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. —
ξxplicit 02:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Emma Lanford does not have an article. Despite being a hanger on for a couple songs by a notable artist, she herself does not appear to be notable. Making a category but no article is putting the cart before the horse. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (
Many otters •
One bat •
One hammer) 19:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete – 2 of the 3 articles do not mention Ms Lanford and the 3rd cites her as a vocalist on someone else's song. So the category has no valid members.
Occuli (
talk) 21:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per nominator and
Occuli, and because even if there were three songs, that would hardly justify a category.
Debresser (
talk) 22:01, 24 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:Streets in Las Vegas
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. —
ξxplicit 02:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename.
Las Vegas is simply ambiguous. This rename matches the current contents which are in the city. I must admit that I changed the introduction before this nomination and moved a number of articles to other categories prior to this request.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 19:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Rename to match title of parent article.
Alansohn (
talk) 02:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Speedy rename per nominator.
Debresser (
talk) 22:00, 24 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:Past Band Members
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. —
ξxplicit 02:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. There are lots of problems with the category. First, incorrect capitalisation. Secondly, ambiguity: the title is not clear whether it refers to former members of
The Band, or of musical groups in general. From the one draft article in the category, I think it's the latter, so if kept the category should be renamed to
Category:Former members of musical groups. However, we do not split categories into "former" and "current", so I think this category is a clear delete.
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 19:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and also because it is empty apart from a user page (which looks unlikely to make a successful transition to article space).
Occuli (
talk) 21:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete there's nothing here beyond userspace nonsense so this does not aid navigation.
Alansohn (
talk) 02:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete We do not do current and former categories. All that is there is a link to a userspace article, which is itslef being considered for deletion.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 00:11, 22 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:St Martins Property Group
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:keep. —
ξxplicit 02:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow category with no hope for expansion. The company only owns two shopping malls: Centrale and
Cevahir. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (
Many otters •
One bat •
One hammer) 14:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment -- The Company is certainly notable, and no doubt owns other property. The question is whether there is enough contnet to warrant a category, where there is at present only the main article and one other. If the category is not better populated by the end of the CFD period, I would suggest that the category be deleted and a navbox template created with the same content.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 00:17, 22 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:Switchblade Pictures
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. (Creator has agreed and category is empty.)Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This is not, as I initially thought, a category of films by studio, but rather of films by distributor (in this case
http://www.switchbladepictures.com ). Per previous CfD discussions, distribution arrangements are not a defining characteristic of a film, and whatever the creator's intentions, it seems to me that the main purpose of a category such as this is to advertise the distributor.
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 14:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Creator's comment: No objections to deletion.
Joeinwap (
talk) 22:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom - we don't categorise films by distributor, partly because one film can have many different distributors.
Robofish (
talk) 00:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per nominator.
Debresser (
talk) 21:59, 24 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:PIAA District 6
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. The categorisation of school boards by athletic grouping seems like a rather undefining characteristic of them. I would suggest that the category be listified, except that there isn't even a head article on the
Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Assocation, so I am not sure how notable it is. If this category is kept, the obscure acronym PIAA should be expanded, and it needs some parent categories.
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 13:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. I see no evidence that this is defining for the schools and school districts in Pennsylvania or elsewhere. I might have thought otherwise if there was an overarching scheme for categorizing schools and districts in the U.S. in this way, but it doesn't look like there is.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:38, 27 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:Films about Belgian citizens
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: I found this category in
Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories and set about parenting it (in
Category:Biographical films and
Category:Belgian people, the latter being a bit tentative). However, I can find no other category of biographical-films-by-citizenship, and am a bit concerned that it could lead to category clutter, since many films about people of more than one nationality. The closest parallel I can find
Category:American biographical films, a hazily-named category (created by the now-
category-bannedLevineps (
talk·contribs)) which appears to consist of "biographical films made in America" rather than "biographical films about American people". I am neutral at this point on whether to delete, but may change my mind as a result of the discussion. However, I am concerned that since films are already highly-categorised, we do need to keep an eye on the risk of over-categorisation. A look at
Category:Biographies (books) may also be relevant: it contains only two national sub-cats,
Category:American biographies and
Category:Canadian biographies, both of which have the same ambiguity: are they for "biographies written by fooian authors", or for "biographies of "fooian people". A further thought: people categories usually categorise by nationality rather than by citizenship, because the two are not always identical. if this category is kept, I would prefer that it refer to the broader group of "Belgian people" rather than "Belgian citizens". --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 13:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment – the name needs to be tightened up per the intro "Biographical films about Belgians". (A category of films cannot be a subcat of a 'people' category.) Does
Category:Biographical films need to be subcatted via nationality? It is quite large so something like
Category:Biographical films about Fooian people might be reasonable.
Occuli (
talk) 14:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Having created the category, clearly I would prefer something like that over the deletion of the catergory. My first intention was to call the category Films about Belgians, but my significant other thought that could include fictional Belgians, which is not the intent of the category. Anyway, I think it's a valid category, whatever it ends up being named.
Krikke (
talk) 02:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
The usage of "people" is imo redundant, however, since the category already specifies that it is "biographical." Category:Biographical films about Fooians would be my preference.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 19:42, 21 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:Awards of the Association for Computing Machinery
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. —
ξxplicit 02:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. The purpose of this one-article category is unclear, because it is entitled "awards" but contains a biographical article on a person who win one such award the ("ACM Senior Member Award"). Per
WP:OC#Award_recipients, "People can and do receive awards and/or honors throughout their lives. In general (though there are a few exceptions to this), recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category". The usual response at CfD to such categories is to listify them, but in this case a list of one article seems superfluous.
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 12:10, 19 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:Kradai languages
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. —
ξxplicit 02:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Rename to match title of parent article.
Alansohn (
talk) 16:30, 19 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:Montana city templates
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:merge. —
ξxplicit 02:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Merge. This one-template category is un-needed. The parent
Category:Montana templates contains only two templates, so there is no need to subdivide it. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 12:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per nominator, without excluding the possibility of recreation if more templates were ever to be created.
Debresser (
talk) 21:55, 24 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:Infraestructure Projects in Colombia
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. —
ξxplicit 02:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename to better fit the parent category
Category:Category:Building projects (parent categs added by me, because this was an uncategorised category), and to make the the category more inclusive.
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 11:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Rename to better fit existing parent categories.
Alansohn (
talk) 02:43, 21 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:Audio software with JACK support
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:keep. —
ξxplicit 02:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete and listify. Categorising software by which other software it supports is an approach guaranteed to lead to category clutter on articles about software. In this case it is a non-defining characteristic, because as noted in an earlier version of the head article,
nearly every audio playing application for Linux supports JACK output. No objections to replacing the category with a list; there was one in
this version of the head article, which was removed in
this edit when the category was a created. The list is also a better way of presenting this information, because it can include redlinked articles. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 11:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Retain. I think that category should be kept (ok, I introduced it ;). The original reason for this new category was some other contributor's very valid criticism that the
JACK Audio Connection Kit page was a mess due to the long (and incomplete, and outdated, and generally not very well structured) list of other programs implementing JACK support (as indicated by the "prose" tag). Hence, the list was removed. To avoid loss of information, the category was created, because it better fits into the whole wiki structure and there is hope that it might "maintain itself" better than a static list on some page. It is not true that "every audio playing application" supports JACK. Nor is JACK support only concerned with "audio playing applications". Contrary to BrownHairedGirl's assumption, JACK support is a very defining characteristic of any audio application, and nowhere as ubiquitous as some would like (me included). (Aside: note that I originally created another category "free audio software with jack support", but then I noticed that "free software" and "jack support" are orthogonal and should not be lumped together. I'm not sure how to mark that one for deletion - I'd appreciate if somebody could do so.) --
Nettings (
talk) 22:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Thanks, that was quick :) --
Nettings (
talk) 23:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep to allow navigation based on this defining characteristic.
Alansohn (
talk) 02:44, 21 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:Gadgets
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. —
ξxplicit 02:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Not likely to be populated and no clear boundaries as to what should be included. I have removed Cat Bicycles. --
Alan Liefting (
talk) - 05:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete Capricious inclusion criteria. Virtually any piece of technology is, has been, or can be a gadget. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 07:42, 19 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.
Relisted at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 27#Category:PIAA District 6.
postdlf (
talk) 13:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)