- 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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 18:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose deleting Category:Buildings and structures damaged in the 2018 Anchorage earthquake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: A search of the category namespace revealed that there is no other category of this type in existence. The parent categories suggest that it is really intended to be a category about the earthquake itself rather than buildings and structures, and was only created in this form because the earthquake category would likely contain only the main article. You can also go to the article as it develops and see subtle signs of a bizarro POV, namely that we should be giving more weight to this earthquake than to the 1964 earthquake. That point is not necessarily relevant to a category discussion other than to provide background to the idea that this category amounts to puffery/window dressing. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Before I respond to this nom, could you please define what you mean by "a bizarro (point of view)? Every edit I have made was done with balance in mind. For example, I am the only editor - literally, the only one - who added information about the significant damage in the Mat-Su. Juneau Mike (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Plain and simple: the amount of energy spent covering this earthquake versus the amount of energy spent covering the 1964 earthquake defies the reality of the situation. It's called appropriate weight. I fully understand that the typical Wikipedian these days is only interested in picking low-hanging fruit and that whatever the news media is pushing today affords excellent opportunities to achieve that. What nobody seems to understand is when you add up all the other times it's happened, you end up building a news site and tricking yourself into believing that you're building an encyclopedia. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Rude remarks about "the typical Wikipedian" do not help the collaborative effort, nor do complaints about what people haven't done. If you think the 1964 earthquake needs more attention the solution is in your own hands.Rathfelder (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, with replies/comments I believe earthquakes that cause widespread damage to notable structures, roads and infrastructure as this one did, can and should have a category linking the related articles. This should not be true of every Wikipedia article about earthquakes, only those with widespread damage. The 1992 Landers earthquake would be excluded, for example. It was of even greater intensity, but did not damage many, if any, notable buildings. This category title may be too long (I don't know why that would be a major concern, if it's an accurate descriptor, but whatever). But in the least, this earthquake is notable enough to have a category linking related pages. (The above is my main !vote here)
(Reply to other comments) Regarding RadioKAOS, I believe RadioKAOS is something of an intellectual bully. I don't say that lightly. He viciously and snarkingly attacks anyone who disagrees with his own vision of Wikipedia, and refuses to see any other point of view. I have sincerely complimented him more than once. I have offered to collaborate with him. Hell, I have done everything to make him happy, short of giving him a Barnstar. Not long ago, after complimenting him, I asked if he would be interested in collaborating on a new article for Beth Weldon, the new mayor of Juneau, Alaska. He ignored me, even though I respectfully replied to the last message he left on my own talk page during the same time period. I am completely with the editor Rathfelder regarding RadioKAOS' attitude and condescending tone taken with other good faith editors.
(Resume my !vote rationale) That being said, if there is a better title for this category, I will happily consider it. I don't believe that linking buildings that were damaged during the same catastrophic natural disaster in a category is inappropriate. In fact, I believe it is helpful. (Referring to second paragraph) But again, rather than collaborate with me he criticizes. It's an old and predictable pattern with him. Wikipedia deserves better. Juneau Mike (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-defining. This appears to be an attempt to use the category system to create a list. Some of the articles (e.g. Glenn Highway) make no mention of the earthquake (hence I don't propose listifying). See also previous CFDs e.g. damaged by arson and affected by hurricane. DexDor (talk) 06:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete aspersions aside, this is not a defining attribute of the television station or schools listed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I like the not a defining characteristic point. Legacypac (talk) 06:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not !voting again here, but just pointing out that there are similar cats, including "Category:Buildings and structures destroyed in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake". I don't believe that a building needs to be completely destroyed, with its material removed to a landfill, for it to be related to an earthquake article on Wikipedia. Juneau Mike (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2018 (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.