Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 20
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
April 20
[edit]Rename Category:Cantonese to Category:Cantonese people
[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 rename. Syrthiss 20:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This category is about people, not the language. -- Samuel Wantman 23:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 13:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 14:16, 21 April 2006 (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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 01:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not needed and not used. -- Samuel Wantman 23:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would a Rename not be more appropriate? It does look to have some value, unless of course there already is a category for biographies of people by Chinese subdivisions? --Mais oui! 09:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Delete per nom. --Mais oui! 11:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 13:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. David Kernow 14:18, 21 April 2006 (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 Keep. --William Allen Simpson 01:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how/why these are/should be different Gzuckier 18:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: Medicine is that stuff you take when you have a headache. Healthcare includes charities, HMO's, government beauracracy. Related, but different subjects.--Urthogie 19:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The disambiguation sentence in Medicine clearly states that we don't follow this colloquial use. And the content of the category ismuch more than the subcat Category:Pharmacology. I'd even think vice versa: medicine is the whole thing about human biology, healthcare only the practical topics. --Ikar.us 20:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The category system is a navigational tool and should be based on this usage. Bhoeble 13:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose the merger as healthcare is broader than just medicine, containing a number of different professions and traditions. However, perhaps category:health sciences and category:healthcare should be considered for merger. --Vince 16:00, 21 April 2006
- Oppose: many aspects of healthcare are not covered by medicine (indeed, social work etc.), so this would narrow healthcare to medicine. And medicine is larger than only healthcare (e.g. biomedical sciences, physiology, anatomy,...). There is overlap but no need for fusion, I think. --Steven Fruitsmaak 20:01, 25 April 2006 (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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 01:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just found this moments after creating category:Kuwaiti media, which is the more standard form. It was/is empty. CalJW 18:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 13:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. David Kernow 14:19, 21 April 2006 (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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 01:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant and point of view. Only contains one item after nearly three months, which is itself of doubtful legitmacy but has another category in any case. Delete Calsicol 18:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Mais oui! 09:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have nominated that sole article for AFD, you can find discussion here:
- --Mais oui! 09:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Cpt. Morgan 12:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 13:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. David Kernow 14:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Viv Hamilton 13:40, 23 April 2006 (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. Syrthiss 20:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is this necessary? Technically, the category page is a list article. The entries have wrong sort tags. Ikar.us 16:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A bad idea. Just how many such categories might the average long time star belong to? Far too many, that's for sure. Osomec 16:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I have no problem with keeping a list of such artists but it is not category-worthy. BoojiBoy 17:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I remember why I have avoided Wikipedia like the plague. Delete to your heart's content.
- Gee, we just love having our efforts insulted at Wikipedia. I guess that's why our critics feel no need to show us any courtesy at all. Bhoeble 13:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A song should have an artist category, but not the other way around.--Mike Selinker 02:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 13:15, 21 April 2006 (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:Disaster preparation by country outstanding cats
[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 rename. Syrthiss 20:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:French disaster preparation to Category:Disaster preparation in France
- Category:British disaster preparation to Category:Disaster preparation in the United Kingdom
Seems to be consensus building below here and here that these cats should remain and that the standard form should be "Disaster preparation in Fooland". These are the two subcats that have yet to be nominated. Valiantis 14:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Osomec 16:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 13:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 14:21, 21 April 2006 (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 already merged. Syrthiss 20:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
dupe of Category:Upcoming television shows a result of the usage of both tv-shows and tv-series The DJ 12:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. Bhoeble 13:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Category:Upcoming television shows; less ambiguous name. David Kernow 14:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as above. MakeRocketGoNow 16:36, 21 April 2006 (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.
Various hip hop musicians/rappers category moves and deletes
[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 X per nom. Syrthiss 21:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- List of alternative hip hop musicians was deleted in AFD because it was unanimously decided that it was impossible to truly decide whether someone was an alternative hip hop musicians or not.
- Merge Category:Gangsta rappers into Category:Rappers
- The same logic applies to Category:Gangsta rappers as to Category:Alternative hip hop musicians.
- This is shorter and fits the current naming convention.
- I have no idea why this category was created. We already have hip hop musicians categories for every asian country. Is there any real relationship between Russian, Japanese, and Indian hip hop? Nope. So there's no reason to keep it, neither cultural nor geographic. Also, notice how this category, and its subcategories take away from the more specific various asian nationality categories, thus providing editors and readers with less information, not more.
- Not only does the above logic apply, but this category has no articles in it and is misspelled.
- We already have hip hop groups categories for every asian nationality that has notable rappers.
- Merge Category:Asian rappers into Category:Rappers
- We already have rappers categories for every asian nationality that has notable rappers.
- There isn't a single article in this category, and for good reason!--Urthogie 10:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/delete as per nom, but it might have been better to list them separately. Choalbaton 14:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as per nom. Osomec 16:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as per nom. Bhoeble 13:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support nomination, with the exception of Merge Category:Gangsta rappers into Category:Rappers as I am not convinced that Gangsta rappers are as difficult to label/identify as are alternative rappers. Colonel Tom 13:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. So what makes a rapper a gangsta rapper? What percent of their songs must celebrate the life of violence and decadence? 100%? 50%?--Urthogie 13:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not for me to decide, but if either of those percentages (or any other arbitary figure/s) were to be employed, it then becomes possible, rather than impossible, to decide if a rapper is a gangsta rapper. More seriously; self-identification seems like a good start. Gangsta rap seems to be a more clearcut sub-genre of rap to me than alternative hiphop is of hiphop, and I think that this category has merit within the encyclopedia. There are users who will derive benefit from the retention of this category. Colonel Tom 13:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Self-identification seems like a bad way to decide(even worse than arbitrary percentages). Why? Because rappers that make gangster rap and other types of rap might not want to be pigeon-holed into that subgenre, so they'll avoid the title, and some rappers who barely ever touch on gangster rap might want to claim "gangster" to boost their street credibility.--Urthogie 14:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is certainly possible (and will undoubtedly be true for some artists), but has not convinced me that the category should be removed, or that the category has no value. Colonel Tom 14:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Self-identification seems like a bad way to decide(even worse than arbitrary percentages). Why? Because rappers that make gangster rap and other types of rap might not want to be pigeon-holed into that subgenre, so they'll avoid the title, and some rappers who barely ever touch on gangster rap might want to claim "gangster" to boost their street credibility.--Urthogie 14:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not for me to decide, but if either of those percentages (or any other arbitary figure/s) were to be employed, it then becomes possible, rather than impossible, to decide if a rapper is a gangsta rapper. More seriously; self-identification seems like a good start. Gangsta rap seems to be a more clearcut sub-genre of rap to me than alternative hiphop is of hiphop, and I think that this category has merit within the encyclopedia. There are users who will derive benefit from the retention of this category. Colonel Tom 13:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think its the fact that it's impossible to know whether or not we're misinforming people that makes me want to remove it. As a sidenote, List of gangsta rappers has been a redirect to List of rappers for more than two weeks without any attempts at reversion.--Urthogie 16:56, 21 April 2006 (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 merge. Syrthiss 21:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hip hop music was merged, so this should be too-- please note that "hip hop culture" is a redundant phrase. Urthogie 08:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. --kingboyk 11:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Choalbaton 14:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Osomec 16:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Bhoeble 13:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nomination. Colonel Tom 13:33, 21 April 2006 (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. Syrthiss 21:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article not a category, and as an article it would be deletable as a mere list of external links. In most countries outside the U.S. law departments of universities are just like any other department and do not have and will never have separate articles. Unless someone confirms that this does not apply to China and finds some existing articles about Chinese law schools this should be deleted Hawkestone 00:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete per nom. Nathcer 13:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Osomec 16:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 13:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- At the risk of Me tooing, Delete per nom. Colonel Tom 13:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. David Kernow 14:24, 21 April 2006 (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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 01:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsensical category. Georgia guy 00:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both (I have just added Category:Number families) juvenile numbercruft. -- RHaworth 02:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete both This is just thinly disguised vandalism. This user has a number of simillar articles that were up for AfD and have been consequently speedied, as well as a history of creating nonsensical articles relating to numbers. --Hetar 04:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both Choalbaton 14:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both per nom. I don't think we have a Speedy criterion for categories. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Speedy renaming for speedy renaming, which mentions that speedy deletion criteria also applies to categories. --JeffW 23:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I misspoke. I don't think these categories quite meet the speedy criteria, given WP:AGF, unless we treat it as recreation of Other names of large numbers. Now, Category:Decemmillenniums, on the other hand... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Speedy renaming for speedy renaming, which mentions that speedy deletion criteria also applies to categories. --JeffW 23:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom doktorb | words 09:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both per nom. Cpt. Morgan 12:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete both. Colonel Tom 13:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both per nom. David Kernow 14:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both This user seems to be fond of creating silly articles relating to numbers. This user has created many other silly articles such as May 6 (disambiguation), July 12 (disagumbination), June 8, 2006, Deaths in 2047, 2 0 6 7 and Year 2 kilo. They've also made silly redirects in the form of 0743, 0002, 4/8/2005, October 1979, '90's, 2 0 1 5 and 2 0 1 6. They've been told constantly to stop making these silly articles and redirects. But this user still seems to continue to do so. Stop war! 16:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, delete per nom. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 19:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2006 (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.