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. – Fayenatic London 11:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Townshend family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:SMALLCAT. I'm a fan of The Who but this category is stretching credibility. Only four members, one of whom is deceased, and another who was a backing singer: Potential for growth very small. Category was also created by a banned user, however due to the time elapsed since would probably not be a speedy delete candidate, so I'm placing it here for consideration. Whofan1964 (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I was looking at this cat earlier today and only time stopped me nominating. Aren't categories for joining similar subjects whereas this category is just a duplication of wikilinks? --Richhoncho (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People from the same family are similar subjects. - Bossanoven (talk) 10:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Per WP:Ridiculous. Oculi (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep You apparently misread the guidelines at WP:SMALLCAT: "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members" and "Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time." Now tell me, do families have the potential for growth? That is why we have tons of categories for families, try the subcats of Category:Families. - Bossanoven (talk) 10:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be realistic. Firstly, you're comparing notable political offices with a musician (Pete), and three others. None of them have held political offices, and most people have never heard of those other three. There have been previous deletion of family categories in the past, and I shall quote the rationale for at least one of their deletion: "Wikipedia has quite a lot of categories about families. Clearly that is useful for extensive families, such as Category:Baldwin, Evarts, Hoar & Sherman family. However, the five mentioned above are very small and unlikely to grow any time soon, so they would appear not to be necessary. Note that all of these are already covered in lists, articles and/or name dab pages. Also, Wikipedia is not a genealogy database". Secondly, this category should not have been created in the first place. It was created by a sock of a previously banned user (User:Fangusu), making it a speedy deletion candidate (G5). It would be similar to, for example, User:TyrusThomas4lyf coming back despite being banned, and adding content to Wikipedia. Whofan1964 (talk) 12:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC) ref changed to link. DexDor (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you try Category:Musical families? - Bossanoven (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Categorization should group articles that are about similar topics (e.g. people notable for a particular occupation); not group articles about related topics - inter-article links (and templates) are better at linking related topics. Category:English rock guitarists - yes, Category:Townshend family - no. DexDor (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- With no likelihood of expansion, a navbox template is likely to be an adequate navigation aid. However, I seriously wonder whether most of the members are not cases of 'inherited' notability through family relationships . Peterkingiron (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2015 (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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:International Council of Universities of Saint Thomas Aquinas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: That a university is a member of this council is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of the university. E.g. many of the universities listed at International Council of Universities of Saint Thomas Aquinas#Members have an article that makes no mention of the council in the article text (e.g. Campion College or Mary Immaculate College). For info: This is one of a series of CFDs for similar categories (e.g. see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_5#Category:Oak_Ridge_Associated_Universities). DexDor (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- We have frequently deleted categories that are about universities being members of an association. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2015 (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: delete. – Fayenatic London 16:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:London Post Office Railway stations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. There are no articles about London Post Office Railway stations. Of the two articles categorised here, one contains a paragraph about the PO station at that location, the other is about a sorting office, with two lines mentioning the station there. In my view the diagram listing the stations at London Post Office Railway should suffice until there are actual articles about these stations. Sionk (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: this was clearly intended to be part of Category:London Post Office Railway, so I have just added it there. See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_2#Category:Postal_infrastructure_in_London which is still open. – Fayenatic London 11:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The LPOR didn't carry passengers and had no railway stations. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:31, 23 February 2015 (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: no consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Green political parties to Category:Green parties

Nominator's rationale: per main article Green party which is a standing term for parties of this specific orientation. Also nominating all subcategories (currently inconsistently named) to be accordingly renamed. PanchoS (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - call me pedantic but though you say you're 'nominating all subcategories' you've in fact only nominated one category. In my view the renaming is not entirely necessary and it would not be the end of the world if they stayed as they were. Sionk (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @PanchoS: you need to tag the sub-categories involved e.g. Category:Green political parties by country and its children, and list them here. It seems a sensible idea, but will probably not be implemented from a single-category nomination like this. I suggest you tag the subcats and relist the nomination (ping me if you want help with the latter). – Fayenatic London 16:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose leaving the "political" in this category name makes its cope more clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2015 (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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Collaborations between the Beatles and the Rolling Stones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining POV category with incorrect contents. I Wanna Be your Man was written by Len/Mac and recorded by the Stones. No collaboration. Playing on somebody else's recording is not a collaboration. Richhoncho (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep According to whom? Your interpretation of the word? I fail to see how the category is POV. They either were involved in something together or they were not. - Bossanoven (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Anyhow, if this is not kept, could we not in the least have a mention of this lot somewhere? I think there are plenty of people who would like to know what both groups were involved in. - Bossanoven (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:SMALLCAT, unless someone believes categories such as "Collaborations between the Supremes and the Temptations", "Collaborations between Dolly Parton and Kenny Rogers" and "Collaborations between anyone and Lil Wayne" are also a good idea. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree with Bossanoven that this is not a POV category, but while I'd like to say "keep", I'm having trouble motivating it. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator and WP:SMALLCAT. Let's not open the genie's bottle with all those possible subjective categories, eg. Collaborations between Pete Townshend and Jimmy Savile. No. Whofan1964 (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Per WP:Ridiculous. WilkinsBlues (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2015 (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: delete . – Fayenatic London 14:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Companies of the United States with untaxed profits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Unneeded, extremely specific category that does nothing to aid in categorization or navigation. Mrfrobinson (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:SMALLCAT. No objection against recreation if more content would become available. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC) See comment towards the bottom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle:, FYI this category was nominated for deletion within hours of its creation by the same edtor who is also nominated Companies of the United States with untaxed profits for deletion also shortly after it was created. When this category was created 5 companies were placed into it:
    • Merck & Co.
    • Pfizer
    • Microsoft
    • General Electric
    • Apple inc

• but in very short order the edits were removed from all except Microoft by :

• user: Formerly 98
• user: Jytdog. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly I forgot to hit the Save button after editing Microsoft. :*) Formerly 98 (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deletion. CFD opened at same time as AFD on corresponding list-article, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Companies of the United States with untaxed profits. The list-article should be kept, i have voted, and, while the list of individual firms so far is short, it will grow to 60 or 70 firms covered in multiple reports cited in the article. By wp:CLT, list-articles and categories and navigation templates on the same topic accomplish different things, and are complementary. Also, it would be better not to open two proceedings about the same topic, essentially, in two entirely different places. The AFD should have been tried, then only if Delete was the outcome, would the CFD make sense, IMO. --doncram 23:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think a CFD only makes sense if the list is deleted ? DexDor (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, mainly because this is not a feature of a company that is consistent—indeed, it could change every tax year. As such, it's not very amenable to categorization unless it's used as a "current" category, which are generally deleted because of that nature. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This may be suitable for a list, but isn't a suitable characteristic for a category. DexDor (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Smacks of WP:SOAPBOX Formerly 98 (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Good Olfactory has a fair point. Can we perhaps agree on the following compromise, namely to rename the category into Category:United States tax controversies and then to (re)populate the category? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But then it would result in articles about corporations being categorized as "tax controversies". A category with that title should ideally be limited to articles that focus on tax controversies, not about the corporations that have been involved in a tax controversy. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's again a fair point. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - category is only useful for agenda-pushing. Tax law is what it is and companies exist to maximize their profits; Tax avoidance strategies are legal, and are part of that. If folks want to lobby to change US law, that is great (really great!) but WP is not a vehicle for promoting any agenda. Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jytdog. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This category has a companion article that is being discussed for deletion here thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Surely no company pays tax in advance so every company that makes a profit should be in this category? --Richhoncho (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I suspect that this category is really about companies that are hiding their overseas profits in off-shore tax-havens. That may be immoral, but is presumably legal; it could probably be the basis of a category, if verifiable. Alleging that a company is failing to pay to pay taxes that are legally due is potentially libelous and cannot be allowed. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this category is relevant to (at least) 3 wikiprojects. Unfortunately the tool that broadcasts alerts about nominations is broken. It would sure be nice if the nominator would take the time to manually post on the respective talkpages advising interested parties that this deletion is imminent. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Instead of complaining why don't you do this if you feel so strongly about it? Mrfrobinson (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Although I meanwhile realize that this topic needs listifying rather than categorization I would like to add one comment. Some people mention the fact that tax avoidance is a legal act as a reason not to categorize. I don't think that this is a valid argument, since I really think that this topic belongs in the controversies tree and controversies are not necessarily legal or illegal. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is true. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it isn't controversial in fact. Legality of a specific action does not render it non-notable or immune from criticism. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of problems with that argument

• "Legality of a specific action does not render it non-notable or immune from criticism" - Criticism by what notable and reliable source? Simply by creating this category and putting companies in it, we are asserting that they are doing something wrong or at least controversial, which in the absence of a notable WP:RS, is original research. If such reliable sources exist, we cannot cite them within the format of putting a company into a category. This fails WP:OR
• The title of the category implicitly and intrinsically calls for a value judgement on the part of editors, which is again WP:OR. ALL companies have untaxed profits, unless the government is taking 100% of their earnings. Where is the threshold of "too much untaxed earnings" that gets a given company placed in this category? The title would have to be something like "Companies that some people have suggested have too many untaxed profits" in order to meet the requirements of WP:NPOV unless there is evidence of a universal consensus that the company has too much untaxed profits. I'm pretty sure that the company, its employees, and shareholders will contest that assertion, so you will not find any examples of this.

Logistically, this category is a nightmare of WP:OR and WP:SOAP. There is no way to implement it without violating core policies and guidelines. Formerly 98 (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I (at least) am not arguing in favor of retaining the category. I was simply acknowledging that legality does not make a specific act non-notable. But notability of a fact is insufficient for categorization by that fact, so I don't think it's particularly relevant to the categorization issue at all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:51, 20 February 2015 (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.