Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 27

==July 27==

=== ===

delete -- 14:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The original research this user spammed across several articles, who created this category, is going to be deleted (see 23:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Empty. -- 17:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

merge -- 14:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Need a more suitable name for this area of economics/environment crossover. Open to suggestions, but status quo I think is not acceptable. 21:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 13:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Due to a reorganisation of the anatomy categories as per the 21:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete as per the experts. covers the topic better anyway. *Delete per the anonymous edit above. 19:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete; this is ridiculous. -- 04:32, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 13:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

20:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Speedy as a recreate. -- 20:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Speedy per Kbdank71 and warn the user. - 00:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

This is speedy category. 19:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

*Speedy delete. -- 04:32, July 29, 2005 (UTC) *I am speedying this for the following reasons: *#This category was created against policies of CFD--i.e., moving articles before discussion is complete. *#The previous category s discussion is nearly unanimous, and as such, this category violates the likely result of the previous CFD. *#It would be bad precedent to allow such trivial categories to be created about people, and worse, allowed to hang around by allowing anon users to rename them during a vote. *#I doubt anyone on that list would like to be remembered as famous for having a hairpiece. --- 15:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 14:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

There s only one item under this category. Since the maker is defunct, there is no potential for growth. And the 19:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete. I ll agree with the anon. If anyone wants to at some point write articles about the other three games that were made, the category can easily be recreated. -- 20:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Whoops. I thought I was logged in. I apologize. --

*Delete 08:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 13:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Chicagoland highways was created initially by me, then I realized it wasn t clear... highway can mean more things than I intended. All moved to 17:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 13:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Appears to be empty, and nothing links to it, so I imagine it to be redundant. - 16:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete, redundant with 16:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete, this is speedy candidate (as listed in deletion criteria page). 19:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Speedied. -- 17:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

=== . ===

discussion moved back to wikiproject mathematics -- 14:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Present name inappropriate, most of the articles have nothing to do with the order of the sets they discuss. Furthermore, if 15:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I m not sure why it is a good idea to move the debate here, instead of keeping it on 17:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

**Surely properties of integers is a considerably broader category. I ve no idea whether that s appropriate (or better), I m just pointing that out. 10:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

==== ==== no consensus (keep) -- 14:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

to fit in with all the other Cambridge colleges and just in case there is a St Catharine s College somewhere else. 14:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Note, I moved this to the 27th from speedy. -- 14:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Why I d say it s an obvious typo. 14:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

***It doesn t match any of the speedy criteria listed above. A typo would be changing colege to college. -- 15:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC) **** I d call it a typo if you any words out of your sentences. 15:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC) ***** I ve moved this to the 16:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Rename per nominator, but not speediable per talk page. - 16:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Convert to list and delete category. 06:31, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

There s a list already at 09:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I second that suggestion. (And for now I support the addition of cambridge here, as is standard.) 09:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

****And I third it. I m tempted to execute it by changing my vote above, but that would be rather disruptive. Once this is done, if the closing admin could remind me, I ll put together a blanket CfR for them. - 00:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC) *Rename to match the articles title; 23:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC) *Listify & delete. Also, should be alumni rather than former students (since I m sure none of these people were transferred out or dropouts). 16:17, July 29, 2005 (UTC) *Listify and delete. 11:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn t nominate it for deletion so these votes are null and void. 11:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

***No, they are not void. Otherwise, we d have to renominate this for deletion and start the process over, which would be a waste of time. I vote to listify and delete. -- 05:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

What do you have against Catz that doesn t apply to the rest of Cambridge Let me try to explain why your votes are null and void.

*# Someone starts creating categories for former students of Cambridge college. *# When they get to Catz they accidentally drop the description Cambridge from the end of the category name. *# I notice and nominate it for renaming as an obvious mistake. *# It turns out that policy does not permit mistakes of even the most obvious kind to be rectified. *# The nomination for renaming is then chucked in with the Categories for deletion, although it has not been nominated for deletion. *# There is no rationale for deletion given; nor are any of the other Cambridge colleges nominated. So if you want to propose the category for deletion, please do so, but you will have to propose all of them at the same time. They must stand or fall as a collection. This individual category is simply proposed for renaming; due to technical limitations or a decision not to have a separate Categories for Renaming other than speedy page, it just happens to be on here. If it is deleted I will recreate it under the correct name. 08:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC) **You just don t get the idea of a consensus, do you At the rate this is going between the renames and the listifies, there isn t going to be a consensus, and the category will stay as is. -- 17:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC) **I agree with David. The question at issue is whether to rename a category to fit the standard naming convention for categories of that class. Suggestions to delete the category entirely are, in both the logical and usual sense, 18:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

rename -- 14:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I would like this moved to 14:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Rename for consistency. But please do call in on the discussion at 16:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

suspend per outcome of titles debate -- 14:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

This was placed in speedy by 14:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Suspend debate (or equivalently do not rename) pending outcome of 16:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Rename per outcome of category titles debate, but educationist is not acceptable. 13:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 13:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Empty category that had 2 articles which belonged to Accounting category. In any case it should have not existed in the first place. Too narrow and small category. 13:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete per nominator; redundant. - 16:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 14:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Capitalisation aside the name is totaly misleading, only survivors of the fire are listed. Anyway there are only two articles in the category (the main article mention 3 survivors, don t know how many thre where though) so I think it would be best to just delete and listify as List of survivors of the General Slocum fire (a List of people killed in the General Slocum fire (over 1,000 people aparently) would also make sence if anyone can find the list anywhere (the article link to a list on commons, but it s empty and up for deletion there). -- 13:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Not so sure about the lisfitying anymore, only 2 survivors mentioned (although there should be hundreds, including the whole crew) and they are mentioned in the main article, although there might be some potential for growth for such a list. As for the list of killed people I found it on 13:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

*Delete. No argument. 14:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 14:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

No precedent for this sort of cat, as far as I know. 13:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC) :Delete If this caught on there would eventually be terrible category clutter in some actors articles. It s much better to explain significant actor/director relationships in articles, as they can be put into context there. 02:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete per Osomec. 14:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

no consensus (keep) -- 13:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The category was created today, but the idea behind seems nonsensical. Every second monarch should be listed in this category. What s the point -- 10:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

*Keep. I made this category; having one figure singled out as a city founder is rare. Your reasoning of every second monarch should be listed in this category is in itself nonsensical, by that reasoning Category:Monarchs or Category:Cities in Louisiana could be deleted because they would have hundred of entries.- 10:55, July 27, 2005 (UTC) *Keep. This looks like a valid category. 10:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Seems interesting. 13:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Comment Not distinctive; most Greek and many American cities had founders, real or mythical; and we ve already included 15:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete — the problems cited by 16:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete for various reasons stated above. This has potantial to grow without any limit and worst: there s no clear way how to separate it into subcategories: Greek cities, Ancient Greek Cities, Is Taranto Greek or Italian 19:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC) : The /idea/ is very interesting and encyclopedia worthy but it should be rather series of articles. Cities were often founded by groups of refugees/colonists/monks/etc and within some historical context. A category doesn t allow such subtleties and give any context information. 19:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

: I ll give example: city of 19:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

*Keep idea seems interesting and worthwhile. There are too many great figures in history (i.e. Alexander the Great, King Solomon, and Peter the Great) that have been related to this that it is nonsensical to delete it. 20:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Maybe an interesting topic for an article but the category looks like typical Wikipedia List Disease. 09:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete. I agree with Pavel, this is going to grow until it is unusable. -- 17:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep; this seems worthwhile. -- 04:28, July 29, 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Interesting category on historical key figures. 04:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Interesting and worthwhile. — 14:17, July 29, 2005 (UTC) **For all those who said something along the lines of interesting and/or worthwhile , may I ask why you think so How will this be interesting or worthwhile if, as pointed out, it gets populated with thousands of names -- 17:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. However this category was intended by 20:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Per 14:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Interesting and worthwhile as long as the articles themselves are encyclopedic. — ( To 19:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC) *Keep, Looks like a useful category. It s no problem if old cities have no clear founders (having multiple claims) - even newer cities don t have clear founders. The false claims will be removed in time. Also if getting too big this can be broken up by most popular nationalities or founding centuries. 22:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 13:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Empty miscapitalisation of 09:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Speedy renamed 10:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 13:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Empty miscapitalisation of 09:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Speedy renamed 10:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Can I invite interested particpators over to 16:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 13:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Empty cat written as an article. Already well covered in 09:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete, it s empty and the subject is covered in 14:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC) **Question, how does this come to be empty when there are cats for many other works of fiction characters It must surely have been populated at some point - 16:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC) ***Comment, not nessesarily 12:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete per Sherool. 14:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 13:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Even the guy who started it seems to see it as just a joke. 07:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

*Delete, excessively silly. Also, POV. -- 09:47, July 27, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Joke category. 11:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete, nonsense. 12:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete absurdity. - 16:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

This should be speedy to save time of people here. 19:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

**Deletions should be thought over not rushed through. This case doesn t qualify as a speedy deletion - it s not nonsense, it s not derogatory, it s not redundant, it s not misspelled or ungrammatical, and it s not empty. So we ll go through the proper process. 21:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like following procedure for the sake of following procedure to me. The creator of the category wrote on it a totally POV page , and delete if you must , clearly nobody is going to want this kept, so why wait (by the way, I think we should delete.) -- 22:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

****Because while I agree (obviously) that this particular category should be and will be deleted, I have seen cases in which some people appear to use speedy deletion is a means to bypass a general discussion and the possibility that their opinion might not prevail. The process is important. 01:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC) *Speedy. Not nonsense -- 18:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC) **The two women listed in the category are both generally considered attractive and they do have overbites. So it may be trivial and subjective, but it s not nonsense. 05:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete MK2 is right. Follow the procedure. 19:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete, and although I don t know if there is a speedy policy that covers this, the vote so far is unanimous. -- 14:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC) **To answer your question, yes, there is a policy on speedy deletions and what you did violated it. I swear, some people seem to treat Wikipedia like it s some kind of cancerous tumor that needs to be reduced as quickly as possible by whatever means are available. 02:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC) ***And some people want to keep every piece of crap that gets created, what s your point So far there has not been one person who said keep. On the extreme offchance this swings the other way, the category will be undeleted and repopulated. That said, even though I think it s nonsense, that itself doesn t qualify it for speedy, and it should have been given a week for discussion. -- 17:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC) **If you are not sure what the policy is, surely you ought not to be deleting on the basis of it - 02:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 13:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Empty cat, and unnecessary; already well covered elsewhere like 04:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC) 00:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete vernacularly named cats. - 16:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete as above. 02:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

soft redirect already added -- 13:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Empty cat, and unnecessary; already well covered elsewhere. 00:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC) **Where I mean in the why isn t there an overarching group like this that includes churches, mosques etc etc sense. How does it come to be empty- 16:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Seems to be duplicated with 14:12, July 29, 2005 (UTC) *Keep and redirect to 23:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

added. — 08:01, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

keep -- 13:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The only notable ones are already well catered for in 00:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC) :Mmmmm. Not entirely convinced. Gangs has a different connotation. The Hell s Angels is a gang; the Harley Riders Association is a club. I d have seen gangs as a subcat of clubs rather than as a synonym for it. 01:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep as per Grutness. Harley Owners Group isn t a gang. (I fixed the cat listing, it s clubs with an S). -- 18:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep as above. 02:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep per Grutness. 14:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 13:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Miscapitalisation of 00:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Speedy renamed to 10:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 13:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

This cat was being moved. All articles have now been moved so we can delete it. 00:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 13:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Are there any notable hills in England I live there and can t think of any. Category is empty, unparented, and no other countries have an equivalent cat. 00:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep and populate. 01:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Why not create 10:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

*Delete, we have 09:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete. -- 10:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete per Grinner. 11:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete per Grinner. 12:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete, per Grinner. Otherwise I would have voted keep per Grutness. - 16:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep 19:44, July 27, 2005 (UTC) *Delete per Grinner. -- 18:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete per 23:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 13:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a category with one member, and the content of the member is on the category page. Not to mention the actual name/potential contents of the article itself... 21:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)