Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 13

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 14:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only skiers in the present category are freestyle skiers, as one would expect, given its two sibling categories Category:Cross country skiers at the 2006 Winter Olympics and Category:Alpine Skiers at the 2006 Winter Olympics (the latter subject to speedy renaming to Category:Alpine skiers at the 2006 Winter Olympics (capitalization)). There are no (snow) skiers other than alpine, cross country and freestyle at the Olympics (or in general). -- Mareklug ^talk 18:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I would agree with the renaming of the category. Sue Anne 19:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett 05:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 18:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Note that biathletes are also skiers, but this category should be parallel in level to the others; without the adjective it sounds like it should be a parent of Alpine skiers and the like, and there is no need for that. Gene Nygaard 01:17, 18 March 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. - TexasAndroid 16:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is duplicting the content of Category:Mountains and hills of Northern Ireland. In the interests of avoiding confusion and consistancy with the other UK mountain categories, I think it should be deleted. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 16:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#How_to_name_the_country Northern Ireland is the proper term for the country; however, there is in fact a historical/traditional province of Ulster, and this category corresponds to those for the other three provinces. I'd also add the note from the top of Category:Ulster for clarity. -choster 18:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Pages are categorised by country, which in this case is Northern Ireland - part of the UK. So the Munster, Leinster and Connacht categories are irrelevant here. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 19:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reply Not irrelevant at all. Three of the counties of Ulster are in the Republic of Ireland, as the provincial boundaries and national boundary are not identical. "XXX of Ulster" and "XXX of Northern Ireland" are completely different things. If there are similar categories for Mountains and hills of the other three provinces this should be kept and a separate category for the Mountains and hills of Northern Ireland created which can have both cat:M&h of Ireland and cat:M&h of the UK as parents. Grutness...wha? 22:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup may be in order, but so long as three of the four provinces have categories it doesn't make sense to exclude the fourth. Either delete them all or keep them all, I would think. - choster 19:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. If anything, let the Northern Ireland one be listed in Mountains of Ireland, because of the country/island overlap in meaning. That'll avoid the confusion. Gene Nygaard 21:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No, Northern Ireland categories are subcategories of United Kingdom categories, not Ireland categories. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a geography category, not a political category. 66.97.254.212 08:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This sort of overlap can only create confusion. Osomec 00:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "Ulster" is too ambiguous, start with Category:Ulster. To delete the Ulster category and not the others is akin to upmerging Category:Mountains of California but leaving all its siblings in place. -choster 02:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a valid sub-cat for a valid cat in Category:Ulster Mayumashu 03:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only one of the other three provinces has a general category and it is almost unpopulated. The main system of subcategorisation is by county. The Ulster category tends to obscure/allow people to ignore that six counties of Ulster are not part of the Republic of Ireland. ReeseM 03:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looking at it further, I would say the only reason the category was created was to blur the fact that Northern Ireland and the Republic are seperate countries. It was created by Lapsed Pacifist, who systematically tries to change every mention of Northern Ireland in Wikipedia to terms like "The Six Counties" or "The North of Ireland". He's currently the subject of an RFA. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ulster and Northern Ireland are not synonyms. --Mais oui! 07:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't answer the question of whether this is a legitimate category. Bhoeble 18:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Tinged with POV. Bhoeble 18:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Treads on thin POV ice. Angr/talk 13:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Scranchuse 14:30, 17 March 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 14:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the criterion of being famous? Who decides whether a statue is famous or not? It is too arbitrary a criterion for categorisation. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Postdlf 20:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as being fuzzy. Pavel Vozenilek 21:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 18:32, 14 March 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 14:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category of things related to a site that itself has no entry and does not meet WP:WEB (alexa rank 93,000). part of a series of self-serving articles created today by Chaz365; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allah-Kitten controversy. Delete. bikeable (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. FreplySpang (talk) 04:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 04:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom Palnu 05:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as empty, all articles deleted; useless. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete now, since articles got deleted. Pavel Vozenilek 21:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 18:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete empty and non-notable category per nominator. Too bad; there's plenty of international idiocy going on these days. Pointing it out would violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy, though. Barno 23:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete before someone adds United States foreign policy to it. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. David Kernow 16:01, 18 March 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 speedied already by BorgHunter. Syrthiss 21:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Coptography" is a neologism - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coptography. FreplySpang (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Thanks in advance! - Chaz365 04:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The abovesigned is the creator of the category. As for me, fails WP:VSCA. Alba 04:45, 13 March 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 14:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will be empty if the nomination below goes through. Probably unpopulatable without breaching neutrality and verifiability by using legendary dates. Delete. Hawkestone 02:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete of all such categories (they should be relisted under single section, no one is going to vote on each item). It is very unlikely to get populated with reliable data, whole centuries would be empty. The current birth/deadth year categorisation is targetted for era where printed records exist, it should not be extended outside. Pavel Vozenilek 21:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 18:32, 14 March 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 14:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. Same arguments apply as for various categories below. Delete Hawkestone 02:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 18:32, 14 March 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 14:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will be empty if the nomination below goes through. Probably unpopulatable without breaching neutrality and verifiability by using legendary dates. Delete Hawkestone 02:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 18:32, 14 March 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 14:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty and almost certainly unpopulatable. Most likely contained a legendary birth date which someone (appropriately) moved out. Delete Hawkestone 02:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 18:32, 14 March 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 14:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missed this one a minute ago. Will be empty if the other nominations go though. Delete Hawkestone 01:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 18:32, 14 March 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 14:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will contain neither articles nor subcategories if the nomination below goes through. Only one decade from this century has a category. Delete Hawkestone 01:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 18:32, 14 March 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 14:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following up all the below here is another category which is unlikely ever to populated as dates from his era are almost always legendary. Delete. Hawkestone 01:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 18:32, 14 March 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 14:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contains only Aaron like the category nominated below. The 123 gap is surely enough to condemn both of these categories. Delete. Hawkestone 01:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 18:32, 14 March 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 14:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron's year of birth is not discussed in the article. The date is a traditional one that depends on a religious interpretation of the Bible and does not meet Wikipedia's standards of neutrality and verifiability. Delete. Hawkestone 01:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 18:32, 14 March 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 14:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. Delete Hawkestone 01:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 18:32, 14 March 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 14:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will be empty if the nominations below go through. Other early centuries with no articles do not have categories. Delete Hawkestone 01:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 18:32, 14 March 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 14:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contains no articles, only the subcategory nominated for deletion below. No other decade of this century has a births category. Delete. Hawkestone 01:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 18:32, 14 March 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 14:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. Most likely whatever it contained was moved out as someone considered the date to be insufficiently certain. Delete Hawkestone 01:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 18:32, 14 March 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 14:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will be redundant if the category nominated below is deleted. Additions unlikely. DeleteHawkestone 01:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 18:32, 14 March 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 14:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest year of birth but it is the year Sargon of Akkad began to reign, not the year he was born. No-one is likely to be added. Delete . Hawkestone 01:33, 13 March 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 handled per cfd mar 12 2006 debate. Syrthiss 15:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The content is already moved as per discussion in Category talk:Nobel Prize in Economics winners so it's just some housekeeping. // Liftarn

Keep. POV pushing. Actually, deal with it in the related March 12 nomination. Gene Nygaard 17:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can this just be thrown out as fraudulently submitted? Nominator already participated in Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 12 discussion before submitting this duplication. Gene Nygaard 17:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Needless obscurity. Osomec 00:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Use the better known term. Bhoeble 18:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment those are two contradictory statements, but this should be dealt with in the March 12 nomination in any case. Gene Nygaard 03:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I would never know to look for this, and if I added a recipient, I would be stunned when I accidentally created a new category called Category:Nobel Prize in Economics winners. (Note: I just put these two nominations next to each other. Nothing has been removed.)--Mike Selinker 09:38, 17 March 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.