Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tedernst (talk | contribs) at 20:43, 30 December 2005 ([[:Category:Disambiguated phrases]]: formatting). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

December 23

An inherently POV category. Firebug 23:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(I added a CfD notice to the category on December 10, and thought I had posted it here, but oh those wacky browsers...) Categorizing television stations by one program that they air seems overly specific. If there is a need to keep this info, a simple list would seem adequate. tregoweth 22:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Gamaliel 04:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreed, it is overly specific. Better to have mention in the BBC World News article about the % of PBS stations carrying it in the United States. User:Ceyockey 16:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. per above reasons Gwimpey 07:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was the creator of the category in question and agree with the proposal for deletion. I created it to replace the ever increasing list of PBS stations airing news from BBC World. That list can be found at the article's talk page. I believe adding a note in the article regarding the number (or percentage) of PBS stations airing the news output to be the best option and will do so. Wikiwoohoo 17:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be an error for the already existing Category:Margraves of Baden, and in that case could be deleted. Staffelde 20:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems that the error is mine, and that Margrave of Baden-Baden is a real title, so the category is required. Sorry - my mistake.Staffelde 11:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated by Mairi as a speedy. It is a completely standard speedy, but following objection was raised, most likely in the mistaken belief that manual amendments would be required to each article in the category: - LEAVE - seems overkill to rename the entire category in these circumstances--Sjharte 12:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization, and conform with the rest of the subcats of Category:Railway stations in Japan

This category is for things mentioned in a baseball book mentioned in 2003. It is a bad precedent as there are an awful lot of books published.

As per Category:Host cities of the Eurovision Song Contest (also on CFD), this is not a defining feature of any city. sjorford (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category is meant for football (soccer) players who have played for Sporting Clube de Portugal, but "Sporting players" is rather ambiguous - it should be more specific, in this case. Qwghlm 10:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The full name is clearer. The category for the much better known NFL is not abbreviated. Rename. Calsicol 08:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Category proposed for deletion on the basis that it is small without potential for growth — see item 2 under Categories for deletion (How to use this page).

The Staged events category is only associated with five articles, at least one of which is doubtful; see Reichstag fire. Many historians contest the assertion that the fire was "staged" by the Nazi Party, though it is virtually indisputable that party's propaganda used the fire to their political advantage.

With this low usage, is this category useful? — JonRoma 06:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday Night Live

As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms), avoid using abbreviations. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation is a disambiguation. No special categories are needed or useful. Tedernst | talk 04:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question - did you empty this category before bringing it here? User:Ceyockey 05:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I redirected the cooresponding dab template to the general dab template, which emptied this category, yes. I didn't realize at the time that the proper procedure was to list the category for deletion. I was annoyed that the empty category was still showing up on the Category:Disambiguation page so I edited the empty category to effectively orphan it. I didn't know that was a no-no, either. Someone suggested I needed to then list the category here, which I've done. Sorry for the confusion. Learning as I go here. Tedernst | talk 21:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (and yes its empty?) Zzzzz 15:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the previous cfd on songs. siafu 14:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cannot better the arguments put forward above -- Greaser 00:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation is a disambiguation. No special categories are needed or useful. Tedernst | talk 04:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete but not because of the completely incorrect statement you made in nominating it, Tedernst; rather because it's not a useful category in itself in my opinion. User:Ceyockey 05:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination and because it's practically a useless page.--ViolinGirl 17:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation is a disambiguation. No special categories are needed or useful. Tedernst | talk 04:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category serves no purpose I can find, and isn't actually used. SCZenz 02:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC) Category now modified, see below. -- SCZenz 23:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category serves no purpose, and isn't used. Yaf 05:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]