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 result of the discussion was:delete.
Kbdank71 13:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. A category for a group of referees that were together for one season is not appropriate. If this were to continue, we would have hundreds of these categories. Furthermore, we don't even have a category for the Select Group Referees for the season that's just finished. Open and shut case, tbh. –
PeeJay 23:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. –
PeeJay 23:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete, per nominator. --
Carioca (
talk) 19:15, 7 June 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:Brat Pack 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.
The result of the discussion was:delete.
Kbdank71 13:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete - a variation of performer by performance overcategorization. Also vague and subjective inclusion criteria. Films are included on the basis of an indeterminate number of actors informally identified as members of the "Brat Pack" appearing in them. Who is or isn't in the
Brat Pack is based on a subjective standard (some say appearance in one of two films, others say both, many exclude one of the principles based on her not appearing in other films with the other actors) and three of the films included in the category were made prior to either of the two cited prerequisite films. There is no objective number of "Brat Packers" who have to be in a film to qualify it for the category. There's also no "expiration date" on the category. Would a film made in, say, 2003 in which two or more of these people appeared qualify as a "Brat Pack film"?
Otto4711 (
talk) 23:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete and "tally ho" to the nominator.
Debresser (
talk) 09:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep Both Perhaps we can follow Wikipedia standards and use descriptions in reliable and verifiable sources to make such determinations.
Alansohn (
talk) 15:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Except of course that reliable sources differ on who is or isn't considered a member of either of these groups. Some state that appearing in
The Breakfast Club is sufficient to be a Brat Packer. Others state that appearing in
St. Elmo's Fire is sufficient. Still others insist that appearing in both films is required. Some include
Mare Winningham because she was in St. Elmo's Fire. Others exclude her because she has not appeared in other films with other Brat Packers. Similarly, reliable sources differ as to who is included in the Frat Pack. The article indicates multiple levels of frat packiness and includes at least one person in part based on his own self-identification. Deciding amongst the various reliable sources as to who really is a Brat Packer or a Frat Packer demands that editors indulge their personal
point of view and/or engage in
original research. Even were we to leave aside all of those issues, the question of the number of Brat or Frat Packers required to qualify as a "Brat Pack film" or "Frat Pack film" (and in the case of Frat Pack films, the previously asserted subject matter - comedy only) is still completely subjective.
Otto4711 (
talk) 15:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Ah, the argument from possible borderline cases, all of which should be dealt with as individual cases based on the consensus shown by reliable and verifiable sources. I do enjoy the claim that using sources violates NPOV and OR, but I am utterly unswayed.
Alansohn (
talk) 03:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Ah, the utter mischaracterization of my comment. The claim is not that using sources violates NPOV and OR. The claim is that equally reliable and verifiable sources conflict, which means that deciding which films to include and exclude requires editors to choose between those equally reliable and verifiable sources. It is forcing the choice between those sources that violates NPOV and OR.
Otto4711 (
talk) 04:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per the persuasive arguments of Otto, as membership is subjective and/or arbitrary.
Occuli (
talk) 18:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete if these were an objectively definable group, they could be templated.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 02:17, 4 June 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:Sholay
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 result of the discussion was:delete.
Kbdank71 13:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete -
small category for a three-decades old film, highly unlikely to expand. Articles are interlinked.
Otto4711 (
talk) 22:57, 2 June 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:Beetlejuice
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 result of the discussion was:delete.
Kbdank71 13:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete - another
small film category with no chance of expansion. Lead article serves as a navigational hub and if desired a navtemplate would work well here.
Otto4711 (
talk) 22:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete. Small category, unlikely to grow. — Σxplicit 02:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Agree wholeheartedly with the nominator.
Debresser (
talk) 09:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep A rather decent-sized category with clear opportunity for expansion. No legitimate policy for deletion has been offered.
Alansohn (
talk) 15:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)reply
And the "clear opportunity for expansion" would be...what exactly? The deletion is based on the guideline
WP:OC. If you believe that guideline to be illegitimate, I suggest you take it up on the guideline's talk page.
Otto4711 (
talk) 15:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)reply
There is no limit to the number of future movies, books, comics, games, toys, breakfast cereals, etc., etc., etc. that can be produced as part of the Beetlejuice franchise and no reason to believe that it is impossible for future additions of new articles to this category as you insist with your statement in your nomination that incorrectly characterizes this as exclusively a "film category" for which there is "no chance of expansion". Your argument is based on your own personal interpretation of
WP:OC, which unfortunately tends to become an arbitrary game of IHATEIT / ILIKEIT, and this time the one-sided coin landed on IHATEIT. While WP:OC has its own deep and fundamental flaws, the issue here is that the argument is "illegitimate", not the guideline. Your rebuttal only further reinforce my position.
Alansohn (
talk) 03:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Should there be a sudden glut of Beetlejuice-related media, there is no prejudice to re-creating the category if the community consensus is in favor. Until such time as that happens (although given that the last such item was released almost two decades ago it seems unlikely) the category is not needed for navigational purposes. It would appear that the other side of that one-sided coin is jingling around in your own pocket, seeing as how your usual argument comes down to ILIKEIT. I did enjoy how, when called on your statement "No legitimate policy for deletion has been offered" you tried to change the meaning of the word "policy" to "argument".
Otto4711 (
talk) 03:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)reply
At last we agree that there is a chance of expansion, just that you have taken it upon yourself to determine that "it seems unlikely". Given that this is an animated feature, I'm sure you would acknowledge that there is no obstacle to creation of new content in the future or addition of new articles for existing content. The category includes an ample number of independent articles and the threat of allowing recreation always leads on the disruptive path of speedy deletion due to allegations of recreated content, so I would pass on the offer. There still is no legitimate policy justification for deletion other than your arbitrary insistence that it is simply "not needed for navigational purposes". I'd be happy to compare my delete/keep ratio with any editor, a number which is far more difficult to calculate for some editors where the denominator has trouble getting past zero.
Alansohn (
talk) 18:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Otto4711's insistence that this category should be deleted because it is small, not needed for navigational purposes, and is unlikely to expand, is not a legitimate policy justification for deletion. A consensus of editors agreeing with Otto4711, however, is.
Postdlf (
talk) 21:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Erm, I don't agree that there is any chance of expansion. "It seems unlikely" was an understatement.
Beetlejuice is not an animated feature and I'm unsure what its being animated or not has to do with the category. The obstacle to creating new articles is the lack of reliable sources that offer significant coverage of other aspects of subject matter relating to the franchise. Again, should a slew of such sources suddenly manifest and articles get written, such that the lead article and/or a navtemplate not suffice for navigation, no one will reasonably object to recreating the category. Feel free to run whatever statistical analyses you would like on your own or any other editor's keep/delete ratio, if that's what blows your skirt up.
Otto4711 (
talk) 11:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)reply
It's not enough to say that expansion is limitless in its theoretical possibilities. The prospect of expansion has to be reasonably certain and/or immediate — for instance, we know that there will be more
Category:Presidents of the United States in the future. We know that there will be more
Category:Britney Spears albums. But if the best you can say is that there could be new Beetlejuice merch someday, solely on the grounds that anything is possible but without any degree of actual certainty as to what will happen, then that's simply not good enough to meet the "prospect of expansion" criterion. If some massive new collection of Beetlejuice-related merchandise actually hits the market in the future, then we can recreate this, but until that actually happens, the onus is on you to prove the expandability by showing actual evidence of actual topics that can actually be added to the category now, not on anybody else to prove that somebody won't introduce a new Beetlejuice-branded fruit drink in 2057. Delete.
Bearcat (
talk) 17:43, 9 June 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:10 Things I Hate About You
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 result of the discussion was:delete.
Kbdank71 13:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete -
small category with very little growth potential. Absent the questionable inclusion of the Shakespeare play (yes, I know it's a loose adaptation, it's still questionable) we have three articles with only two likely expansion articles, lists of episodes and characters. Outstanding example of material that should be linked through the lead article and a navtemplate.
Otto4711 (
talk) 22:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Agree per nominator. Not another navtemplate, I hope! Just linking should be enough.
Debresser (
talk) 09:16, 3 June 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:Sony Records albums
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 result of the discussion was:rename, recategorization into the label subcats still needs to occur.
Kbdank71 13:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: To match parent category. Actually, most of these should be recategorized, as Sony proper doesn't release the albums; most are from Columbia, Epic or a sister label. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (
Many otters •
One bat •
One hammer) 22:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Support, but... to match title of parent article, but this should probably only be use as a parent category to all of SMEs individual labels.
Alansohn (
talk) 15:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)reply
That's what I was going for. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (
Many otters •
One bat •
One hammer) 19:18, 5 June 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:Toronto 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename along with ottawa and niagra per bearcat and precedent.
Kbdank71 13:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: To match precedent of other X from Y categories. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (
Many otters •
One bat •
One hammer) 22:29, 2 June 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:Diet food writers
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 result of the discussion was:relisted on june 10.
Kbdank71 13:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Moved its only article to more appropriate category. We already have Category:Food writers and Category:Health and wellness writers which are well-used and linked in.
thisisace (
talk) 20:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Please reinstate whatever you removed. See the procedures. How can we consider a category that has been emptied? There may well be a case for a category (with a better name) with both of these as parents.
Johnbod (
talk) 17:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete - anyone who writes about food is writing about diet. If this is intended to capture people who have written books about specific diets - meaning weight loss plans - then the category is becoming too specific. Categorizing authors based on the subject matter of their books (as opposed to genre) is cutting things too fine.
Otto4711 (
talk) 14:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Most food writers just address one dish or meal at a time. I'm open to different phrasing, but diet books are clearly a very different genre from cookery books, and recognised and placed as such in completely different sections (often not even in the food section) on the shelves of bookshops and elsewhere in the book trade. We have many far more minute distinctions than this in writer categories that have been upheld here. Obviously not all diet writing is about weight loss.
Johnbod (
talk) 18:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep / Consider Rename There are people who write about cooking from an aesthetic standpoint and there are those who write about from a
dieting standpoint, where the goal is to eat foods to reach some state of improved health.
Irma S. Rombauer, author of The Joy of Cooking, was not writing about dieting, and most cookbook authors don't.
Category:Health and wellness writers includes writers who address issues other than food as a means towards wellness. I would fully support a rename, but this category appears to capture a defining characteristic that would be eliminated by deletion or renaming.
Alansohn (
talk) 17:53, 9 June 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:León
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. Category:León province follows the naming pattern of the other Spanish provinces.
thisisace (
talk) 18:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Agree I prefer the proposal of the nominator over the proposal by
Occuli.
Debresser (
talk) 09:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Support Merge / Rename Target I support the merge, but the target should be renamed to
Category:León (province) to match the title of the parent article.
Alansohn (
talk) 15:08, 3 June 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:Royal Navy cargo ships
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 result of the discussion was:rename.
Kbdank71 13:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Sources on ship classification in the Royal Navy use 'storeship' (spelt as one word), rather than 'cargo ship', the latter implies some sort of civilian mercantile activity, and is an invented classification as far as I can tell.
Benea (
talk) 16:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)reply
The RFA was established in 1905 and took over the responsibility of managing naval oilers, storeships, and other replenishment vessels on behalf of the navy. But prior to that the Royal Navy itself operated storeships for hundreds of years.
HMS Buffalo (1813) in the category is one such example, and one on which to apply a label of the RFA would be an anachronism.
Benea (
talk) 14:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)reply
I was thinking more of the function. Functionally a storeship and an RFA are the same. As long as there is explanation in each category and a clear link to the other I have no problem. Changing to rename.
Twiceuponatime (
talk) 08:09, 4 June 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:Shock jocks
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: A POV categorisation using a loaded term with no clear criteria for inclusion other than "widely regarded". Unsalvageable by a rename and unlikely to find any criteria that would meet consensus.
Mattinbgn\talk 11:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep Present consensus has put some 52 articles here. So what's the problem?
Debresser (
talk) 15:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete - nom is correct, no objective inclusion criterion can exist for this category.
Otto4711 (
talk) 16:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)reply
You do realize that there are ample reliable and verifiable sources establishing these individuals as "shock jocks". And what exactly is the "objective inclusion criterion" for
Category:LGBT-related television episodes, now modified to cover "episodes of television series that are not generally about LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender)-related issues that substantively cover such issues" and which twice met overwhelming approval for retention here at CfD. I have found thousands of sources for "shock jock" (
this search found 15,700 occurrences in Google News Archives), while I have yet to find anything reliably sourced as a "LGBT-related television episode". How can we explain this stark inconsistency?
Alansohn (
talk) 18:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Reading sources is "Original Research"?!?!
Alansohn (
talk) 18:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete subjective, no obvious criteria. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (
Many otters •
One bat •
One hammer) 22:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep The criteria is descriptions of an individual in reliable and verifiable sources. Lumping all radio personalities together while ignoring the defining characteristic of a
Howard Stern or
Opie and Anthony pointlessly deprives Wikipedia readers of an effective means of navigating through similar articles united by a defining characteristic.
Alansohn (
talk) 15:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete, subjective, colloquial term; undoubtedly in usage, but not with any objective consistency. This makes for a fine article about the term/concept, but for a poor unannotated classification.
Postdlf (
talk) 15:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete Mattinbgn (nom) and Postdlf have very strong arguments
TheGrappler (
talk) 19:59, 4 June 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:Celtic music instruments
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.
Speedy merge. How did this go undetected?
Debresser (
talk) 15:27, 2 June 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.