First, it's poorly named (it's actually the 2009 New Year Honours). Second, I don't think we really want a category for every single honours list. There have been hundreds of them and this is just overcategorisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:52, 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.
Category:Regional commands of Israel
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Regional commands of Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete Category that can't have more than 4 entries. Should be deleted per WP:OC#Small. Discussion took place at User talk:Ynhockey and User talk:Buckshot06, but no consensus was reached. Ynhockey (Talk) 19:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I was the category's creator. This is on par with, for example, Category:Military districts of Russia and the Soviet Union and Category:Military areas of Sweden, both listing military formations. I would argue here for an exemption from WP:OC#Small here is warranted as is it lists a particular type of military formation. Buckshot06(prof) 19:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the excellent point made by Buckshot06 that this is part of an overall structure. Alansohn (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I agree with both Ynhockey and Buckshot: this particular category is too small, but it is part of a useful and meaningful categorisation which should be expanded more widely - while military districts are out of favour in most countries, they used to be highly significant and are of great importance to military history. As such, I think that this category should be kept as it's a mildly useful categorisation which feeds into a very useful category structure. Nick-D (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Buckshot made the point about the overall category structure in the past, but I disagree because most armies either do not have regional commands, or their regional commands are non-notable on their own. Only huge countries/armies like the US, Russia, China, etc. need this kind of structure. I therefore can't imagine a 'regional commands' category ever being populated with even half of the countries in the world. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 12:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Responding to YnHockey, from a quick search of memory countries in such a category might include eventually New Zealand (army 'Commands'), Australia (Military Districts), Indonesia (Military District Commands, KODAMs, needing translation from id:Kategori:Kodam di Indonesia) virtually all the countries in South America that maintained military districts, some still doing so(eg Category:Regional commands of the Brazilian Army), Mexico & most of Central America, Mali, many other small nations in Sub-Saharan Africa that maintain military regions/districts/areas, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, eg see the article for North Kivu which is the 8th Military Region, Germany (the Wehrkries - see Military district (Germany) and at de:wiki de:Wehrbereichskommando), Poland, France, Russia already, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, India, Egypt.. the list goes on. My copy of the IISS Military Balance for '08 is not to hand at the moment, but the number of countries listed with military districts and regions is very large. Put simply, you would get over well over half, but it will take a while. Yet nobody as far as I know has set the Wikipedia publishing date yet(!) Buckshot06(prof) 13:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Buckshot. While regional commands are now fairly rare, they used to be very common (for instance, Australia had eight regional commands for the Army alone in the years before and after World War II and these were the cornerstone of the Army's organisation). Nick-D (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - Regional commands still exist in many nations - even those with smaller military (Canadian brigade-groups, for example). Given the size of the IDF, this category is likely to remain significant for some time. Cam (Chat) 19:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Week keep per Buckshot's reasoning. BlueVine (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per keepers. Few countries are as likely to be attacked from different sides as Israel, so I dare say they are important there. Johnbod (talk) 03:02, 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.
Category:Members of the Democratic Turnhalle Alliance of Namibia
- 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 16:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Members of the Democratic Turnhalle Alliance of Namibia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete Propose moving category to fit party name, Category:Members of the Democratic Turnhalle Alliance Thomas.macmillan (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Members of the Democratic Turnhalle Alliance per Category:Democratic Turnhalle Alliance and Democratic Turnhalle Alliance. Occuli (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Democratic Turnhalle Alliance of Namibia members because it is shorter and, I think, in line with many other similar categories. Otto4711 (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, the format for other political party members in Namibia is ((Members of X)), for example Category:Members of the South West Africa People's Organization.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I would still say for purposes of brevity to rename to eliminate superfluous words. Otto4711 (talk) 03:22, 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.
Category:Chinilpa
Category:Kalo
- 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: Speedily deleted at creator's request (G7) Grutness...wha? 23:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Kalo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete Request for speedy delete by cat creator. Zalktis (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as category is empty and author is sole contributor. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:50, 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.
Category:Guinness World Record holders
- 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 --Philosopher Let us reason together. 02:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Guinness World Record holders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Suggest Deletion - After reading the CFD nomination below for Category:Ripley's Believe It or Not Record Breakers I decided to take a look at this other category, and found myself wondering whether it should exist, either. (More on that in a moment.) This one was up for deletion back in Sept. 2007, but only three editors weighed in, so I figured it was a good time to ask for other editors' views, in tandem with the Ripley's category.
- What struck me repeatedly when I looked over the list of entries was how far-flung they were and how little most of them had to do with any of the others -- except for allegedly having been listed in Guinness for some reason or other. Some examples, chosen at random: What does Jones Jones Jones have to do with either The Report from Iron Mountain or Arnold Schwarzenegger? What does Tupac Shakur have in common with Hero Cycles? (And for that matter, why are the last three even in the category, since there's nothing about it in their articles?) I guess I'm not seeing a whole lot of navigational usefullness in lumping all of these articles together, since there's no indication whatsoever for a reader who has just read about Jones Jones Jones or Tupac Shakur as to why s/he might take an interest in any particular other article in the category. And there's no guarantee that s/he will even find any material pertaining to the Guinness Records if s/he does happen to take a look.
Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but enforce "defining" strictly I see the difficulty, but for the likes of Charles Osborne (hiccups) it clearly is defining, & his most important category, which per WP:CAT every article should have. So I don't think it can be deleted. But we should enforce "defining" strictly to keep the Guternator et al out, and add a note explaining this. On a very rough estimate this will still leave about 150 article which mention the record claim in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A very interesting and perplexing issue. The question is, is there a workable way of dealing with it through this category? I'm almost wondering if we should consider renaming it to Category:People whose sole claim to notability is their status as a Guinness World Record holder. Is there a shorter way of saying that?? Cgingold (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought of that, but it would no doubt be attacted as arbitary etc. Of course many are not people either, and would be notable otherwise, but not very (Bumble Bee II). Then there is S. L. Benfica. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmmmmm.... Perhaps split it into two categories -- one for people and the other for (things?) -- and make it "primary" instead of "sole" claim to notability?? What fun! PS - Happy New Year! Cgingold (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Btw, although I'm entertaining the possibility of keeping a renamed & restricted version of this category, I'm still not really persuaded that it has any navigational utility. Cgingold (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - At one point, Guiness was somewhat restrictive regarding "world records". The people or thing so designated remained record holders for long periods of time - the world's tallest woman/man, longest river, tallest mountain, etc. As time has passed, the competitions to break records has grown exponentially, so now it's relatively easy to become a record holder for something for at least some period of time. However, that is the problem. This changes quickly, as quickly as someone wants to challenge the "longest time spent rocking in a chair" sort of categories. I can't see how this would be manageable in regard to a category. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the Guinness folks seem to have no problem putting these articles in the same book each year and I have no problem whatsoever with a category. If there is a genuine concern about navigation, the Guiness folks break records into various major categories that would be a worthy improvement. Alansohn (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is this category home to people/things that have held a GWR at somepoint in time, or just those that currently hold the record? Lugnuts (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an awfully good question, and one that was raised in the previous CFD, IIRC. The simple answer is, "Who knows?" Cgingold (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say that it is for having held it. While some may be the current holders, many will not be. Also note that categories are not broken down by present and former. They are both included in a single category. So why should we expect this to be the exception? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for the reasons given by Wildhartlivie and the problems identified by Cgingold. And in a way it's analogous to the "published lists" which are verboten for categories. Let others publish their lists and records. We don't need to create categories to replicate that. But I agree it's a difficult issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a category that, in my opinion, is home to people and things that have held a Guiness World Record at somepoint in time. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 20:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, people break record all the times, no reason to have a category for them. On a side note though: if the article is kept, it should only include people who are notable for breaking their record(s). People who are notable for something else, and just happen to break a record should not be included (Britney Spears for example).
- Delete. They put out a book every year, this is true, but the book explains more than just who won, which is all this category can do. If you really desire to capture not only the record holders but also what they hold the record in so as to present it in a meaningful manner, this needs to be a list (which admittedly will probably show up at AFD for being a copy of the book, which is why I prefer to delete). --Kbdank71 16:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Simply put, the keep arguments are rather weak. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:18, 9 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.
Category:Ripley's Believe It or Not Record Breakers
- 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Ripley's Believe It or Not Record Breakers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete (or rename to Category:Ripley's Believe It or Not! record holders)
- I'm a little unsure about what to do with this category. I'm not sure that the category should be kept—it seems slightly like an "award" category, and right now there is just one article in it about the "smallest cat". If kept, should be renamed to do the following things: (1) add the "!" in the name Ripley's Believe It or Not!; (2) change "record breakers" to "record holders", as is the standard for Category:World record holders and subcategories (all record breakers are record holders and all record holders typically had to break a previous record); (3) fix the caps.
Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - After researching Category:Guinness World Record holders -- and articulating reasons for deleting (see above) -- I'm even less persuaded that this category should exist. Again, the entries would be entirely random in terms of how they relate to one another, so not very useful for navigation, imo. (And I'd say Ripley's is even quirkier than Guinness.) In addition, Guinness has gone to great lengths to establish a reputation for authoritativeness, but I'm not sure where Ripley's stacks up in that regard -- so are we even sure that these are really "record holders"? PS - Happy New Year! Cgingold (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It seems to me that Ripley's is/was more a notation of oddities with no specifics regarding notability for inclusion - people with nails in their heads, the man who lived through a lightning strike, etc. I'm not aware that they held official record breaking events or established any sort of criteria to break anything. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Ripley's is a compilation of weird things, not records. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 09:49, 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.
Category:Francis Bacon works
- 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:Francis Bacon paintings. Kbdank71 16:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Francis Bacon works to Category:Francis Bacon (painter) works
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Disambiguate to match the main article Francis Bacon (painter). As currently named, it's also very similar to Category:Works by Francis Bacon, the category for (written) works by (the un-disambiguated) Francis Bacon. The nominated category is an artwork category, and while the un-disambiguated Francis Bacon didn't produce any artwork that I know of, unless a user (1) knows the inherent difference between "Works by John Doe" (for written works) and "John Doe works" (for artwork), and (2) knows that one Francis Bacon was exclusively an author and not an artist and the other Francis Bacon was exclusively an artist and not an author, the two categories and their similarity will be mystifying. (Perhaps Category:Works by Francis Bacon (which I created) should also be disambiguated somehow, though I'm not sure about that and am willing to go with whatever users think is best.)
Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Francis Bacon paintings (as creator). Most of the parentCategory:Paintings by artist use this, although I prefer "works" to allow for prints etc. But all these are paintings, & few examples of other types of work exist for Bacon. This removes the ambiguity and is less clunky. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I too was about to point out the naming pattern in Category:Paintings by artist. Johnbod's formulation goes a long way toward removing the ambiguity, so I suppose we can live with it. (Category:Francis Bacon (painter) paintings does seem a bit much...) But given that we have two high-profile F. Bacons, I'm thinking the other category will still be in need of disambiguation, since "works" is a generic term. Cgingold (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure in what context a confusion could arise? Perhaps a note linking to the other would be enough? Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An editor could mistakenly add an article pertaining to a work of art by the latter F.B. to the category for works by the former. (This is especially easy if one is using HotCat.) Cgingold (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok - that one to Category:Works by Francis Bacon (writer) maybe? Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think "philosopher" would be more precise and more readily understood. Cgingold (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just went ahead and opened a separate CFD for Category:Works by Francis Bacon. Cgingold (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dunno - the 2 Francis are related. Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (nominator). Johnbod's proposal for renaming is fine with me if that's preferred. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:07, 2 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.
Category:Cremations
- 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Cremations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete Cremation is so common that I can't see how this is defining for people. (Things that happen to a person's body after death are usually not.) I imagine it was created to parallel some of the "burials in" categories, which also kind of demonstrates why the burials categories are problematic. The category would also be absolutely huge if applied to everyone it could apply to. (THis was created by the same user who created the deleted Category:Burials at cemeteries.)
Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Wow - even more than the recent "people by name" or whatever, one wonders what other than a search engine could bring these 4 together! Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Perhaps an eye should be kept on other creations by User:EstherLois who seems a prolific creationist of categories with a religious theme (eg Category:Deaconesses). Occuli (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mind that one, though it shouldn't always be a subcat of Lutheran clergy. Johnbod (talk) 20:51, 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.
Category:Born in Kazakh SSR
- 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 to Category:Soviet people. I read through all of the articles and could not determine from the article text which ones were ethnically Kazakh, so I'm not moving any into Category:Kazakh people. If someone else can do the work to determine this, I can provide a list of articles that were in this category. Kbdank71 16:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest merging Category:Born in Kazakh SSR to Category:Soviet people (all) and Category:Kazakh people (as appropriate)
- Nominator's rationale: Merge to both. Place of birth is not defining. Merge to appropriate nationality and ethnicity categories (they were all of Soviet nationality; merge only the ethnic Kazakhs to that category). Do not merge to Category:Kazakhstani people because "Kazakhstani" is a nationality that did not exist during the Soviet era, whereas "Kazakh" is an ethnicity that did then exist.
Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Rename to Category:People from Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic and keep as a nascent start to a Category:Soviet people by republic tree. Do not upmerge to Category:Kazakh people either as being born in Kazakh SSR did not necessarily mean you were ethnically Kazakh Mayumashu (talk) 10:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]
- That's why I said "as appropriate". The ethnic Kazakhs can be upmerged; the non-Kazakhs should not be. Also, just because a person is born somewhere doesn't mean they are "from" there. (That's why it's not defining.) So your proposal of a straight conversion here is probably not appropriate, especially since no one has even started such a scheme so it's unlikely to be fleshed out anytime soon. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, didn t notice the 'as appropriate' and the SSR schema doesn t exist. Support then Category:Soviet people Mayumashu (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some may need to be recategorised as Category:Kazak people of Russian descent. Note during the Soviet era, there were internal natioanl distinctions (on passports) between different Soviet nationalities. Soviet policy left a lot of Russian citizens beyond the borders of the Russian federation. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (nominator). Looks like regardless, this will need to be a manual merge to multiple targets prior to deletion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom and discussion. I'll leave open the possibility that we may need some additional categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:21, 9 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.
Category:Other complete problems
- 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: relisted on jan 8. Kbdank71 16:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest merging Category:Other complete problems to Category:Computational problems
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. This appears to be a type of "miscellaneous" or "not otherwise specified" type of category where problems that don't fit into any of the other subcategories of Category:Computational problems can go. Categories like this are inappropriate. Since there's nothing similar that connects the included articles themselves to each other in ways that categories normally do, it should be deleted and the contents upmerged to the parent category.
Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. it "appears" to you probably because you are not familiar with the topic. It is not "miscellaneous" for the Category:Computational problems The correct "upmerge", or, rather move would be nonexisting category:Problems complete for particular complexity classes, but is is rather unnecessary level in hierarchy now IMO. Twri (talk) 19:57, 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.
Category:Wooden synagogues of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth
- 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 16:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Wooden synagogues of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth to Category:Wooden synagogues
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. First, according to the WP article, wooden synagogue is an architectural style; it doesn't just mean "synagogues constructed out of wood". I think why the category is named as it is is because the wooden synagogue style developed in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. But it's too early to subdivide these by location right now as the basic category does not even exist yet—this category could become that basic category.
Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wooden synagogues are an architectural style of some significance in both Jewish nand architectural history. they developed in the period and territory of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth. they do, indeed, refer to a particular style and construciton technique, and the category does not include all synagogues built of wood. there were many of them. they are currently enjoying a revival of attention as a topic of study, both physical and syber models are under construction, as are preservationist efforts to save the remaininng examples. Wikipedia articles can certainly be written on many of the better-known and documented examples. I thought that it would be nice to collect such articles on wooden synagogues as do exist in a category.Historicist (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So, do you agree that the category can be named more generally, as I proposed? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:55, 6 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.
Category:Seduction 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. Kbdank71 16:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Seduction songs to Category:Seduction (band) songs
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Add disambiguation to match Seduction (band) and to avoid users from thinking this is for songs about seduction or for songs used by people in order to seduce people (or while seducing them).
Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that it's a good idea to rename this category...I hadn't thought about the possibility of someone adding a song about the act of seduction to this category, it was intended just for songs by the girl group. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename I usually hate seeing qualifiers in categories, but this one needs the (band) in it to clarify. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. I also hate the qualifiers, but this clearly needs it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose renaming. There's no need for qualifiers here. So this should stay where it is. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 20:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- 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:Army-Navy Game venues
- 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Army-Navy Game venues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Venues are not defined by single events that have taken place there. Having hosted a football game between two rival teams is quite narrow and specific besides.
Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. This is also the only category of its sort (for a specific named-game) in the parent cat for football venues -- and for good reason. Cgingold (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And besides, it's a pretty short list which can easily be added to the main article. Cgingold (talk) 15:20, 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.
Category:Books by Comenius
- 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 16:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Books by Comenius to Category:Books by John Amos Comenius
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Use full name. I realise he's often referred to as just "Comenius", but the main article is John Amos Comenius.
Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename: I have no problem with this change. For me, as for the founder, it can be renamed. --Zik2 (talk) 14:54, 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.
Category:Olympic torchbearers
- 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Olympic torchbearers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is overcategorization of the "performer by performance" type since it could theoretically encompass anyone who has borne the Olympic torch in an Olympic torch relay. If we limit it to those who are defined by being an Olympic torchbearer .... well, I can't think of anyone who is defined by having been an Olympic torchbearer. These relays have become quite long and protracted ever since Hitler invented the first one and every two years hundreds of people bear the torch, including prominent sportspeople, politicians, public personalities, etc. from the countries it visits. These people are not defined by being a torchbearer. Rather, they are generally chosen as torchbearers because of the features that define them as notable people.
Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom. Not a real defining characteristic of the individual. The first thing I think of regarding Muhammad Ali is "Oh yes, the guy who carried the Olympic torch!" Lugnuts (talk) 09:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom. If carrying an Olympic torch is a person's most notable "achievement" -- which I think is the case for many of them -- it's highly doubtful they would qualify for a Wiki article. For the rest of them, I'd say this is no more noteworthy than getting an honorary degree from a university. Cgingold (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question But must a category be a defining characteristic? Wikipedia:Categorization of people allows for categories "By association" as one its broad themes. Simply being a torchbearer should not qualify one for a Wikipedia article, does the opposite have to hold true -- that a notable person who has been a torchbearer cannot be categorized as such? --Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining_or_trivial_characteristic, yes, categories should be limited to defining characteristics. Carrying the Olympic torch is not a defining characteristic. Otto4711 (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, then. Per above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify as part of the set of articles for each Olympics. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 08:27, 2 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.
Category:NFL players convicted of crimes
- 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 16:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:NFL players convicted of crimes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is overcategorization by trivial intersection of career and criminality. In general, we categorize criminals by nationality and by crime, but not by profession. (In nearly all cases, the person's NFL career played no role in the crime—they are not being convicted for NFL game fixing or for assaulting fans, for example.) In my opinion and because of the potential WP:BLP concerns involved, matters such as these should be dealt with: (1) in the individual articles, and (2) at List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes, since these are forums that allow for detailed citations. (Similar categories have been deleted in the past, both somewhat different in scope than this one: Category:Sportspeople who have served prison sentences and Category:Arrested NFL football players. This is more specific than the first in that it refers to NFL players, not just sportspeople, and is more specific than the second in that it covers those NFL players who were convicted, not just those who were arrested. It's also broader than the first, in that it includes all who were convicted of any crime, not just those who served prison sentences.)
Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Gold Olfactory--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. What is this? I like watching NFL and the Super Bowl but, again, who needs this? -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 20:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- 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:Toni Braxton
- 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 per much precedent. Kbdank71 16:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Toni Braxton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category contains only 2 subcategories, main article, and template; everything in category is already appropriately linked through Template:Toni_Braxton. Small eponymous category overcategorization.
Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:34, 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.
Category:Deal or No Deal (US)
- 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 and delete (kind of like excretion happens, if you think about it). Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Deal or No Deal (US) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete Overly narrow category, only one article in. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 05:12, 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.
Category:Bilinguals
- 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Bilinguals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category:Polyglots and its multiple subcategories was recently deleted. This category is similar and so the same rationale discussed there applies—but this category is even worse because it's limited to those who can speak only two languages. This is not defining for people in general and certainly not defining for those in the category at the time of nomination (Lisa Kudrow?). Being bilingual or multilingual is so common in many areas of the world that it's not really a meaningful means of categorization.
Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I couldn't agree more that bilingualism is so commonplace as to be unexceptional. Cgingold (talk) 13:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- too common to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:33, 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.