Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 30 |
== May 30 ==
=== ===
delete -- 14:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
19:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
**Delete per Edwin s arguement. 00:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
**Comment: The Lutheran Church in America is only one of many Lutheran denominations in the U.S., some go back farther than the 1960s. Are we sure that no Lutheran denominations uses cathedrals. At a guess I would say yes, but I don t know for certain. 01:10, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
***At this time there are NO Lutheran cathedrals in any of the eight largest Lutheran denominations in the US that account for 99+% of the Lutherans. There are no Lutheran cathedrals at present. Worthless category 01:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 14:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Violates the if you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it s there rule. Would work much better as a well annotated list. 18:10, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
*After looking at the category, and looking at 18:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete I m amazed 10:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
keep -- 14:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redundant with the older 14:53, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
*Keep. 19:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
That is primarily an ideological distinction. In practical terms, all the games listed in this category are also free software games. What practical benefit is there to listing them under both titles Looks more like a maintenance nightmare to me. 06:54, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
*Interesting... anything open source is almost by definition free (since there s hardly any way of stopping them, but some older shareware games allowed people to purchase the source code for outrageous prices). But most free software is not open source. Given the amount of items in both I d say they can exist side-by-side (or one as a subcat), so keep. 08:40, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
**This whole field is a naming nightmare. You seem to mistake 09:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
***Oops. Yes, I was confusing the two. But then we should keep this one, and rename Cat:Free software (so that we get gratis software and libre software in two cats). 12:17, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
*Keep. I agree with Radiant. The category open source games is fine but the cat free software needs to be renamed. -- 11:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 14:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Let s not encourage the creation of articles about the non-notable children of celebrities. Of the three people currently listed, I have listed two for VfD for lack of notability. The third ( 06:29, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
*Strong delete, notability is not by default inheritable. 07:19, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
*Delete. Being a relative of a famous person does not automatically make you notable. 11:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
*Delete. If the articles about a particular celebrity s family are even worth keeping, they should be put into a category about that particular celebrity. -- 14:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
*Delete. IMO, generally, info on a celebrities child should be in that celebrities article and if a celebrities kid or family member is famous in their own right they should be listed in a more relevent category for example 14:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 13:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If a person is notable enough to have an article, then they re a celebrity in their own right. If they are notable only as bieng the relative of a celebrity, they shouldn t have an article. Either way, this category is unworkable. 06:31, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete, notability is not by default inheritable. 07:19, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. 10:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
*Delete. Being a relative of a famous person does not automatically make you notable. 11:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
*Delete. If the articles about a particular celebrity s family are even worth keeping, they should be put into a category about that particular celebrity. -- 14:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
*Delete. IMO, generally, info on a celebrities child should be in that celebrities article and if a celebrities kid or family member is famous in their own right they should be listed in a more relevent category for example 15:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)