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.
Upmerge per nom. What's with the recent spate of triple- or quadruple-intersection by-century categories for people? Unless the contents can be divided by year, categorizing by century is usually next to useless.
Good Ol’factory(talk)03:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Dealing mostly with more remote periods, I take the opposite view; by-year categories are a useless plague that should be eliminated, & by-decade ones not much better, but by century ones can be very useful.
Johnbod (
talk)
20:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)reply
If they're in by-year categories they are then also in by-century, just further down the line of the category tree. The information is there, it's just harder to get at. It completely depends on what purpose you are using the categories for. Some people research specific years, or specific decades. Other people research centuries, eras, etc. I agree my statement was overbroad; it reflects my own research biases.
Good Ol’factory(talk)21:41, 4 February 2010 (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:Famicom and variants
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:American spy films
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:Upmerge. Only 6 articles, while the parent category has 262 articles of which many are surely American. No other by country subcategories there. Nor do I think these are needed.
Debresser (
talk)
21:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep and populate. I would be surprised if American spy films make up less than half the film in this category, and sub-categorising them will make life easier for anyone looking for American films, and much easier for anyone looking for non-American films. I don't think there will be a need for other by-country sub-categories, but this one will be more than big enough to be viable. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
03:30, 31 January 2010 (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:Argentine legal professionals
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.
Oppose -- Most lawyers are not jurists. I would suggest that the top category should be Argentine lawyers (at present a subcategory) with notaries, judges, etc as subcategories. This is a complex merge vote. The term "jurist" may have differnet meaning in differnet countries, but they are all lawyers of one kind or another.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)reply
I thought "jurist" was a catch-all title? Cat:Canadian lawyers is a sub-cat of Cat:Canadian legal professionals, and "legal professionals" is supposedly used interchangably with "jurist", is it not? --
Kevlar (
talk •
contribs)
02:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose Jurists should be judges and legal academics/writers, not just any lawyer. If we are going to use this tree for all lawyers, it should say so. The questionable category note admits the term in the wider sense is US-only.
Johnbod (
talk)
19:57, 1 February 2010 (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:Prison aircraft
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 there are prison transport aircraft that are not part of the weirdly restricted definition left in the category description. The US Bureau of Prisons owns aircraft for prisoner transfer.
70.29.210.242 (
talk)
05:57, 31 January 2010 (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:Recipients of the Kalidas Samman Award
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.
Spanish politicians by party
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:Members of the Spanish Popular Party
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:Wikipedia noindex pages
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:21st-century actors
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:21st-century television actors
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.
Keep Might have made sense to do this 10 years ago, but not today. Ditto for all the others. Or should we wait until 2099? However, I can see the point of upmerging, on the grounds that many take part in more than one field., DGG (
talk )
04:55, 2 February 2010 (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:21st-century film actors
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.
Reply. Yes, it will grow huge, and even if fully populated now it would to be too big to be any use for navigation. So the next thing will be that it will start being subdivided, and then we'll end up with all the by-nation categories of film actor being divided into 20th and 21st-century ... and since film acting has only been a widespread occupation for about 90 years, we'll find a high proportion of film actors being in both 20th and 21st-century categories. As per previous CfD discussions, the people-by-occupation-by-century division of categories simply doesn't work for occupations which have only been in existence for one or two centuries. It may have a use for something like bishops (who have been around for ten or more centuries) or for members of the oldest profession, but centuries are very bad way to divide film actors. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
08:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Actually
Category:Actors by century goes back to the 16th, from which there are a number of famous actors, one
William Shakespeare for a start, and could go further back to
Roscius,
Theodora (6th century) (possibly the only actress saint) and several others - see
Category:Ancient actors etc. But the 20th and 21st century categories are essentially the "default", and too large and incomplete to be worth the trouble. Many by century categories should only cover "historical" periods - ie stop at 1900. I realize Roscius made few films (sadly), and the point is only relevant for the more general categories.
Johnbod (
talk)
19:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep Might have made sense to do this 10 years ago, but not today. Ditto for all the others. However, I can see the point of upmerging, on the grounds that many take part in more than one field., DGG (
talk )
04:56, 2 February 2010 (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:21st-century female actors
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:21st-century male actors
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:Nanotech Age
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. Crystal Balling. We don't even know if the future will be called the "nanotech" age, let alone which technologies and topics will predominate. Also most the included articles are about space exploration, which is not defined by its relationship to nanotech. --
Kevlar (
talk •
contribs)
05:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Strong delete per nominator as a particularly bad exercise in crystal-balling (see
WP:NOTCRYSTAL). The category description begins "Articles related to the Nanotech Age (2025 - ?)", but it is pure speculation to guess that a particular era will exist at all, let alone that it will begin fifteen years from now. 2025 could just as well be the "Age when climate change so badly screwed up food supplies that most countries were engaged in food wars", the "age when abundant energy was no longer available to developed societies", or whatever your own crystal ball tells you. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
13:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Strong keep -- While the conventional knowledge (right now) suggests that global warming bring forth food wars and developed countries will lose access to foreign oil, I believe that nanotechnology, renewable fuels, and in vitro meat will also us to advance from the Information Age to the Nanotech Age within the next 15 years.
GVnayR (
talk)
01:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)reply
That's exactly the problem. If you want to promote what "you believe", that's what a blog is for. We are trying to write a factual encyclopedia. --
Kevlar (
talk •
contribs)
03:13, 3 February 2010 (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:20th-century American musicians
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, but do not merge. Per above, there is no consensus for these intersections. However, nobody has yet demonstrated any useful navigational purpose to be served by the broader people-by-century categories, which if fully populated will be enormous, so it's better to simply delete than to upmerge. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
13:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Deletion means removing the cluttersome and useless by-century category from articles, which is good news. Merger means cluttering the articles with two useless categories rather than one. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
03:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Not all "information" is of equivalent necessity or value in an encyclopedia. Not all information is worth not being deleted or lost to Wikipedia just because it happens to be information.
Bearcat (
talk)
01:37, 1 February 2010 (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.
Upmerge per nom. What's with the recent spate of triple- or quadruple-intersection by-century categories for people? Unless the contents can be divided by year, categorizing by century is usually next to useless.
Good Ol’factory(talk)03:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Dealing mostly with more remote periods, I take the opposite view; by-year categories are a useless plague that should be eliminated, & by-decade ones not much better, but by century ones can be very useful.
Johnbod (
talk)
20:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)reply
If they're in by-year categories they are then also in by-century, just further down the line of the category tree. The information is there, it's just harder to get at. It completely depends on what purpose you are using the categories for. Some people research specific years, or specific decades. Other people research centuries, eras, etc. I agree my statement was overbroad; it reflects my own research biases.
Good Ol’factory(talk)21:41, 4 February 2010 (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:Famicom and variants
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:American spy films
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:Upmerge. Only 6 articles, while the parent category has 262 articles of which many are surely American. No other by country subcategories there. Nor do I think these are needed.
Debresser (
talk)
21:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep and populate. I would be surprised if American spy films make up less than half the film in this category, and sub-categorising them will make life easier for anyone looking for American films, and much easier for anyone looking for non-American films. I don't think there will be a need for other by-country sub-categories, but this one will be more than big enough to be viable. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
03:30, 31 January 2010 (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:Argentine legal professionals
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.
Oppose -- Most lawyers are not jurists. I would suggest that the top category should be Argentine lawyers (at present a subcategory) with notaries, judges, etc as subcategories. This is a complex merge vote. The term "jurist" may have differnet meaning in differnet countries, but they are all lawyers of one kind or another.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)reply
I thought "jurist" was a catch-all title? Cat:Canadian lawyers is a sub-cat of Cat:Canadian legal professionals, and "legal professionals" is supposedly used interchangably with "jurist", is it not? --
Kevlar (
talk •
contribs)
02:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose Jurists should be judges and legal academics/writers, not just any lawyer. If we are going to use this tree for all lawyers, it should say so. The questionable category note admits the term in the wider sense is US-only.
Johnbod (
talk)
19:57, 1 February 2010 (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:Prison aircraft
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 there are prison transport aircraft that are not part of the weirdly restricted definition left in the category description. The US Bureau of Prisons owns aircraft for prisoner transfer.
70.29.210.242 (
talk)
05:57, 31 January 2010 (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:Recipients of the Kalidas Samman Award
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.
Spanish politicians by party
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:Members of the Spanish Popular Party
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:Wikipedia noindex pages
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:21st-century actors
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:21st-century television actors
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.
Keep Might have made sense to do this 10 years ago, but not today. Ditto for all the others. Or should we wait until 2099? However, I can see the point of upmerging, on the grounds that many take part in more than one field., DGG (
talk )
04:55, 2 February 2010 (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:21st-century film actors
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.
Reply. Yes, it will grow huge, and even if fully populated now it would to be too big to be any use for navigation. So the next thing will be that it will start being subdivided, and then we'll end up with all the by-nation categories of film actor being divided into 20th and 21st-century ... and since film acting has only been a widespread occupation for about 90 years, we'll find a high proportion of film actors being in both 20th and 21st-century categories. As per previous CfD discussions, the people-by-occupation-by-century division of categories simply doesn't work for occupations which have only been in existence for one or two centuries. It may have a use for something like bishops (who have been around for ten or more centuries) or for members of the oldest profession, but centuries are very bad way to divide film actors. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
08:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Actually
Category:Actors by century goes back to the 16th, from which there are a number of famous actors, one
William Shakespeare for a start, and could go further back to
Roscius,
Theodora (6th century) (possibly the only actress saint) and several others - see
Category:Ancient actors etc. But the 20th and 21st century categories are essentially the "default", and too large and incomplete to be worth the trouble. Many by century categories should only cover "historical" periods - ie stop at 1900. I realize Roscius made few films (sadly), and the point is only relevant for the more general categories.
Johnbod (
talk)
19:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep Might have made sense to do this 10 years ago, but not today. Ditto for all the others. However, I can see the point of upmerging, on the grounds that many take part in more than one field., DGG (
talk )
04:56, 2 February 2010 (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:21st-century female actors
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:21st-century male actors
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:Nanotech Age
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. Crystal Balling. We don't even know if the future will be called the "nanotech" age, let alone which technologies and topics will predominate. Also most the included articles are about space exploration, which is not defined by its relationship to nanotech. --
Kevlar (
talk •
contribs)
05:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Strong delete per nominator as a particularly bad exercise in crystal-balling (see
WP:NOTCRYSTAL). The category description begins "Articles related to the Nanotech Age (2025 - ?)", but it is pure speculation to guess that a particular era will exist at all, let alone that it will begin fifteen years from now. 2025 could just as well be the "Age when climate change so badly screwed up food supplies that most countries were engaged in food wars", the "age when abundant energy was no longer available to developed societies", or whatever your own crystal ball tells you. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
13:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Strong keep -- While the conventional knowledge (right now) suggests that global warming bring forth food wars and developed countries will lose access to foreign oil, I believe that nanotechnology, renewable fuels, and in vitro meat will also us to advance from the Information Age to the Nanotech Age within the next 15 years.
GVnayR (
talk)
01:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)reply
That's exactly the problem. If you want to promote what "you believe", that's what a blog is for. We are trying to write a factual encyclopedia. --
Kevlar (
talk •
contribs)
03:13, 3 February 2010 (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:20th-century American musicians
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, but do not merge. Per above, there is no consensus for these intersections. However, nobody has yet demonstrated any useful navigational purpose to be served by the broader people-by-century categories, which if fully populated will be enormous, so it's better to simply delete than to upmerge. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
13:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Deletion means removing the cluttersome and useless by-century category from articles, which is good news. Merger means cluttering the articles with two useless categories rather than one. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
03:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Not all "information" is of equivalent necessity or value in an encyclopedia. Not all information is worth not being deleted or lost to Wikipedia just because it happens to be information.
Bearcat (
talk)
01:37, 1 February 2010 (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.