Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 19
July 19
[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 --Kbdank71 12:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Following consensus on talk:Prem Rawat, an alternate category, category:Prem Rawat was created and all of the articles re-categorized. Category:Maharaji is now empty and redundant. -Willmcw 21:52, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as agreed. ≈ jossi ≈ 00:25, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete No argument. siafu 00:27, 20 July 2005 (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.
- 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 listify --Kbdank71 13:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Category which does not significant aid in the categorization of its members. The club, according to its article, exists to put on a banquet in honor of Robert E Lee. Putting Ronald Reagan, for example, in this category does nothing to help the reader get a better understanding of him. Better served with a list. --BaronLarf 15:15, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - three of their nominated "presidential candidate" members went on to become ACTUAL presidents. - Eric 00:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ...so what? I still don't believe that the articles on Walter Mondale and Ronald Reagan should be included in a category based upon a club to honor Robert E. Lee. Cheers. --BaronLarf 02:57, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
List - A list seems like a more compact solution, and one that won't add tags on the bottom. -Falcorian 02:55, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I have to vote keep on this, it is an established fairly well known organization, we cannot cast votes based on what the organization stands for, but whether or not the category fits within the guidelines of a category. Both questions are simply yes. I would suggest listify, if it was a historical organization with no current members, but it seems it is active up to at least 2004. Also, we cannot ignore the fact, that the organization can be credited for successfull presidential candidacies. If it were some minor gentlemans club that was not noted for much more than cigars and drinks, I would not support keep. However, I am still willing to hear comments to the contrary. ∞Who?¿? 03:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify and delete. Radiant_>|< 09:49, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Listify and delete'. -Splash 17:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify/delete Pavel Vozenilek 19:58, 20 July 2005 (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.
- 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 --Kbdank71 12:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary sub-cat of Category:Back to the Future characters, with all "time travellers" already appearing in the parent category. JW 11:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. --Kbdank71 16:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no argument. siafu 21:36, 20 July 2005 (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.
directors categories
[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 --Kbdank71 13:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Hitchcock films → Category:Alfred Hitchcock films, or "Films directed by Alfred Hitchcock". ∞Who?¿? 23:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Kubrick films → Category:Stanley Kubrick films
- Category:Spielberg films → Category:Steven Spielberg films
- Rename to Category:Alfred Hitchcock films. Per Category:Films by director, this seems to be the standard format. siafu 23:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Update added additional cats. ∞Who?¿? 09:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. Makes much more sense. Consider what would happen with a category like Category:Coppola films, for instance. Grutness...wha? 10:39, 19 July 2005 (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.
- 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 wait until naming convention is resolved --Kbdank71 13:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Companies of Surinam and Category:Surinamese companies need to be merged. I don't know what the naming conventions say about the proper name for this category, but if the latter category needs to be merged into the former category, the former category needs to be renamed as well, because the country is called Suriname. Aecis 09:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There is currently a discussion about this exact principle underway at Wikipedia:Categorization/By country. Might be better to hold off this kind of CfD until that's resolved. -Splash 12:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Companies of Surinam, though the word "companies" isn't terribly wonderful. siafu 15:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow suggestion picked by Wikipedia:Categorization/By country --ssd 04:37, 21 July 2005 (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.
- 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 --Kbdank71 13:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just ran across this page again. As I'd originally mentioned on the talk page, this is an indy label created for the purpose of publishing a single title. Thus, no real use for an entire category. --InShaneee 05:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition to 17 separate series of Elfquest titles, WaRP also published MythAdventures, a four issue series called Blood of the Innocent, and 12 issues of Thunder Bunny, the latter two of which we don't have and possibly will never have articles on.[1] I'm not familiar with them or the publisher; just wanted to set that out there. Postdlf 05:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It may have started as indie but has persisted for twenty-five years and published a large amount of heavy-selling graphic novels, that were even translated in at least five other languages. Strong keep. Radiant_>|< 07:54, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not saying it's not a comic juggernaut, just that 'Elfquest' is going to be the only thing we ever have in the cat. --InShaneee 04:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per comments above. Gamaliel 03:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Radiant. siafu 18:21, 20 July 2005 (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.
- 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 (keep) --Kbdank71 13:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Originally posted by 64.109.253.204 on 03:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC), as a Vfd (which needs to be deleted), just listed here. ∞Who?¿? 03:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia does not include categories of loosely associated topics. The property of being Black and the property of being a gangster have no connection; this category is useless and nonencyclopedic. Delete it. 64.109.253.204 03:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Nominated only because 64.109.253.204 has failed to read and understand Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.—chris.lawson (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Nomination by 64.109.253.204 in violation of WP:POINT, merely because his Irish-American Mayors article is on VfD. --Calton | Talk 04:22, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Calton does not know what he is talking about. He has no knowledge as to why I nominated this category. This category was nominated for valid reasons.64.109.253.204 04:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Bad faith or not, I agree with the anon comment's rationale—all of these "occupation" by ethnicity subcategories should go. Failing that, rename to Category:African American gangsters or Category:African American criminals. Postdlf 04:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but Rename to Category:African-American criminals or gangsters or mobsters or even the ham-fisted "organized crime members" or whatever. The members of the category are not simply "black", they also happen to be, exclusively, Americans. Organized crime, for good or ill, does involve a great deal of focus on ethnic background (see, e.g., Mafia or Triad). siafu 05:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure they are all from Africa? Perhaps their family hails from Jamaica? I think if we're going to keep it (which I'm against), we shouldn't rename it. --Kbdank71 16:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I originally wanted to vote delete, but kept from doing so, due to the fact of the current disntinction that everyone has for "1920's--1950's" gangsters and modern gangsters. I was not sure "black gangsters" was an appropriate title, but refrained from voting for the time. I think we should rename both categories to show the distinction: something on the lines of "Organized crime members", "Drug lords", & "Street gang members". I only make this distinction, out of the type of gangsters, earlier being more organized crime, latter being more drug-related and street gangs. Note this pertains to both cats Gangsters and "Black Gangsters" ∞Who?¿? 05:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Category:Gang members & Category:Drug lords. However, Ellsworth "Bumpy" Johnson should go in Category:Gangsters.. Then Delete. ∞Who?¿? 06:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why exactly do we categorize by skin color? Delete as racist. Radiant_>|< 07:55, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, being a gangster might be encyclopedic, but there's no further encyclopedic information extracted by categorising by skin colour too. -Splash 12:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Agree with above reasons. --Kbdank71 16:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Wikipedia carries several categories/articles specifically on African Americans in various enterprises, why exclude one group simply because it is a negative category? Sounds like a PC-POV operating here amongst the Delete crowd; this is as "encyclopedic" a category as any others which highlight black Americans or gangsters from within the general national populace, and there are plenty of both. Renaming as African American Gangsters, or African American Crime Leaders ("gangster" is pretty 1930-ish term) would be useful to ensure title conformity with default term, but that is the most that should be done.
- Comment. While I agree with the classification of mobsters, specificly American mobsters, by ethnicity (with the exception of syndicate organizations of course) the category should be clarified between "gangsta" rap artists, gang members, and organized crime figures. MadMax 19:39, 21 July 2005 (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.
- 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 --Kbdank71 13:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Needs to be renamed to Category:Anticonvulsants per Anticonvulsants (Antiepileptics redirects there). siafu 02:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. --Kbdank71 16:59, 20 July 2005 (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.
- 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 (keep) --Kbdank71 13:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seems rather pointles, only 5 articles an no potential for growth. Either way it's poorly named (theyr brother Branwell Brontë is alo listed in the category). Should be renamed to Brontë family. Not sure what the guidelines for "family" categories are, but with only 5 articles I for one would not oppose a delete vote either. The articles could easily be tied together by wikilinks instead of a category. --Sherool 10:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename - should really be Brontë family. - Eric 00:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this really requires a category. A short article (which already exists at the title Brontë) should suffice. Delete category. Bearcat 01:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Category unwarranted. RedWolf 05:24, July 25, 2005 (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.
- 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 --Kbdank71 13:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Overly specific category for a product line that only Nestlé employees would refer to as "Nestlé Classics." Contained five articles at its peak. Another MascotGuy creation. tregoweth 01:08, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: I agree with tregoweth, it's overly spesific. Aside from the low number of articles, there is no substantial difference between a "regular" Nestlé product and a Nestlé Classics product to warrant a seperate sub-category. The article Nestlé Classics (should probably be renamed to "List of Nestlé Classics products" by the way.) already list the 6 products in this product group, and they are all currently listed under Category:Nestlé brands so no information is lost by deleting the category. --Sherool 19:51, 22 July 2005 (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.