Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 28
May 28
edit- 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 15:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This category has wound up being used as a default "has something to do with computing" category, rather than being for articles that are specifically about terminology. After some discussion on Category talk:Computer terminology it seems like the best approach to sorting this out is to just move everything over into the existing Category:Computing, which should be the default "has something to do with computing" category but which currently has only a handful of articles in it. The contents of that category can then be sorted out into subcategories over time through the usual Wikipedia way. I'm putting it here as a cfr so that we can get Pearle to do all the heavy lifting for us. Bryan 23:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, agree with Bryan. Radiant_* 09:26, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, agree with Bryan. --Fredrik Orderud 12:34, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, agree with Bryan. --Johny 17:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's an attractive nuisance. -R. S. Shaw 00:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2005 (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 --Kbdank71 15:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Seems like a very broad category which can refer to any form of "world record". Either it gets broken down in a logical manner, or we can do away with it completely.--Huaiwei 18:14, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and restrict it only for Guiness World Record holders. — Instantnood 18:18, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: The Guiness World Record holds hundreds upon hundreds of records related to almost every possible criteria. Is it logical to list every single entry in wikipedia which was mentioned in that publication in this category?--Huaiwei 18:26, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, entirely far too broad. GWB has well over ten thousand entries; categories should generally be in the 5-50 article range to be pointful. Radiant_* 09:25, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Not only too broad, but Guiness has commercialized it to the point of frivolity. Pay them and they'll make up a record for you to hold. SchmuckyTheCat 19:05, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: They select the records. They do not publish every single record into the year book published annually. I am not sure if they're doing the same selection for their website, but there's sure some restrictions that we can impose to downsize the category, keeping on meaningful ones. — Instantnood 02:02, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
- If we have to actually be selective, then the question of where we set the parametres naturally arise. Are we in the position to setup these parametres, creating a POV issue when it is not even neccesary in the first place? Seems more trouble than its worth, hence its a delete from me too.--Huaiwei 06:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I agree this has problems, but can anyone think of a better category for someone like Ashrita Furman? - SimonP 18:07, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
- I'd be tempted to say that that article could just be merged into a list of record holders, since the individual doesn't seem to be notable for anything other than holding a bunch of crazy world records .. --Azkar 18:24, 30 May 2005 (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 --Kbdank71 15:12, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete: It has been de-populated, de-categorised and superseded by the correctly (consistently) named Category:Prime Ministers of Australia.--Cyberjunkie 04:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- ... then why list it here? There's a different system for speedies. James F. (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2005 (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 --Kbdank71 15:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nothing there and even if there were its under the wrong parent cat. --Hooperbloob 02:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There could be something in the future, see Music of Greenland. But for now, have it deleted. -Hapsiainen 08:12, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. James F. (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2005 (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 keep --Kbdank71 15:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
mistakenly thought the ice hockey team was a former NHL team and that i was forming a subset for a Category:NHL players. the league the team played in has no cat. -Mayumashu 02:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT: You could just create a cat for that league, or leave it where it is. 132.205.45.148 15:27, 28 May
2005 (UTC)
- Are there articles on the players in this team? If there aren't, then I see no reason to keep it around. If there are some kicking around, this would be a useful place to put them. --Azkar 17:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What, are only players for NHL teams worthy of categorization? Following Azkar's suggestion, I've found and categorized the articles we already have on four players that played for the Vancouver Millionaires. Keep.--Pharos 06:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. James F. (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2005 (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.