Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 30
May 30
edit- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Lutheran polity in the US does not have cathedrals. This category consists of two churches from the Minneapolis-St. Paul area apparently chosen at random. Again, let me repeat that at least since the formation of the Lutheran Church in America in the 1960s there has been NO SUCH THING AS LUTHERAN CATHEDRALS in the US. EdwinHJ | Talk 19:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Edwin's arguement. MicahMN | Talk 00:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The Lutheran Church in America is only one of many Lutheran denominations in the U.S., some go back farther than the 1960s. Are we sure that no Lutheran denominations uses cathedrals. At a guess I would say yes, but I don't know for certain. Rmhermen 01:10, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Violates the "if you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there" rule. Would work much better as a well annotated list. SimonP 18:10, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
- After looking at the category, and looking at Railway missing links, all I can say is .. I'm very confused ... --Azkar 18:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm amazed Railway missing links survived a vfd. Nobody seemed clear as to its purpose then. I think the premise is that there are hypothetical railway lines which would exist were existing lines joined up, and therefore these parts which would join existing lines up are missing links. Since this is an attempt to categorise something that only exists hypothetically, isn't that POV? Hiding 10:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 14:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redundant with the older Category:Free software games.--Eloquence* 14:53, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Open source and free software are two different things. Kaibabsquirrel 19:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That is primarily an ideological distinction. In practical terms, all the games listed in this category are also free software games. What practical benefit is there to listing them under both titles? Looks more like a maintenance nightmare to me. Category:Free software games was here first, so by this general principle -- the same one we use to decide whether an article should be American or British English, for example -- I think this one should be deleted. If we must succumb to the silly distinction between FS and OS, we might as well use FLOSS and make both sides happy. I hope, however, we don't have to use that abhorrent name.--Eloquence* 06:54, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Interesting... anything open source is almost by definition free (since there's hardly any way of stopping them, but some older shareware games allowed people to purchase the source code for outrageous prices). But most free software is not open source. Given the amount of items in both I'd say they can exist side-by-side (or one as a subcat), so keep. Radiant_* 08:40, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
- This whole field is a naming nightmare. You seem to mistake freeware ("free as in beer") for free software ("Libre" or "free as in speech", as endorsed by the Free Software Foundation), which in turn is closely related to, but not necessarily identical, to open source software As Eloquence said, the distinction is mostly ideological and carries little practical relevance. Category:Freeware games does indeed sound more useful than seperating "free" and "open source", so delete. -- grm_wnr Esc 09:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I agree with Radiant. The category open source games is fine but the cat free software needs to be renamed. --Mattwj2002 11:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Let's not encourage the creation of articles about the non-notable children of celebrities. Of the three people currently listed, I have listed two for VfD for lack of notability. The third (Melora Hardin) is extremely stubbish, although it could be expanded, but we don't have an article about her father. RickK 06:29, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Strong delete, notability is not by default inheritable. Radiant_* 07:19, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Being a relative of a famous person does not automatically make you notable. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If the articles about a particular celebrity's family are even worth keeping, they should be put into a category about that particular celebrity. --Azkar 14:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. IMO, generally, info on a celebrities child should be in that celebrities article and if a celebrities' kid or family member is famous in their own right they should be listed in a more relevent category for example Category:American writers. -- Lochaber 14:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If a person is notable enough to have an article, then they're a celebrity in their own right. If they are notable only as bieng the relative of a celebrity, they shouldn't have an article. Either way, this category is unworkable. RickK 06:31, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Strong delete, notability is not by default inheritable. Radiant_* 07:19, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. James F. (talk) 10:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Being a relative of a famous person does not automatically make you notable. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If the articles about a particular celebrity's family are even worth keeping, they should be put into a category about that particular celebrity. --Azkar 14:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. IMO, generally, info on a celebrities child should be in that celebrities article and if a celebrities' kid or family member is famous in their own right they should be listed in a more relevent category for example Category:American actors. -- Lochaber 15:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.