Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 25 May 27 >

May 26[edit]

Category:Hip hop singers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 06:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC) relist as the category was not tagged. Conscious 15:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated last month (see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 1). Closed as no consensus after only three unique votes (four if you count mine). Same reasoning still stands:

"Hip hop singer" is a misnomer (this is a group of singers from other genres -- mostly R&B and reggae -- who frequently appear on hip-hop songs - which actually would include 70% of all R&B artists, making the selection of artists inherently POV) - and artists who hjappen to record hip hop music and other genres as well. A category like this will only seek to confuse readers, and provides little factual encyclopedic value. --FuriousFreddy 16:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

My suggestions remain the same: either delete or rename to Category:Singers frequently appearing on hip hop recordings. --FuriousFreddy 03:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • How about Category:Singers also featured in hip hop, to suggest hip hop isn't these singers' primary genre...?  Regards, David Kernow 01:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hip-hop is no singer's primary genre. Rapper, yes; singer, no. --FuriousFreddy 14:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We badly need a cat and article on dirty pop and/or urban music singers. That is where singers like Ashanti, Lil Mo, Justin Timberlake and the like belong. hip-hop is not sung it is rapped and nobody (save hip-hop soul queen Mary J. Blige and new princess Keyshia Cole) is properly referenced in singing hiphop. Antares33712 17:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, this cat mixes people in a ludicrous manner. Cheryl "Salt" James is a rapper. and Babs is tuneless singing (but a good rapper) Some like Lauryn Hill, Cee-Lo and especially Queen Latifah are two-way artists (rap and sing equally well). I have never heard Nicole Wray rap? See my comments on Category:Hip-hop/R&B singers. Antares33712 17:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Cult science fiction films[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep --William Allen Simpson 03:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale needed. Six firm delete (including nom), 4 firm keep, one qualified keep (Usgnus) and one which goes both ways (RoyBoy). Delete seems to have it, on analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.196.35 (talk • contribs)
  • 4 Delete -- challenger, nominator, and two puppets whose edits were exclusively on this discussion, are all from dialup pool kansas(*)rs.mo.dial-access.att.net., and (generously) counted as one (1) delete, although under normal rules that could be zeroed.
  • 7 Keep including closer -- RoyBoy and Usgnus stated keep, and neither changed by closing, with two extra days for contemplation.
--William Allen Simpson 07:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restore titles to Category:Science fiction films and delete. "Cult", in the context used here, is subjective, adolescent, derogatory and decidedly POV term. Category thus has no merit, especially with its proviso that titles cannot be listed both in it and in the regular science fiction films category, adding fannish arbitrariness and whimsy to the selection of their respective contents. 12.73.194.158 00:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support nom. Pavel Vozenilek 02:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; There is such a thing as a cult film ... this category is well named. -- ProveIt (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, perhaps... perhaps not. - RoyBoy 800 06:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nom. "Cult" is a subjective publicity term. Sumahoy 21:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ProveIt. There are plenty of folks willing to keep it up. "Cult" here really means "a film that has a large dedicated fan base", and why can't they go in both categories? ♥ Her Pegship♥ 23:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — subjective (although not necessarily derogatory). And what is Star Wars Episode IV doing there without the other Star Wars films? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think the Star Wars IV presence is part of the nom's rationale - this is just an arbitrarily-populated category based on the informal and subjective nature of "cult film" as a concept. In other words, fancruft. 12.73.196.196 23:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although classifying something as cult film is not objective, it should be kept. Also, there should be a disclaimer in the future saying that the films in that category are known to be cult films with a good-sized following. - XX55XX 00:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a subcat of Category:Cult films. I reserve the right the change my "vote" if the parent category is deleted. -- Usgnus 18:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. 12.73.198.99 20:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per ProveIt Antares33712 21:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Paris Administration to Category:Government of Paris[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 06:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to the standard form. I will add some more content. CalJW 22:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

That already exists, so just merge and delete CalJW 22:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Paris monuments to Category:Monuments and memorials in Paris[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 06:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be renamed to the standard form for such categories. I will make a start on populating it. CalJW 22:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep --William Allen Simpson 03:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

request deletion. There should be one article for Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest, and it doesn't need a category of its own. All the annual articles (very brief) should also be consolidated. Bejnar 21:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep And keep all the articles too. Athenaeum 17:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while the articles exist. This is perfectly resonable at the moment. If the articel do get merged (and I don't think they should), we can re-visit this. SeventyThree(Talk) 14:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Grand Prix Before Formula One to Category:Grand Prix motor racing[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 08:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Grand Prix motor racing is empty except for Category:Grand Prix Before Formula One (which is populated) and I don't see any potential for growth. Suggest merging the GPBFO category into the GPMR one, since GPMR is a better name in my opinion. Recury 19:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • COMMENT This was missing Formula One. I have rectified that omission. Now it's not the same as its subcategory. 132.205.45.148 01:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem wasn't really that it was empty, it was more that it was almost useless and didn't have potential for growth, and it still doesn't (not to mention that the name of GPBFO isn't capitalized correctly). I'm sure someone can come up with an ingenious solution that we are missing. Recury 04:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Wehrmacht's foreign volunteer units to Category:Foreign volunteer units of the Wehrmacht[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 06:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To remove use of possessive "'s". David Kernow 16:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Fictional towns and cities in the United States[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 13:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional towns and cities in the United States and its subcategories have a rather unwieldy naming convention. Therefore, I propose that it be renamed Category:Fictional communities in the United States and its subcategories be renamed along those lines.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Indian natural disasters[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 15:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal is to rename Category:Indian natural disasters to Category:Natural disasters in India. This would match all other Category:Natural disasters by country categories like Category:Natural disasters in Japan, etc. This would also match Category:Disasters in India and other similar categories. Kurieeto 16:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Hispanic inhabited regions[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 06:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have census data from the latest US census (2000 I believe) and a number of local census. But, even in the light of that

How do we deterine which states and cities qualify to contain this category? What criteria do we consider? The category is too vaigue...
How is this category usefull or relevant? Hispanics inhabit states and cities that are geographicaly and even politicaly unrelated.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Protected areas of the United States to Category:Federally protected areas of the United States[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Conscious 06:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current name does not make it clear that it's for lands protected by the federal government only Daniel Case 15:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am not sure it's supposed to not include state articles too, so a renaming is unclear...I'll ask the category creator to chime in but I am not in favor of deleting either way.--MONGO 18:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Thanks MONGO. As the name suggests, it is for all "protected lands" within the United States, regardless of whether those lands were federal or not. However, editors were using this category instead of more appropriate sub-categories. I was unclear in my edit to the category that this should be for higher level categories and not for specific parks/reserves/etc. I would therefore propose that we keep this category in place and work to establish the necessary category tree to appropriately categorize the protected lands.ClarkBHM 18:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad for the clarification, but remember a lot of editors simply add categories without checking the fine print at the category page. Believe me when I say you are going to be doing a lot of moves to the subcategories as it presently is, unless you go and spend the whole weekend following my lead (with Category:Protected areas of New York) and creating and populating a "Protected areas of the United States by state" subcat with all the "Protected areas of ..." that that implies.
And I still think even then you're going to have a lot of well-meaning editors, particularly novices, adding things to the cat that really shouldn't be in it. And what happens when someone puts a federal area in one of the state cats? I just think the renaming will save everyone a lot of work down the line. Daniel Case 20:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point....maybe we do need a cat for each state, whew. I am somewhat confused now. Oh well, I guess we'll have to iron this out. Maybe the Federal list as a category is best...it is essentially a subcat of templated category {{Messagebox protected areas}} which is used for all protected areas articles...even state ones and even subarticles of specific points and items within the protected area.--MONGO 01:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Newspaper publishers (people) to Category:People who publish newspapers[edit]

Category:Newspaper publishers of the 19th century (people) to Category:People who published newspapers in the 19th century[edit]

Category:Newspaper publishers of the 20th century (people) to Category:People who published newspapers in the 20th century[edit]

Category:Newspaper publishers of the 21st century (people) to Category:People who publish newspapers in the 21st century[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to rename. Conscious 08:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm under the impression bracketed disambiguation in category names isn't Wikipedia's style...? David Kernow 14:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd support that; anyone else...?  Regards, David Kernow 01:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Rename all per Cool Cat. --JeffW 06:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If the word "people" isn't included people who don't realise that both types of category exist will very likely make mistakes. Calsicol 11:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we actually need to separate these by century? I'd think that subcategorizing them by nationality should be more than sufficient; I'm unconvinced that we need to subcategorize them by time period, too. Definitely prefer "newspaper publishers" format, but kill the century subcats. Bearcat 02:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is consensus possible with the following? :
Regards, David Kernow 06:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Tau Beta Pi[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 03:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only contained encyclopdic entry and list. Those two articles reference each other directly. This category is redundant. Avi 14:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator -- Avi 16:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carcharoth 16:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. There aren't even any articles in there anymore. Amalas =^_^= 16:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Iskra Delta[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 03:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of the product articles are already listed in the main article for reference. Since the company is defunct, this category is unlikely to grow. Vegaswikian 06:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Quite misleading name as iskra mean the spark in most of Slavic languages. Pavel Vozenilek 02:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Iskra[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 03:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will never have more then one entry. Vegaswikian 06:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. Perversely, the actual article Iskra {catmore}d as the main one for this cat is not about the computer company (as was presumably the intention), but rather the pre-revolutionary Russian newspaper of the same name. Clearly ambiguous, at the very least.--cjllw | TALK 13:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed that. No reason to keep pointing to the wrong place. Vegaswikian 18:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Chevelle templates[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 03:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Chevelle}} is substed on the category page, otherwise it's empty. Not needed definitely. Conscious 06:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:DIY Projects[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deleted. Conscious 06:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates Category:R.Q.Riley Projects, serves as an advertisement. Conscious 05:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per nom. Antares33712 18:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Sports venues in the Soviet Union[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 05:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore, and all buildings/structures are now in one of the former Soviet republics. Conscious 05:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Former countries in the Hellenistic world[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 06:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge into parent Category:Hellenistic civilization. The "former" is superfluous here, since the entire "Hellenistic world" has that quality, as was mentioned on the Talk page a few months ago by Dbachmann, but no action taken. Half the articles are already in the parent, instead of this child category. --William Allen Simpson 04:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Women in the U.S. Congress to Category:Women in the United States Congress[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy rename as apprev fix. Vegaswikian 19:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. → United States—Markles 04:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Bismarck-Mandan to Category:Bismarck, North Dakota[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Conscious 06:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated so that Cat:Bismarck, ND will fit neatly into the U.S. state capitals cat scheme, and because the current structure is awkward Paul 03:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No way...strongly oppose. This category is for articles about a metropolitan area with two major cities, not just one city as the new name would reflect. --MatthewUND(talk) 05:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as above. Bhoeble 18:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Executed secret agents to Category:Executed spies[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 06:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a subcategory of category:Spies, and so should be renamed to match. Not sure whether I feel the same way about category:Fictional secret agents and spies, though.--Mike Selinker 03:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:United States House of Representatives election results by state[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 03:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's only contained item is a subcategory, which is empty and earlier proposed for cfd.—Markles 02:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:DC Comics things to Category:DC Comics notable objects[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:DC Comics objects. Conscious 13:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC) I think the term is "things" is kind of generic. Exvicious 02:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Origins award winners to Category:Origins Award winners[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 13:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category is in simply need of proper capitalization as per the name of the honor, the Origins Award. ~ Hibana 00:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Disney Mountain Rides[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 05:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded category with little potential for growth; exists mainly to promote creator's fan website [1] of the same name &#151;Whoville 12:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or rename, as name features faulty capitalization. David Kernow 17:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In one since you say We should have a category about Disney mountain rides. It sounds like you are mad that I put a link to a site that covers this exact topic. I am not trying to spam But the site has to do with the name. I say if you delete this get rid of any external links to disney, and other things because thats spam. Eagle4life69
  • Delete per nom. BryanG(talk) 20:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - Could be a good category, but should not be same name as website. Possible "Mountain Themed Disney Attractions"
    • Comment - that would be "Mountain themed Disney attractions" per WP capitalization. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 23:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe Category:Mountain-themed Disney attractions before the grammarians arrive...?  Regards, David Kernow 01:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - Is the category needed at all? That could open the door to a flood of similarly inconsequential categories: Science-fiction themed Disney attractions, Movie-themed Disney attractions, Disney attractions based on literary works, etc. Are any of those really necessary? Disney only has 11 theme parks globally so it's not hard to locate attraction information via the articles for each parent park. The category in question&#151;regardless of its name&#151;is very narrow (18 attractions according to Walt Disney Imagineering) and not likely to grow significantly. &#151;Whoville 15:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — No Vote. I suggested it be a category, as the article contains only the information that should be in a category. I'm not sure it should be a category, either, but it certainly shouldn't be an article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_26&oldid=1136104240"