Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 14
| < October 13 | October 15 > |
|---|
Contents
- 1 October 14
- 1.1 Category:TV channels with British versions
- 1.2 Category:People from Chicago
- 1.3 Category:Notability and inclusion guidelines for WikiProjects and Category:Subject-specific notability criteria
- 1.4 Category:Things
- 1.5 Category:Presidential office in the United States to Category:Presidency of the United States
- 1.6 Category:Burkinan athletes
- 1.7 Category:Armenian Poets
October 14
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 Keep. «»Who?¿?meta 06:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, even if renamed to something less US-centric like "US Channels with British Derivatives", I still fail to see the value. Global channels tend to either be globally focused, or with many local variants that all influence each other. Also, the existance of this category implies that a similar category should exist for each country of the world - which would be incredibly unwieldly. matturn 17:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? It wouldn't be unwieldy at all imo. There aren't that many local versions of channels, and those that exist are significant. CalJW 10:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Is this category intended for the UK versions of these channels tailor-made for audience in the UK? — Instantnood 19:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that is why is is called what it is called.
- Comment although it was renamed to change "Channels to channels", here is the previous CFD on this cat. For reference. ∞Who?¿? 21:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep, although I would go along with a less US-centric name. Youngamerican 05:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It baffling that this has been called U.S. centric. We say channels in the UK, the Americans say "stations". This issue is simply absent from and wholly irrelevant to this case - and I am a regular opponent of U.S centrism. It was created by a user from Southend-on-Sea. This has been nominated before and I am baffled by the passion for deleting it. It is clearly useful to distinguish between local and non-local channels. CalJW 10:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This category is not necessarily US-centric. If there are Canadian, Australian, French, German TV channels with UK versions, group them under this category too. — Instantnood 09:08, 16 October 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. «»Who?¿?meta 06:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All articles now moved to Category:Chicagoans (there were only a dozen or so remaining). It's had a merge notice since 5 August which no-one has commented on. Ian ≡ talk 11:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Ian ≡ talk 05:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this has been here before. The reasoning is "People from foo" speak of notable people FROM Chicago, Chicagoans, are notable people who LIVE IN Chicago. The CFD Merge tag means it is suggest to be merged, not to merge it. No changes should be made to the article before the end of discussion here.∞Who?¿? 21:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Rename, I was thinking people from state. Chicago - Illinois, what's the difference. :) ∞Who?¿? 07:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Michigan - East Chicago, what's the difference? ;p siafu 23:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename, I was thinking people from state. Chicago - Illinois, what's the difference. :) ∞Who?¿? 07:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 23:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -Mayumashu 03:48, 20 October 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.
Category:Notability and inclusion guidelines for WikiProjects and Category:Subject-specific notability criteria
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 No consensus (no change). «»Who?¿?meta 06:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge into parent cat Category:Wikipedia notability criteria, which has by far the best title and is small enough to contain all the info. Radiant_>|< 09:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Subject-specific, but keep as sub-category under Category:Wikipedia notability criteria. I created Category:Subject-specific notability criteria because 1) comments in the Notability discussions have noted that subject-specific criteria are relied upon more than general Notability criteria because subject-specific criteria are less subjective, and 2) the links in the child will grow over time in a reasonable manner to cover more subjects, whereas the links in the parent are largely duplicates of each other, and while hopefully the duplicates will be resolved at some point, until then it would be nice to keep the historical repetitive discussions out of the much less controversial and up-to-date subject-specific criteria. --Interiot 15:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment a central category just for subject-specific notability criteria would be great. I think the music and website guidelines that exist are already really useful when trying to decide whether I can propose something for AFD (though I still find it terribly murky). It would be great if there was a list of clear criteria guides for all the common article types. But I find this issue too confusing to vote on right now. --W.marsh 21:51, 16 October 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. «»Who?¿?meta 06:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is a poorly defined category. Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 09:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but worth a chuckle. Radiant_>|< 09:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Somewhat amusing, but not even relatively encyclopaedic. Firestorm 14:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Extreme speedy delete. ~~ N (t/c) 16:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless someone includes Thing (Addams Family), then I dont' want it :) ∞Who?¿? 21:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This makes much more sense if you look at Category:Fundamental, of which this is a subcategory. It's "poorly defined" because it's meant to be one of the broad, sweeping initial branches of the entire category structure; "Fundamental" is a subcategory of Category:Categories. Given that structure, a "Things" category is entirely valid and even necessary. (That said, I have some reservations about the whole structure beginning with a category called "Fundamental", but I can't say I have any better suggestions.) When its actual purpose is taken into account, it is more keepable than it appears; but I'd also favour restructuring the absolute roots of the category tree if anyone has a good alternative. Bearcat 17:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Were not talking historical category structure of Wikipedia. This cat was created in August, if it were necessary, it would have been part of the original structure. ∞Who?¿? 18:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not necessarily the case that all desired categories are created immediately. We are allowed to change our minds about this. Brian Jason Drake 03:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think we need this miscellaneous category, but if we really need it, can we call it "miscellaneous"? Brian Jason Drake 03:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, desired categories I think more of specific cats. This one, as Bearcat says, is fundamental, but it has never been a need for it in the past, and now there still isn't one now. so although it could be used for a plethora of things, it's definately to broad. IMHO there are several categories that now exist that could facilitate the needs of the articles placed there. ∞Who?¿? 03:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Were not talking historical category structure of Wikipedia. This cat was created in August, if it were necessary, it would have been part of the original structure. ∞Who?¿? 18:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - but be warned: after that there'll nothing left -- Ian ≡ talk 16:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 19:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Ill-thought-through effort to clear out Category:Fundamental. Category:Landforms belongs in Category:Geography and the others in subcats of Category:Culture. Septentrionalis 18:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Rename. «»Who?¿?meta 06:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a more correct name, first because it refers to the specific office we are interested in rather than the general principle, thus excluding articles like, for instance, President of Harvard University, and also because this is the term used in academic and professional literature on the subject. See for instance, the seminal book on the Presidency, Richard Neustadt's Presidential Power, or any political science journal. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- rename per nom. Youngamerican 05:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as proposed. CalJW 10:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Should have been named this from its inception a whole two days ago. -The Tom 00:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 17:40, 17 October 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 Speedy deleted as long empty. ∞Who?¿? 21:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty covered by Category:Burkinabé athletes. Dunno should this be in the speedy rename section probably should be speedy rename/delete section. MeltBanana 01:37, 14 October 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 Speedy deleted. ∞Who?¿? 21:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Only contains itself. Correctly capitalised Category:Armenian poets exists. MeltBanana 00:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (speedy #2 applies). -- Rick Block (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and speedy it. Firestorm 14:58, 14 October 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.