Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 18

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. --Kbdank71 16:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Empty; the two articles included here now redirect to Animaniacs. —tregoweth 22:01, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

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. --Kbdank71 16:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Empty and duplicated by Category:Spanish cuisine --Kbdank71 18:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Agree. "Cuisine" is a better category name. Postdlf 01:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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. --Kbdank71 17:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Empty and duplicated by Category:Mexican cuisine --Kbdank71 18:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Agree. "Cuisine" is a better category name. Postdlf 01:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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 no consensus (keep). --Kbdank71 17:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merge this into its supercategory Category:Recreational mathematics, then move some items into Category:Mathematical games or Category:Puzzles if they would fit better. Especially as its description is "mathematical games" for which we already have a category. See also this category's talk page. Blotwell 11:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep FroggyMoore 22:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm, then can you explain the difference between articles which are (or should be) in Category:Recreational mathematics and those in Category:Mathematical recreations and puzzles? How, for example, is Knight's tour different from Missionaries and cannibals problem? Blotwell 03:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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. --Kbdank71 16:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All created by the same anonymous user. It is extremely unlikely that any of these categories will ever have more than one entry. They simply serve no purpose. Firebug 06:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, they are part of the set Category:Deaths by year, Category:Births by year, but you don't need to use them, if you don't want to. -- User:Docu
• Keep all if they do in fact have any content. They are part of a larger structure, and individual pieces of that should not be picked out simply because of under population. They're obviously not harming anything, they're not inaccurate, or in danger of being applied to irrelevant articles, etc. Keeping a consistent approach to the whole births and deaths by year structure makes it easier to work with rather than trying to figure out, when you're trying to add an article, which years get individual treatment and which don't. Furthermore, removing them from the individual births and deaths by year categories removes their links to the general category for those specific years. On the issue of expandability, neither you nor I can really say they won't expand as our articles on ancient persons do, but even if not, it may nonetheless be an interesting fact to some that for a given year, only the birth or death of one individual can be verified as occurring during it. Postdlf 01:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep As above. Oliver Chettle 03:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It'd be difficult to say it better than Postdlf. Binabik80 04:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. One article does not a category make, regardless of whether or not it's part of a larger structure. --Kbdank71 14:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Hooperbloob 21:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Unusually, I agree wholeheartedly Postdlf's comments - spot on. Grutness|^hello? 06:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Consider whether older dates would be better served with decade or century categories, otherwise keep. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 16:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd agree that a decade-category would be more useful for anything earlier than, say, 1600. Merge. Radiant_* 07:47, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • To be consistent with the year articles and categories, it's preferable to keep them separated. -- User:Docu
• Keep Cleduc 03:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Postdlf. --BaronLarf 22:44, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

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. --Kbdank71 17:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• currently has only one item actually relating to the topic, and there are not that many things that can go in it. Also, there is already transporation in toronto. Burgundavia 04:36, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Kbdank71 15:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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. --Kbdank71 17:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merge the two entries into Category:Health. -- Beland 04:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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. --Kbdank71 16:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This category is totally and deliberately point of view. The creator openly states that it is a political campaign: "I created 'corporate abuse' in hopes of future generations learning from our mistakes.... Let the light shine" [unsigned]. Therefore it should be deleted. Gillian Tipson 00:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The reason proferred above for deletion is not enough, because a category should be judged by its function rather than its intent. Right now the function of this one is simply to tag a bunch of corporate articles by the fact that they have been implicated in some scandal. Might as well start categorizing individual country articles under Category:War crimes. Postdlf 03:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It lists corporate abuse. --The Brain 20:57, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • No, it lists the general articles on individual corporations that have been implicated in corporate scandals. If we have articles focusing on those scandals, then those should be grouped under a "corporate scandals" category. But the present category is poorly titled, poorly used, and poorly conceived. Postdlf 01:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • That doesn't address the point at all. It's like saying that a category full of right wing politicians called "Fascist scum" should be kept, "because it lists fascist scum." Oliver Chettle 02:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Kbdank71 15:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A category named "Corporate abuse" should contain articles about specific instances of corporate abuse. It shouldn't be a container where broad company articles are dumped if that company has been involved in a scandal. Feco 19:06, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - POV. Andros 1337 03:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV + agree w/ Feco's point. Edwardian 08:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; POV category. Antandrus 03:39, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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.