September 10
Category:Famous climbs in cycle racing
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was rename.
the wub
"?!" 12:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Famous climbs in cycle racing to
Category:Climbs in cycle racing
- Nominator's rationale: Rename, Famous is pejorative, simply removing this word leaves the category essentially the same meaning. I tried, but failed, to think of a more appropriate adjective!
Severo
T
C 23:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename - I think Climbs in cycle racing is appropiate. The current name of the category just leads to discussion on whether a climb is famous or not
Drunt 23:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per above. "Famous" is subjective. Either it's notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia or it's not.
Wryspy 07:25, 11 September 2007 (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 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:Disappeared cycling races
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was rename.
the wub
"?!" 12:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Disappeared cycling races to
Category:Defunct cycling races
- Nominator's rationale: Rename, in common with most other former sporting leagues/organizations/teams as shown in
Category:History of sports.
Severo
T
C 22:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename - I'm the user who created that category and I agree with your point of view. I didn't know that other sports used 'defunct' instead of 'disappeared'.
Drunt 23:50, 10 September 2007 (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 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:National Road Champions
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was rename.
the wub
"?!" 12:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:National Road Champions to
Category:National cycling championships
- Nominator's rationale: Rename, Category refers to actual races rather than championships. Slightly expanded coverage to cover all disciplines of cycling.
Severo
T
C 22:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename - No discussion. Championships simply is not the same that Champions.
Drunt 23:53, 10 September 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Victims of Russian political repressions
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was no consensus.
the wub
"?!" 12:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Victims of Russian political repressions (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
I believe this category is an out right violation of
Wikipedia:NPOV policies. First it's name: "victimsof Russian political repressions"? And also one may dispute wether these people are indeed victims of repressions.
QZXA2 21:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete inherently POV category. While there is a usual consensus about most of the victims of Soviet repressions there is no such consensus about convicts in contemporary Russia. All such cases are controversial and putting the category as a fact without possibility of presenting the opposing view is violation of
WP:NPOV and usually
WP:BLP (the judges, jurrors, etc. are usually living people capable of firing libel suits).
Alex Bakharev 04:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. But this is only a matter of sourcing. If reliable sources claim this to be a politically motivated prosecution, it belongs here, no matter if this is Soviet Union, Russia, or China. If this category is deleted for any reason, all the corresponding pages should be moved to the parent
Category:Political repression in Russia, which in turn belong to
Category: Political repressions by country. This will only result in a less convenient categorization of the data.
Biophys 14:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- This has nothing to do with
WP:BLP, since those are biographies of victims, not biographies of jurors or judges.
Biophys 18:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
*Rename to a more neutral format, such as
Category:Russian victims of human rights abuses, per other subcats of
Category:Victims of human rights abuses. The term "political repression" is POV, but "human rights abuse" can be objectively measured against the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Cases such as that of
Larisa Arap should indeed be grouped together, but not under a POV term. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 11:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment.Such category certainly makes a lot of sense, but it is much wider than "political repression" or simply "repression". Usually, "repression" means illegal arrests, imprisonment of political opponents, executions, etc. "Human rights abuses" may include such things as violating property rights, rights of sexual minorities, disability rights, etc. I respectfully disagree that "repression" is POV term. It is only logical to have
Category: Political repressions by country as we currently do.
Biophys 14:59, 13 September 2007 (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 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:Vanity record labels
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was keep under present name.
Sam Blacketer 16:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Vanity record labels (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: It is difficult to construe the modifier "vanity" as anything other than pejorative.
Skomorokh
incite 21:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - this was just
renamed from "vanity labels" less than a month ago.
Vanity label doesn't indicate that the modifier is generally or even often seen as pejorative.
Otto4711 21:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment (mainly to Otto4711): Wikipedia is not a source. Our current article at
Vanity label is simply incomplete and badly titled, and can't be used as proof unless this point is sourced. Articles such as
from Entertainment Weekly or
from CBS News clearly use "artist-run label" and only pejoratively "vanity label". —
Komusou
talk @ 00:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per Otto. "Artist-run" is surely a decorous and misleading euphemism in most cases. Aren't they run by grubby businessmen just like the rest, but even more so?
Johnbod 00:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per Otto and Johnbod, either the businessmen take money up-front from the band, because it is so unlikely to produce sales in meaningful volume or they make it on volume sales; this classifies the former business model.
Carlossuarez46 02:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: No one addressed the hard fact that the current name is pejorative and jargon, vs. the proposed rename which is neutral and in regular use (as shown in the WNYC, EW, and CBS News citations above). Wikipedia is descriptive and not here to judge on "grubby businessmen" or to concoct our own terminology, that's just POV-pushing. Why not a
Category:Grubby businessmen too? —
Komusou
talk @ 20:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I addressed it and I disagree that it's a "hard fact."
Otto4711 02:46, 18 September 2007 (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 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:Islam and communism
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete as emptied.
the wub
"?!" 12:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Islam and communism (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: I moved all content into new, more meaningful category,
Category:Islam in communist states: "Islam and communism" would mean interaction of the two ideologies as ideologies. I don't see such articles yet.
Mukadderat 19:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - should something similar occur in future, I suggest that you propose the existing category for renaming. Emptying a category and then nominating it for deletion is very bad form.
Otto4711 21:29, 10 September 2007 (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 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:National Fraternities for Christian Men
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete.
the wub
"?!" 12:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:National Fraternities for Christian Men (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: While "National Fraternities for Christian Men" sounds like a superorganization, it reads no google hits; I therefore moved all the articles to the more appropriately named Category:Christian Fraternities. (Previously nominated in CfM discussion
here. —
Scouter
Sig 17:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I appologize for the mix-ups. The category is currently nominated for deletion, as per above. —
Scouter
Sig 17:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete category appears to have been emptied before nom, but even so. "National" is inappropriate - "Almost entirely in the Southern US" would be more accurate.
Johnbod 17:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- "National" in Greek-letter societies means only that there is more than one chapter, regardless of their geographic distribution.-
choster 22:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- and the user is supposed to know that, which is in any case not true in at least one case in the article?
Johnbod 23:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per Johnbod. It's also incorrectly capitalized for Wikipedia style.
Wryspy 07:24, 11 September 2007 (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 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:National Fraternities for Christian Men
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was speedy close due to being essentially duplicate nomination.
Bduke 06:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Suggest merging
Category:National Fraternities for Christian Men to
Category:Christian fraternities
- Nominator's rationale: While "National Fraternities for Christian Men" sounds like a superorganization, it reads no google hits. Threfore, I am moving all of the entries into the second category, Christian fraternities, as it is more appropriately titled. —
Scouter
Sig 16:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
NOMINATION WITHDRAWN AND MOVED TO "CfD" AS MORE APPROPRIATE
- Speedy close needed - see above
Johnbod 22:04, 10 September 2007 (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 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:Psychedelic groups
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was rename.
the wub
"?!" 19:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Psychedelic groups to
Category:Psychedelic musical groups
- Nominator's rationale: To follow the musical groups by genre category format, and since this is a subcategory of the musical groups category, it should follow the same format.
Sdornan 16:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment:
Category:Musical groups by genre really doesn't have a convention. Sometimes it uses "musical groups", sometimes "music groups", sometimes "ensembles", sometimes "bands", sometimes other things entirely. And there's a few cases where trying to rename everything for consistency would be more confusing than it's worth, i.e.
Category:Brass bands, which is the common name. In some cases, there's also a danger of confusion with
Category:Musicals if we rename (though I suppose this probably isn't such a case, but changing e.g. "rock music groups" to "rock musical groups" would be). That said, I suppose it might be nice if this category actually implied some connection with music, so I don't know....
Xtifr
tälk 08:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename not for the non-existent consistency but to get a mention of music into the name, as per my comment above. I wanted to see what sort of reaction my comment would get before choosing a formal position, but since there's been none, I think nom's suggested name is good enough, even if his stated argument was somewhat off.
Xtifr
tälk 19:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per Xtifr, mainly
Johnbod 20:07, 19 September 2007 (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 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:Flamenco bands
Relisted for further discussion at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 20#Category:Flamenco bands.
the wub
"?!" 19:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
Category:Disco groups
Relisted for further discussion at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 20#Category:Disco groups.
the wub
"?!" 19:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete and redistribute to correct city categories.
the wub
"?!" 19:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Famous people living in the DFW Metroplex (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Rename to
Category:People from the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, convention of
Category:People from Texas. --
Prove It
(talk) 14:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per nom.
LeSnail 14:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete and redistribute the contents to an appropriate city category. We already over-categorize by city IMHO and categorizing by city conglomeration just makes things worse.
Otto4711 16:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom, per Otto, and per ample precedent about "current" categories.
Carlossuarez46 17:35, 10 September 2007 (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 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:Hamilton Academical FC
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete as emptied.
the wub
"?!" 12:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Hamilton Academical FC (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: The contents of this category were moved to
Category:Hamilton Academical F.C. -
PeeJay 11:19, 10 September 2007 (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 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:Commercial failures
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was no consensus.
Kbdank71 19:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Commercial failures (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs) and subcategories:
-
Category:Commercial failure lists (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Failed Microsoft initiatives (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Video game failures (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete Inherently POV; there can never be a neutral, verifiable definition of a
flop. There was once a series of lists on this topic, but they were deleted a while ago (example:
miscellaneous commercial failures,
aviation flops, etc. This CFD also includes all subcategories, one of which,
Category:Commercial failure lists, has only one article.
szyslak 11:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep everything. It belongs to
Category:Failure and finally to
Category:Reliability engineering. There is nothing POV in failures. They are a part of life. Failures (including commercial ones) must be studied to avoid them in the future.
Biophys 22:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The POV is not in the concept of commercial failure, which I imagine could be a valid article topic. Rather, my concerns are about whether Wikipedia should enforce the POV that "this or that is a failure". Take the
Boeing 747SP, for example. It's in this category, but the article itself says nothing about failures. Just 45 were built compared to nearly 1,400 for the 747 as a whole. But is that because it was a "failure", or because Boeing built it as a niche-market product? What is the boundary between success and failure, or between failure and mere disappointment? Yes, Wikipedia can address the subject of commercial failure, but this isn't the way.
- If someone classifies a specific article as a "commercial failure", this should be justified. For example, a reliable source claims this to be a "commercial failure". This has nothing to do with the category.
Biophys 15:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Most articles in that category are distinguishable for the sole reason that they're failures.
Irk
Come in for a drink! 22:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete overbroad categorization, arbitrary inclusion guideline... 1 source calling a product a failure doesn't make it true... remember
slashdot called the
iPod a failure at its launch.
ALKIVAR
™ ☢ 21:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Yes, even 10 sources calling a product a failure doesn't make it true. But remember: "verifiability, not truth".
Biophys 20:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. I'm with Alkivar on this; this is one of those cases where a list is going to work better because the context needs to be discussed and inclusion needs to be sourced. The 747SP is a good example. Whether it was a failure or not would rather depend on how many Boeing expected to sell. There's no doubt that things like the
Ford Edsel are commercial failures, but I believe more Edsels were sold than
Facel Vegas - does that make the Vega a commercial failure? It's not objective or uniform enough to be a clear-cut call.
Guy (
Help!) 21:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Question. If you believe that "list is going to work better", why did you vote to delete the list of commercial failures too?
I hope this is not a potential conflict of interest.
Biophys 21:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Commercial failure is more verifiable than most things. Anyone who thinks that a significant variant modern jetliner selling only 45 planes can make a profit must be kidding. The article itself says it undersold Boeing's expectations, which I imagine is a massive understatement.
Johnbod 20:14, 19 September 2007 (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 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:Hip_hop_singers
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was no consensus.
Kbdank71 19:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Hip hop singers (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Poor definition of the concept of a hip hop singers. Most of the members of this category are already in a suitable musical group (i.e. "Rappers", "Neo soul singers", etc.)
Cander0000 07:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep -- This may need cleanup, but I see no reason to delete. A hip hop singer is someone who sings
hip hop, no? Is that not a good enough definition? This is part of a whole tree of
Category:Hip hop musicians, so I'm not seeing why this was singled out.
LeSnail 21:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom. Hip hop isn't singing anyway, IMO, but that's not a good reason to delete. -
PeeJay 22:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, categorizing singers by genre is part of the standard categorization scheme at
WP:MUSCAT (although it should, per that guideline, be subdivided by nationality). Those who really don't belong in the category can be removed, but I see absolutely no reason to delete.
Xtifr
tälk 08:50, 11 September 2007 (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 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:Nord-Pas-de-Calais
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was no consensus.
Kbdank71 19:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Nord-Pas-de-Calais to
Category:Nord-Pas de Calais
- Nominator's rationale: Main article's at
Nord-Pas de Calais, which I believe is correct. It must be said that a web search produces almost every conceivable permutation of hyphenation, including on official sites, and even the occasional oblique. At any rate, we should strive to be consistent, at least internally. Rename to match article (or failing which, do the reverse).
Alai 04:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Also tagged in
Category:people from Nord-Pas-de-Calais, and see also
this SFR.
Alai 04:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep I suggest you look at the French WP article, which (sort of) explains why both versions are found. Rename the article.
Johnbod 04:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I just did (for a second time) and all that leaps out at me is a) that the latter is the spelling the région itself uses officially, and b) that that article itself isn't entirely consistent either (along with everyone else). Is there any actual evidence as to which is the common/generally preferred version?
Alai 04:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- There is clearly much confusion in France - I think the government uses three hyphens but the regional authority itself two. I think we should just follow French WP, who are clearly in the best position to judge. And use redirects per LesSnail below.
Johnbod 12:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Move article to
Nord-Pas-de-Calais, following the lead of the French WP article and leave the category where it is. Or the other way round is ok, since both options are flawed. The most important thing is that whatever we do, we are consistent. And we need category redirects.
LeSnail 14:05, 10 September 2007 (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 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:Rascal Flatts members
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was Keep, nomination withdrawn with only "keep" votes made. Non-admin closure by nominator.
Ten Pound Hammer • (
Broken clamshells•
Otter chirps) 17:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Rascal Flatts members (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale:
Redundant category, will never grow beyond the three articles, as I don't think Rascal Flatts' lineup will ever change. Blatant overcategorization as well.
Ten Pound Hammer • (
Broken clamshells•
Otter chirps•
Review?) 03:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Withdrawn nomination - I didn't realize that such categories were exceptions to
WP:OCAT.
Ten Pound Hammer • (
Broken clamshells•
Otter chirps) 17:50, 12 September 2007 (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 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:Rascal Flatts
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete. Per OCAT precedent in like categories. --
cjllw ʘ
TALK 09:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Rascal Flatts (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for the band
Rascal Flatts; blatant over categorization.
Ten Pound Hammer • (
Broken clamshells•
Otter chirps•
Review?) 03:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - eponymous category not needed for the subcats and band article, per precedent.
Otto4711 12:28, 10 September 2007 (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 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:Secret Service Inc. albums
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete.
the wub
"?!" 12:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Secret Service Inc. albums (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Part of
Category:Albums by record label. The record label article was deleted via
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret Service Inc.. I suspect this means the category should go to, but am not certain.
GRBerry 02:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep unless the articles in the category are deleted. They should have a home in
Category:Albums by record label, if they exist.
LeSnail 13:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - I'm unconvinced that every album article needs a home in Albums by record label. Label doesn't strike me as defining an album the way that artist does. If the record label is not notable enough to sustain an article then I don't think there should be categories named for it.
Otto4711 18:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: album-by-label is not part of the standard categorization scheme laid out by
WP:ALBUM. There's no problem with using such categories if they exist, but I don't believe there's any reason to retain such categories just to have one tagging each album article. There are too many obscure small labels and single-artist (self-publishing) labels. Some artists have even had multiple single-artist labels!
Xtifr
tälk 08:46, 11 September 2007 (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 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:FIFA U-19 Women's World Championship
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete. Apparently redundant, and presently empty. --
cjllw ʘ
TALK 09:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:FIFA U-19 Women's World Championship (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Repetitions by
Category:FIFA U-20 Women's World Championship.--
Kanabekobaton 12:23, 10 September 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.