Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 22

< December 21	December 23 >

December 22

Category:Brazilian cities

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 00:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brazilian cities into Category:Cities in Brazil

Merge, misguided naming. Circeus 22:24, 22 December 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 section.

Category:Commands of the United States Air Force

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 00:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Commands of the United States Air Force to Category:Major commands of the United States Air Force

Rename, disambiguation AND follow naming conventions of other AF units. NDCompuGeek 18:18, 22 December 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 section.

Category:Long words

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fails WP:OC.--WikiPonny 17:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please tag the category using {{subst:Cfd}} if you are serious about this nomination. Tim! 09:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Dr. Submillimeter 12:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dr. Submillimeter 12:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivia. Pavel Vozenilek 17:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list does a better job. Wimstead 21:56, 26 December 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 section.

Category:Gaijin tarento

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was keep. Timrollpickering 00:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Japanese-POV category. TxPv 16:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep what's japanese-POV in a japanese pop culture category? Circeus 02:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reason given for deletion is lacking in merit. Wimstead 22:02, 26 December 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 section.

Category:Religious leaders by country

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 00:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Religious leaders by nationality, landforms are by country, people are by nationality. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom Dugwiki 16:18, 22 December 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 section.

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Kuntan

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was keep. Timrollpickering 00:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List appears to have been compiled by an administrator who hasn't verified this information with CheckUser. —Malber (talk • contribs) 13:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This nomination by Malber is borderline bad-faith. He hasn't made any attempt to talk to Sir Nick or to investigate the matter. Kuntan has a long history of disruption. This can be vouched for by other administrators like Deepujoseph. I would suggest a speedy keep and a warning to Malber to not engage in such activities again. - Aksi_great (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has a CheckUser been performed? A category like this shouldn't be created until the information is confirmed. —Malber (talk • contribs) 19:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets need not be confirmed solely via Checkuser (If it was, why would we have Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets?), most actually aren't. And "Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets" are by definition not confirmed, but have very strong suspicion against themselves. Circeus 02:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malber, Malber, Malber. I feel that many of the checkusers seem to trust me. Is this nomination made in good faith? Or is this just plain disruption? Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 08:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, yes, many (perhaps all) of these were confirmed by me using CheckUser. I have no idea what this nomination is about. Dmcdevit·t 10:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many? Perhaps all? If this and the evidence is posted on the category pages, I'll gladly retract this CfD. —Malber (talk • contribs) 04:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I'm smelling something, the odor of WP:POINT . Baka man 20:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, perhaps I may even say this should be a speedy keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:34, 25 December 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 section.

Category:13th century in the United Kingdom

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete per creator request. ×Meegs 06:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Created in error - there was no UK in the 13th century. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 11:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mistake. Felix Han 17:30, 22 December 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 section.

Category:14th century in the United Kingdom

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete per creator request. ×Meegs 06:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Created in error - there was no UK in the 14th century. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 11:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mistake. Felix Han 17:30, 22 December 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 section.

Category:Global cities

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete and mark as deleted. Timrollpickering 00:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as PoV and encouraging promotion. "Global city" suggests a theory (and thus PoV) at best, mere hype at worst. The article on global city starts off with impenetrable jargon and goes on to say that It has been argued that global cities are those sharing the following characteristics (emphasis added); no source for this argument is given. There's a scorechart below for putative global cities, but this is one group's opinion (and it seems to be completely preoccupied by corporate globalism). This is followed by various other tables, all of which present opinions rather than a consensus. I see no clear understanding of the term, and no reason for this category (which I think will be inflated by civic boosterism). -- Hoary 08:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While there is a list at Global city, I don't necessarily think that that means that a category shouldn't exist in this case. Interested in further discussion. - jc37 09:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, use a list instead. >Radiant< 14:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete latest incarnation; see related discussion at CfD 2006/10/16, CfD 2006/Jun/21, CfD 2006/Jun/22, CfD 2006/Jul/31 a, CFD 2006/Jul/31 b, CFD 2006/Aug/17, and related TFD 2006/Jul/31 and TFD 2006/Aug/19, and going all the way back to 2004 deletion discussion. -choster 16:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all previous discussions and mark as a deleted category. Osomec 17:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cities that have a major influence on the rest of the world should be recognized with this category. In the opening paragraphs of articles such as New York City, London, Paris, Tokyo and Toronto, it even states their importance as a global city. Blackjays 09:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes. I don't doubt that Toronto is a cultured and important city, but I can't immediately see how it has any effect on, say, me. So I go to Toronto and read in the second paragraph, As Canada's economic hub and a major global city blah blah blah. Not just any old global city, mind you, but a major global city, which come to think of it is just the kind of inflation that I'd expect use of this category to encourage. Perhaps "global" (or even "major global") is explained somewhere below in the article? Er, no, it isn't: "global" appears in two places: there and in the name of the category whose deletion I've proposed. -- Hoary 15:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt unless some non-POV standard can be set (i.e. "Cities with more than 1 million people," etc.) SnowFire 04:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That just introduces the problem of defining "city" as there are many different definitions in use around the world. In any case, the point of the "global city" concept is that there is a lot more to measuring a city's influence than raw population. Sumahoy 17:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as multiple recreation. Sumahoy 17:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The whole concept is questionable and thus not fit for a category. Pavel Vozenilek 17:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and block per all previous pro-deletion discussions and comments. Wimstead 21:58, 26 December 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 section.

Category:Indian-New Zealanders, Category:Samoan-New Zealanders, Category:Welsh-New Zealanders

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 00:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates of better-named Category:Indian New Zealanders, Category:Samoan New Zealanders, and Category: Welsh New Zealanders respectively. - merge/delete. Note too that several of the other subcategories of Category:New Zealand people by ethnic or national origin incorrectly use a hyphen and should be renamed (I haven't officially nominated them here, or templated them for renaming, but if anyone feels like it...). Grutness...wha? 08:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hyphen's should not be used.Baka man 19:12, 23 December 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 section.

Category:United Methodist bishops by Episcopal Area

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Container category for a group of sub-categories which have already been agreed for deletion at CFD (see CFD Dec 12, (UM Bishops by US State). Note that there already exists a Category:United Methodist bishops by Jurisdiction, which (when populated) will divide UM bishops into five groups reflecting the organisational structure of the United Methodist Church: according to Category:United Methodist bishops by Jurisdiction, each "jurisdiction" contains a number of episcopal areas. BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 07:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clarifying intention as nominator. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 07:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In fact, this category organized these Bishops differently than Category:United Methodist bishops by Jurisdiction does. Episcopal Areas exist throughout the World. There are only five U.M.C. Jurisdictions in the World, ALL of them in the U.S.A. So that will be inadequate. The subcats already agreed for deletion were only those which further categorized Bishops by U.S. State. Not all Area categories were nominated or agreed for deletion, because not all of them could be subcatergorized by U.S. State. While I can understand deleting the State categories, these Area categories are an essential and official part of the organization of the U.M. Church throughout the World, and should preperly be kept (just like Catholic or Anglican dioceses categories). The Jurisdictional categories themselves will be pointless without the Area ones. Thank you! Pastorwayne 18:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Previous CFD arguments have clearly stated that organization of bishops by episcopal area is not practical. The parent category is also not needed. Dr. Submillimeter 13:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BrownHairedGirl and Dr. Submillimeter. — coelacan talk — 20:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the current orginazation is unworkable. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:15, 25 December 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 section.

American football logos

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 00:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please expand the abbreviations per WP:NCCAT#General naming conventions. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Wimstead 21:57, 26 December 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 section.

LGBT categories

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename all (with amendment to occupation category name). David Kernow (talk) 12:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename as Category:LGBT and Category:Christian people.--Tsdo 06:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Has LGBT gained the same consensual usage in category naming comvention as US, UK, or NATO has? Essentially, if the answer is yes, then the first three could be speedied. If the answer is no, then this nomination should be opposed. - jc37 09:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To the best of my knowledge, it does on Wikipedia but does not just about anywhere else. >Radiant< 14:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, the article in question is at LGBT. Timrollpickering 14:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename LGBT is standard form in equalities work in the UK (personal experience speaking here - aware of limitation in Wikipedia terms of personal exp.). DuncanHill 23:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it should be "by nationality".~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 02:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Otto4711 04:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the occupation one, and the nationality one with "by"; no opinion on "LGBT people"; weak oppose the Christians one (unless this is the result of a discussion somewhere and all the Christians subcategories are being changed). LGBT is standard in the US, not sure about Wikipedia policy. --Alynna 06:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all, though "by nationality". FYI, GLBT is used often in the US, but WikiProject LGBT studies has pretty much adopted LGBT. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:41, 24 December 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 section.

Category:Batman love interests

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete, with listification in view of some comments. Timrollpickering 00:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC) List now created at List of Batman love interests. Timrollpickering 12:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Batman love interests

Delete. Redundant with Category:Batman supporting characters. -Sean Curtin 05:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - listify if wanted. An idle thought: I wonder if a single issue "love interest" would qualify as a "supporting character"? - jc37 09:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ludicrous. DuncanHill 23:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List material, at best. — J Greb 03:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No Robin? :o~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Narrows the list down, plus the article where it was listified got deleted. Jedd the Jedi 10:36, 26 December 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 section.

Category:Music videos containing movie scenes

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not very useful as a category, since categorization provides no context (there are many music videos containing film scenes due to being in the soundtrack, but others use them for artistic purposes); also, many song articles fail to directly deal with the music video. Ideally I'd say listify, except there's hardly anything to work with. Unint 05:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While I think I understand the intention, I have to agree with the nominator that the inclusionary criteria is too vague in this case, and could use the descriptiveness of a list, explaining each video and the "movie scenes" therein. - jc37 09:45, 22 December 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 section.

Category:Baghdadis

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename per nom (via {{categoryredirect}}). David Kernow (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baghdadis to Category:People from Baghdad

Rename, to fit with the other categories about where people are from. For example, Category:People from Boston is the correct category; Category:Bostonians points there with a {{Category redirect}}. Picaroon 00:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Timrollpickering 00:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Never heard the term "Baghdadis" - looks awkward. But even if extant, rename per normal style. Herostratus 05:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a legitimate demonym. It's just not proper for a category name. Picaroon 22:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - Category:People from Kolkatta, etc.Baka man 20:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you mean Category:People from Kolkata. Picaroon 20:35, 23 December 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 section.

Category:Magnet schools in Ottawa

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Magnet schools in Ottawa

Delete - unknown what +cat means - only one school in +cat - Category:Schools in Ottawa already has several school +cats, no more are required. Headphonos 05:19, 22 December 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 section.