Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 4

< September 3	September 5 >

September 4 edit

Category:Final bosses edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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/merge to category:Computer and video game final bosses --Kbdank71 16:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, The category is vague and unnecessary in my opinion, and should be deleted. Shannernanner 22:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Improve intro, Rename, and Keep. The category is useful if you are an RPG gamer. My son would appreciate it because he would know what it was about, but the current intro does not make it at all clear. Better to have an RPG guy rephrase it well, but it should not be deleted in any case. Fiddle Faddle 23:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- note Added rename per Mike Selinker Fiddle Faddle 06:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Improve and keep. I don't like the category title much (maybe category:Computer and video game final bosses?), but it seems an excellent category for comparing and contrasting these kind of characters.--Mike Selinker 01:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Mike Selinker. I wouldn't be upset with a delete, but I actually do think that this could potentially be a good category. Final bosses are pretty important in the realm of video games. --Cswrye 04:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the parent, Category:Computer and video game villains, is better by itself (and it's not that much broader either), but this isn't too bad. Delete or rename to Mike S's suggestion. ×Meegs 04:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Rename They are numerous. User:Yy-bo 18:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above. Michael 23:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, There is already a specific, well-defined and well-populated List of video game bosses, including Final bosses. -Shannernanner 10:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Delete. Concerns about WP:OR, which means that I would like to see citations, which then means that it should be in an article. - jc37 22:13, 6 September 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:Halloween critters edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 deleted --Kbdank71 16:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. This category is trivial and can surely have no notable content Fiddle Faddle 19:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New category, loads of halloween critters available. Halloween subcategories are not too many, just four. Critters are meaningful part of halloween, similar to haunted attractions. Absolutely underrepresented on wikipedia. User:Yy-bo 19:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The fact that something is available does not mean it should be present. We're meant to be building something of significance here, not a random collection of "available" stuff. Sometimes things are under represented for a good reason. When that reason is good let's keep them under represented, or better, let's remove any poor ones that are here already. Fiddle Faddle 06:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Wikipedia is not censored. Thus you may consider to withdraw the nominations. Because this argumentation is substanceless. With pardon. User:Yy-bo 18:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Where to start? Censorship is not the same as removing trivial categories and articles. Censorship has, or tends to have, a political theme. If you were correct I would agree with you. Fiddle Faddle 22:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Halloween critters? Herostratus 20:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's also Category:Halloween attractions from the same guy. Linkspam without the links? --McGeddon 04:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The creator is User:Yy-bo (see above comment). ♥ Her Pegship♥ 21:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - Change of vote, the category is now empty; the only articles that used this category have been deleted through AfD. --McGeddon 04:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like someone is setting up to hawk goods on wikipedia. Not to mention notability on the very low end of the scale. We already have Category:Halloween. David D. (Talk) 18:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Listify and then Delete - I think the list is notable enough. However, if it turns out that David D. is correct about the "someone"'s intentions, then just delete.~~ Changed to Delete based on comment below. - jc37 12:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because of the little worth of these goods, the argumentation is not really solid. Looks like debugging a few tiny bugs, but to ignore that cat problem. The halloween category is not really hudge and un-browseable. I do not see any need to delete the category immediately. User:Yy-bo 21:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Because of the little worth of these goods" - little worth? How much they are being sold for isn't the issue. The fact that this category is being used (apparently confirmed by this last comment) for promotion of saleable goods is the issue. - jc37 12:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well i do not know if they sell very well. Most people do not really want these things, just a few freaks. Of course Microsoft.com is not really commercial: you can not buy windows online (as of 2006). I hope you can see the differnce between, for instance a car business (they only sell cars), and private halloween projects. User:Yy-bo 23:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as predicted, User:Yy-bo has now started adding links to commercial sites to these pages (although this could just be good-faith padding with random Google results). --McGeddon 00:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Stop it please. See WP:LINK. No one gets rich from halloween stuff. User:Yy-bo 22:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Please answer the following 3 questions honestly for me:

What in WP:LINK would you like us to see?
Irregardless of "how much", are you (User:Yy-bo) in any way receiving any money in relation to "Halloween Critters"?

I look forward to your answers. - jc37 22:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here are the answers.

WP:LINK does not explicitely excludes sites which contain some commercial elements, for instance (my interpretation) little amount of related merchandizing. I do not like pop-up etc. myself.

I do not receive money in relation to any wikipedia article. My websites have the purpose of personal enlightment, and to do communication to people. It does require single individuals to make websites about anything they consider interesting. That's the way the internet was meant to be. I do not know how this applies to wikipedia. It is not a repository of information, otherwise to put commercial webhosting out of business. In my view it is some sort of self-limitation. User:Yy-bo 23:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answers. I appreciate the clarification of the first point (the WP:LINKexplanation). You didn't quite answer my second question, but in re-reading it, perhaps it was vague. Clarifying: Do you profit in any way from the sale of things related to, or in relation to, those things which are listed in this category? Also, you commented about "My websites", would you mind providing a link to them? - jc37 01:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This information is provided at the userpage, among all other possible information. There is also a disclaimer about representation of organisations. Hence your questions are not really answerable, in terms of additional information. User:Yy-bo 16:54, 12 September 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:Bullycides edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 16:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, It has like three articles, at least one of which (the columbine shooters) isn't valid. Also "bullycide" is retarded, non-technical word coined for the title of one book 199.126.208.101 17:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yeah, that's just psychobabble.--Mike Selinker 18:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; neologism. David Kernow 02:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neologism. --Cswrye 04:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Osomec 10:36, 6 September 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:People from the Scranton--Wilkes-Barre metropolitan area edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 16:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from the Scranton--Wilkes-Barre metropolitan area to Category:People from Wilkes-Barre

Please rename the category called [People from the Scranton--Wilkes-Barre metropolitan area] to [People from Wilkes-Barre] as another editor has already created a category [People from Scranton, Pennsylvania]. Thanks!! Incredibleshrinkingman 14:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The category includes people from places other than Wilkes-Barre, like Pittston, Pennsylvania and Hazleton, Pennsylvania. No objection to creating Category:People from Wilkes-Barre as a subcategory of the metro area category. - EurekaLott 02:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It appears the Census Bureau uses an em dash to name a metropolitan area in which one of the core cities has a hyphen in its name; thus the Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD MSA but the Sacramento—Arden-Arcade—Roseville, CA MSA. According to that convention, the double hyphen here should be a dash: Category:People from the Scranton—Wilkes-Barre metropolitan area. On the other hand, Category:Metropolitan areas of the United States does not follow Census Bureau naming or definitions; e.g. Category:Capital District, New York is not quite the same as Category:Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area. Incidentally, there is no metropolitan area parent for this category; it is improperly subcatted to Wilkes-Barre and to Lackawanna, Luzerne, and Wyoming Counties. -choster 19:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I created and populated Category:Scranton—Wilkes-Barre metropolitan area and fixed the categorization of the nominated category. - EurekaLott 01:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and no objection to Category:People from Wilkes-Barre, which should be a subcat of course. This has utility in that it forestalls People from random village outside big city categories. --Dhartung | Talk 04:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It that case, oughtn't it be renamed to Category:People from the Scranton—Wilkes-Barre metropolitan area?-choster 05:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People from the Scranton—Wilkes-Barre metropolitan area I suppose. -choster 20:23, 7 September 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:Fauna of the Congo edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fauna of the Congo to Category:Fauna of the Republic of the Congo

Rename, I found this in category:Republic of the Congo and if it is for that country (as opposed to the Democratic Republic of the Congo) it should have a name that makes that clear. Brammen 15:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the other one exists, and has a note saying it is not in use, but that is not right and Category:Fauna of the Congo should be merged into Category:Fauna of the Republic of the Congo. Brammen 15:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Choalbaton 13:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 04:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and refocus to Fauna of the Congo rainforest as a more interesting category than that of one of two countries to be called Congo. MLA 15:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Categorisation is done by country. Merchbow 21:58, 7 September 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:Subspecies (Mammals) edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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.

Delete, Overly broad category. UtherSRG (talk) 14:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If kept or no consensus, rename to Category:Mammalian subspecies. David Kernow 02:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Choalbaton 13:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Michael 23:32, 5 September 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:English Premiership football club squad templates edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Category:FA Premier League football club squad templates to match with other FA Premier League related categories such as Category:FA Premier League players Kingjamie 12:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom Kingjamie 17:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Michael 23:33, 5 September 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:Darger edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 14:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transferrred from PROD as prod does not and should not do categories 132.205.44.134

This category is for a single only-somewhat-famous artist. Everyone biographied on Wikipedia is (or should be) notable, can we really have a category for each of them? 10:00, 2 September 2006 User:Storkk

Comment What's going on here? I don't see how the thing about "Year-branched categories" that follows has anything to do with this. - Jmabel | Talk 19:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The speedily deleted category below has it's header text in this section because of the way that Wikipedia handles divisions. 132.205.45.148 21:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (If kept, should be renamed as Category:Henry Darger.) - I'd say he's more than an "only-somewhat-famous artist". He's a fair candidate for being the most important U.S. outsider artist of the 20th century. There have been an increasing number of artists in various fields (from dance to music to other visual artists) influenced by or referencing his work. His work has more and more been getting major museum exhibits. And I could easily imagine us having articles on various creatures, etc., in his mythos, as we do on many less deserving topics. Category may be premature, but I suspect that eventually we will want it. - Jmabel | Talk 19:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Granted, he's an important figure in American Outsider art... however, do we have Category:Pollock? It seems to me that this category, which only contains 3 pages (that are all interlinked anyway), is almost preposterous. Going by this, every major artist should have his own category, as well as every politician (the category would include all major acts they voted for or against, etc.), and you'd end up with every substantive page in Wikipedia belonging to hundreds of categories. --Storkk 20:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jmabel: I "fixed" your edit, as you forgot to write [[:Category:Henry Darger]]. I added the ":". --Storkk 20:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell less than 20 artists have categories named for them, but the number is hard to figure as some are not it Category:Categories named after artists. Still there is no Category:Gary Larson, Category:Paul Gauguin, Category:Henri Rousseau, Category:Georgia O'Keeffe, or Category:Jacques-Louis David. As those names are far more significant I guess I'd go delete.--T. Anthony 06:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really concerned with the outcome of this. It's a badly named category, at the least. I don't think it is very useful right now; I do imagine that, Wikipedia being as it is, eventually we will end up with articles on Blengins, on Pat Graney's Dance piece Realms of the Unreal based on Darger's work, etc., etc., but we don't have them yet, so it doesn't much matter to me if this stays or goes. (Pollock is beside the point: his work is non-representational and he didn't create a mythos.) - Jmabel | Talk 04:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm the one that nominated it, so I don't know if my vote should count (it's my first CfD nomination)... but per my comments above, I suggest delete. --Storkk 23:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

: Comment Somehow, two CfD's have gotten merged. My original, which was Category:Darger is certainly not the same CfD request as the one below, which references this as "the category above". --Storkk 20:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If kept or no consensus, rename to Category:Henry Darger per Jmabel. David Kernow 02:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Henry Darger, this is as valid as anything in Category:Albums by artist. I wouldn't have made it for just three items, but ... --Dhartung | Talk 04:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The artist and his works (which are listed in the artist's main article). - jc37 22:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean to say delete the article on Henry Darger too? That seems a bit extreme. Although he was a very odd man he is notable. I think I'd heard of him before this site was even founded. I certainly heard of him before I ever came here.--T. Anthony 10:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he meant to say that the category contains only the artist and his works. They are all interlinked anyway. He did not mean to say delete the article(s) as well. --Storkk 23:54, 11 September 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:Year-branched categories edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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.

Transferrred from PROD as prod does not and should not do categories 132.205.44.134

No sub-categories, unclear what the category is actually for. Please comment on talk-page if you remove this notice. 13:13, 2 September 2006 user:HappyDog

speedy delete as empty cat. It's listed under the top cat Category:Categories and hence is almost certainly just a test. --Quiddity 06:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I've tagged it as catempty. --ais523 12:49, 4 September 2006 (U T C)

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:Library edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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.

Delete. Redundant to Category:Libraries and Category:Library and information science, and its only sub-cat is up for deletion as well (see below). ♥ Her Pegship♥ 05:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. David Kernow 02:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redundant category. --Cswrye 04:11, 5 September 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:List of libraries edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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.

Delete. Well-meant but incorrectly named; we already have an article List of libraries. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 05:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge to category:Libraries. Osomec 09:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (empty) per Her Pegship. David Kernow 02:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redundant to Category:Libraries. --Cswrye 04:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant. Michael 23:32, 5 September 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:Admirers of Jesus edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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.

Delete, very vague category that does nothing to distinguish "every Christian ever" from "atheists who accept that Jesus had some good points but was fictional". McGeddon 02:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, And why is it important to distinguish "every Christian ever" from "atheists who accept that Jesus had some good points but was fictional"? Grazon 02:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Vague, appears likely to include way too much (although only one person (Grazon, the category's creator and the person who made the preceding comment) seems interested in putting pages into the category - e.g., see what just happened on the Bahá'í Faith page), of dubious apparent value, and somewhat POV. It seems very difficult to determine what/who should be in the category and what/who should be out of the category. The category seems to exist just to put as many organizations and people into it as possible to try to send the message that Jesus was really great. Or perhaps it exists in order to create arguments over whether each particular person or institution should be in it or not. Is there a "Non-admirers of Jesus" category or a "People who aren't particularly fond of Jesus" category? Do we need one? (I hope not.) How about a few million categories for Admirers of XYZ, where we fill in the XYZ blank with the name of every conceivable notable person or animal or organization? Furthermore, I scanned through the pages that had been put into the category, and nearly all of them had no readily-apparent rationale for being placed into the category (most of them had no mention of Jesus or Christ in the article when they were tagged - and a couple of those were about people who were not Christians). Wookipedian 03:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vague and POV. Cuñado - Talk 07:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Impossible to verify and properly populate, sporadic and not NPOV. --kingboyk 07:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is very difficult to verify and a POV category. Moreover, if this category exist it would create a Pandora's box. For example, then we would have categories such as Admirers of Moses or Admirers of Muhammad etc, etc.... --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Osomec 09:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fairly dubious category to start with, and the complete failure on the part of its creators to realise that - since Jesus is a fairly major prophet in some other religions - you don't have to be Christian to think that Jesus was both real and admirable. Grutness...wha? 10:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Absurdly vague and of dubious origin. and will end of creating stuff like "Admiriers of Enoch" "Admiriers of Boad" ect. I agree that it was created just to make Jesus look great...... Religous advertisment. Zazaban 18:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absurd category. Choalbaton 13:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all "fans" and "critics" categories as irredeemably vague/POV. -choster 13:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, joke. Pavel Vozenilek 17:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and very POV. Michael 23:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This would seem related to the "critics of", and the "self-hater" cats that we've been seeing lately (all of which would require sources). - jc37 22:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Merchbow 21:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For heaven's sake Delete. Ok, I am now awaiting the thunderbolt! Heck, I admire the guy, but why wouls I want to be categorised thus assuming I ever warranted a biog here? Pointless, vague, very much POV to add articles to. Fiddle Faddle 08:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and it's very bad precedent: what's next Category:Admirers of Muhammad, Category:Admirers of George W Bush, Category:Admirers of Captain Kirk, etc.... Carlossuarez46 06:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with all others; much too vague. Dylan 04:47, 11 September 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.