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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete. These categories are being used to categorize American media personalities. In previous discussions, we've deleted
Category:American conservatives and logical subcategories of it because of problems labelling people simply as being an undifferentiated "conservative" in the context of American politics. See the following related discussions; the last is still ongoing at the time of nomination:
Delete, per the extensive precedents cited above. We don't categorise people as 'conservatives', because of the difficulties of defining that term clearly; that extends to subcategories like this as well.
Robofish (
talk)
00:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge to commentators. A person may be a conservative on some issues and a radical on others, so that this is essentially a POV category. They are clearly not commentators on the British Conservative Party, which is what "conservative" means to me as an Englishman.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
23:53, 17 March 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:American captives in Kabul
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The current name is ambiguous as it can mean that the category is for capitives of American nationality who are held in Kabul. The suggested name is just a suggestion; it could just as easily be something else if preferred.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom - I assumed this category referred to the alternate meaning Good Olfactory mentions, which is a bad sign. The proposed name is much less ambiguous.
Robofish (
talk)
00:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment - I'm having trouble seeing a persuasive rationale for this very particular category. There's just one artticle, and the man in question was held at Gitmo until, as the article says at the very end, "the Afghans repatriated to Afghanistan from April 2007 were sent to Afghan custody in the American built and supervised wing of the Pul-e-Charkhi prison near Kabul." So it seems to me that the proposed rename would be inaccurate -- and I don't know if any category, however named, is warranted for a single article.
Cgingold (
talk)
19:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete the category. The cited source in that one article in the category states that the prison facility was built by the U.S. military, but not that the facility is operated by the U.S. Furthermore, the article on
Pul-e-Charkhi makes no mention of the U.S. taking part in the operation of the prison. It would appear as if there is no real justification of this category since the United States is, according to this article, not holding prisoners there; Afghanistan is. We could rename the category to "Former Guantanamo Bay Detainees held in Afghanistan", but is it necessary?
BWH76 (
talk)
14:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete or rename. The present name should refer to American citizens imprisoned in Kabul. I did not know that the taliban was holding American prisoners, and even if they were, I suspect that would get them out of Kabul as quickly as they could.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
23:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Question - rename to what? If the United States cannot be demonstrated (or documented) to be holding prisoners in Afghanistan, and if there are no American citizens be held prisoners in Afghanistan, how can this category be renamed? There are no current articles that would be listed in the category!
BWH76 (
talk)
09:43, 21 March 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:Weeds
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.
Support to match title of parent article. The purpose of categories is to allow readers to navigate across similar articles, and this category clearly serves this function. Arbitrary and personal biases on minimum number of articles required should not be used to justify deletion, particularly as continued airing is likely to result in additional articles.
Alansohn (
talk)
16:51, 16 March 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:BYU Cougars athletes
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. These are not "athletes" as in track and field athletes; all are volleyball players, either of the beach or indoor variety. The name of the team is "Brigham Young University Cougars" or "BYU Cougars"; suggest preference for the expanded name.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:42, 15 March 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.
Current satellites
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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge/rename, as a normal rule we don't split categories by current v. former. If these categories need splitting, then it should be by class or type. I will add that there is another factor at play here and that is for satellites in orbit but not functioning.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
20:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Just as a side note, not everything that was formally in earth orbit has fallen out of orbit. Some have been destroyed while in orbit and others, if my memory is correct, are headed to points unknown in the universe. So are there three former categories needed? If we need to make the distinction, then creating a list or two might be better to explain why it is no longer in earth orbit. Also note the special subclass of manned satellites. They orbit and then return to earth, some to return back into orbit multiple times.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
16:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Support move, oppose proposed destinations, I feel the term "artificial satellites" should be replaced with "spacecraft", as the term "satellite" is not generally used to refer to spacecraft outside of geocentric orbit, or spacecraft used for manned operations. --GW…18:05, 21 March 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:Satellite pictures
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The current name is rather ambiguous since it can be either pictures of satellites or pictures taken by satellites. Also we more commonly use images in category names for this class of categories.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
20:50, 15 March 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:People of mixed Asian-European ethnicity
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.
Delete for the same reasons as the other mixed race categories. The correct method is to categorise as of Asian descent AND of European descent, preferably using specific countries )rather than continents.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
00:03, 18 March 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:Artificial satellites currently orbiting Sun
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.
Nominator's rationale: Quite apart from the grammatical error, the current title is a contradiction in terms. "Satellite" implies a planetary (usually Geocentric) orbit, so spacecraft in heliocentric orbit are not considered satellites. GW…15:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment What about objects that orbit moons? The main article at
satellite may need cleanup, as it describes not only heliocentric, but galactocentric orbits. -
choster (
talk)
15:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)reply
That would probably be a good idea. I would prefer "Heliocentric", "Geocentric", etc..., but either way it would be an improvement. --GW…15:17, 21 March 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:Wikipedia articles to be split from 2009 March
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 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:Mandible
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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete This category contains only one article. The category is not needed, and there are no other categories for single bones in the body.
Scott Alter02:11, 15 March 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:A*Teens
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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small
eponymous category. Members, albums and songs all interlink through the main article and extensively interlink amongst themselves and the discography article. No need for the category for that article plus the band article and standard subcats.
Otto4711 (
talk)
01:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Olivia Newton-John has four sub-cats and Sly has five meaning that neither of them are relevant to this odd notion that "3 subcats = cat". The rest look to have closed no consensus, mostly based on such stellar arguments as "there's a lot of other categories like this one so why pick on this one?" from editors who were not part of the long and fully-thrashed out discussion of this category structure. What you're suggesting here is that every one hit wonder should have a category because, based on the Songs by artist, Albums by artist and Musician by group structures, a band with one song, one album and one notable member automatically qualifies for an eponymous category. In a category structure the size of
Category:Categories named after musicians you're talking about adding lord knows how many categories on the basis of as few as four articles. It is doubtful that in the absence of the Songs by, etc. structures that many people would argue in favor of keeping categories with little or no chance of expanding beyond four interlinked articles, yet because some of those articles happen to fit into separate category structures all this fluttering of hands and gaspings of "umbrella category!" have people paying attention to them. Ridiculous.
Otto4711 (
talk)
01:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)reply
BTW, I argued in favor of keeping
Category:Rush, for reasons that have nothing to do with how many sub-cats it has. I argued keep because it contains articles that are not easily categorized in the absence of that category. The retention was based on that argument, not the number of sub-cats, so including it here smacks of intellectual dishonesty.
Otto4711 (
talk)
01:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)reply
I have listed eponymous musician categories that have not been deleted, for whatever reason. At no point have I said there was a consensus to keep all these. There is no recent consensus to delete eponymous musician categories with 3 or more subcats - to show that there is such a consensus you must produce recent examples of eponymous musician categories with 3 or more subcats which have been deleted (4, 5, 6, 7 etc are included in '3 or more'; it's not that difficult).
Corinne Bailey Rae is the only one of which I am aware. You mentioned a dozen or more - where are they?
Occuli (
talk)
02:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep The category serves productively as an aid to navigation across several well-populated categories based on a well-defined and defining characteristic. This is the exact purpose of what categories are supposed to serve. Any prior "precedent" on the subject only serves as a guide for each subsequent CfD discussion, and it appears that consensus here is to keep the category.
Alansohn (
talk)
17:38, 20 March 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:Sound Relief
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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category redundant to the article
Sound Relief. Currently contains only the article on the event itself and one of the bands that played there; material that is better explained in context in the article itself, rather than without any context in this category. To use the example of
Augie March, having played at this event is not a defining characteristic, and I doubt it would be for any of the other bands who were on the bill, either.
Lankiveil(
speak to me)00:44, 15 March 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete. These categories are being used to categorize American media personalities. In previous discussions, we've deleted
Category:American conservatives and logical subcategories of it because of problems labelling people simply as being an undifferentiated "conservative" in the context of American politics. See the following related discussions; the last is still ongoing at the time of nomination:
Delete, per the extensive precedents cited above. We don't categorise people as 'conservatives', because of the difficulties of defining that term clearly; that extends to subcategories like this as well.
Robofish (
talk)
00:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge to commentators. A person may be a conservative on some issues and a radical on others, so that this is essentially a POV category. They are clearly not commentators on the British Conservative Party, which is what "conservative" means to me as an Englishman.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
23:53, 17 March 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:American captives in Kabul
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The current name is ambiguous as it can mean that the category is for capitives of American nationality who are held in Kabul. The suggested name is just a suggestion; it could just as easily be something else if preferred.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom - I assumed this category referred to the alternate meaning Good Olfactory mentions, which is a bad sign. The proposed name is much less ambiguous.
Robofish (
talk)
00:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment - I'm having trouble seeing a persuasive rationale for this very particular category. There's just one artticle, and the man in question was held at Gitmo until, as the article says at the very end, "the Afghans repatriated to Afghanistan from April 2007 were sent to Afghan custody in the American built and supervised wing of the Pul-e-Charkhi prison near Kabul." So it seems to me that the proposed rename would be inaccurate -- and I don't know if any category, however named, is warranted for a single article.
Cgingold (
talk)
19:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete the category. The cited source in that one article in the category states that the prison facility was built by the U.S. military, but not that the facility is operated by the U.S. Furthermore, the article on
Pul-e-Charkhi makes no mention of the U.S. taking part in the operation of the prison. It would appear as if there is no real justification of this category since the United States is, according to this article, not holding prisoners there; Afghanistan is. We could rename the category to "Former Guantanamo Bay Detainees held in Afghanistan", but is it necessary?
BWH76 (
talk)
14:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete or rename. The present name should refer to American citizens imprisoned in Kabul. I did not know that the taliban was holding American prisoners, and even if they were, I suspect that would get them out of Kabul as quickly as they could.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
23:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Question - rename to what? If the United States cannot be demonstrated (or documented) to be holding prisoners in Afghanistan, and if there are no American citizens be held prisoners in Afghanistan, how can this category be renamed? There are no current articles that would be listed in the category!
BWH76 (
talk)
09:43, 21 March 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:Weeds
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.
Support to match title of parent article. The purpose of categories is to allow readers to navigate across similar articles, and this category clearly serves this function. Arbitrary and personal biases on minimum number of articles required should not be used to justify deletion, particularly as continued airing is likely to result in additional articles.
Alansohn (
talk)
16:51, 16 March 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:BYU Cougars athletes
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. These are not "athletes" as in track and field athletes; all are volleyball players, either of the beach or indoor variety. The name of the team is "Brigham Young University Cougars" or "BYU Cougars"; suggest preference for the expanded name.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:42, 15 March 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.
Current satellites
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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge/rename, as a normal rule we don't split categories by current v. former. If these categories need splitting, then it should be by class or type. I will add that there is another factor at play here and that is for satellites in orbit but not functioning.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
20:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Just as a side note, not everything that was formally in earth orbit has fallen out of orbit. Some have been destroyed while in orbit and others, if my memory is correct, are headed to points unknown in the universe. So are there three former categories needed? If we need to make the distinction, then creating a list or two might be better to explain why it is no longer in earth orbit. Also note the special subclass of manned satellites. They orbit and then return to earth, some to return back into orbit multiple times.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
16:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Support move, oppose proposed destinations, I feel the term "artificial satellites" should be replaced with "spacecraft", as the term "satellite" is not generally used to refer to spacecraft outside of geocentric orbit, or spacecraft used for manned operations. --GW…18:05, 21 March 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:Satellite pictures
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The current name is rather ambiguous since it can be either pictures of satellites or pictures taken by satellites. Also we more commonly use images in category names for this class of categories.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
20:50, 15 March 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:People of mixed Asian-European ethnicity
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.
Delete for the same reasons as the other mixed race categories. The correct method is to categorise as of Asian descent AND of European descent, preferably using specific countries )rather than continents.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
00:03, 18 March 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:Artificial satellites currently orbiting Sun
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.
Nominator's rationale: Quite apart from the grammatical error, the current title is a contradiction in terms. "Satellite" implies a planetary (usually Geocentric) orbit, so spacecraft in heliocentric orbit are not considered satellites. GW…15:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment What about objects that orbit moons? The main article at
satellite may need cleanup, as it describes not only heliocentric, but galactocentric orbits. -
choster (
talk)
15:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)reply
That would probably be a good idea. I would prefer "Heliocentric", "Geocentric", etc..., but either way it would be an improvement. --GW…15:17, 21 March 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:Wikipedia articles to be split from 2009 March
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 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:Mandible
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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete This category contains only one article. The category is not needed, and there are no other categories for single bones in the body.
Scott Alter02:11, 15 March 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:A*Teens
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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small
eponymous category. Members, albums and songs all interlink through the main article and extensively interlink amongst themselves and the discography article. No need for the category for that article plus the band article and standard subcats.
Otto4711 (
talk)
01:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Olivia Newton-John has four sub-cats and Sly has five meaning that neither of them are relevant to this odd notion that "3 subcats = cat". The rest look to have closed no consensus, mostly based on such stellar arguments as "there's a lot of other categories like this one so why pick on this one?" from editors who were not part of the long and fully-thrashed out discussion of this category structure. What you're suggesting here is that every one hit wonder should have a category because, based on the Songs by artist, Albums by artist and Musician by group structures, a band with one song, one album and one notable member automatically qualifies for an eponymous category. In a category structure the size of
Category:Categories named after musicians you're talking about adding lord knows how many categories on the basis of as few as four articles. It is doubtful that in the absence of the Songs by, etc. structures that many people would argue in favor of keeping categories with little or no chance of expanding beyond four interlinked articles, yet because some of those articles happen to fit into separate category structures all this fluttering of hands and gaspings of "umbrella category!" have people paying attention to them. Ridiculous.
Otto4711 (
talk)
01:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)reply
BTW, I argued in favor of keeping
Category:Rush, for reasons that have nothing to do with how many sub-cats it has. I argued keep because it contains articles that are not easily categorized in the absence of that category. The retention was based on that argument, not the number of sub-cats, so including it here smacks of intellectual dishonesty.
Otto4711 (
talk)
01:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)reply
I have listed eponymous musician categories that have not been deleted, for whatever reason. At no point have I said there was a consensus to keep all these. There is no recent consensus to delete eponymous musician categories with 3 or more subcats - to show that there is such a consensus you must produce recent examples of eponymous musician categories with 3 or more subcats which have been deleted (4, 5, 6, 7 etc are included in '3 or more'; it's not that difficult).
Corinne Bailey Rae is the only one of which I am aware. You mentioned a dozen or more - where are they?
Occuli (
talk)
02:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep The category serves productively as an aid to navigation across several well-populated categories based on a well-defined and defining characteristic. This is the exact purpose of what categories are supposed to serve. Any prior "precedent" on the subject only serves as a guide for each subsequent CfD discussion, and it appears that consensus here is to keep the category.
Alansohn (
talk)
17:38, 20 March 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:Sound Relief
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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category redundant to the article
Sound Relief. Currently contains only the article on the event itself and one of the bands that played there; material that is better explained in context in the article itself, rather than without any context in this category. To use the example of
Augie March, having played at this event is not a defining characteristic, and I doubt it would be for any of the other bands who were on the bill, either.
Lankiveil(
speak to me)00:44, 15 March 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.