Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 14
July 14
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 12:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
POV, not concrete enough of a definition for categorization, not verifiable. – flamurai (t) 21:54, July 14, 2005 (UTC) I have also nominated Mill show for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mill show. – flamurai (t) 01:22, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. List already exists on main article Mill show. siafu 22:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Other programs will surely be added as more mill shows are produced. Spotteddogsdotorg 22:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not my objection to the category. How do you determine what to label a "mill show"? For example, you have American Chopper listed, yet that show has 3 seasons with 52 total episodes. Most network shows have more than that. You could go back and retroactively apply this neologism to many other shows. – flamurai (t) 23:51, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. POV and not encyclopedic. Kaibabsquirrel 02:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You just want it deleted because I put it up! 24.240.235.19 07:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This appears to be based on a neologism, which the VfD has not so far been able to verify. -Splash 23:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I made a note on its history on the Vfd, but its just a short version of "run-of-the-mill show". The show itself was renamed to Made in Canada with a US tile of The Industry. Definately does not need a category, as if they are "run-of-the-mill shows", they probably wouldn't be on Wiki anyways. If they are, they would probably be cat'd under "Failed shows" or something similar. ∞Who?¿? 06:59, 17 July 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 merge --Kbdank71 12:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant with Category:Mystery novels as all the entries currently are fiction -- this category is not being used for true-crime books, nor for articles about the process of writing mystery books. This should be merged with Category:Mystery novels. DES 20:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as above. Radiant_>|< 08:19, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge per DES K1Bond007 06:22, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
- What about collections of short stories? Maurreen 07:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are enough, rename Category:Mystery novels to Category:Mystery fiction. No resaon for two categories for written mysteries, IMO. DES 17:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea. Maurreen 21:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are enough, rename Category:Mystery novels to Category:Mystery fiction. No resaon for two categories for written mysteries, IMO. DES 17:15, 17 July 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 12:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Has only one article, Wikipedia:WikiProject Main Page. The contents of the category might be more appropriate in that article instead. I have no idea what other articles would need to be placed in this category. Oleg Alexandrov 18:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Speedy? siafu 22:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 23:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not really worth a category. — Stevey7788 (talk) 06:13, 18 July 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 12:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think somebody must have created this by mistake.illWill 18:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep not necessarily an accident. See Category:The Beatles and Category:The Pixies, just a few of many artists with their own categories, usually only the ones with a large number of albums and songs. It could probably use a nice intro description though. Unless I missed a dup cat somewhere.
- Its always good to refer to:
- Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of a category, explaining it?
- If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?
∞Who?¿? 07:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- CdaMVvWgS 12:47, 20 July 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 12:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:United States aircraft manufacturers. Radiant_>|< 12:58, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Rename as nominated. --Kbdank71 13:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename, though perhaps "Aircraft Manufacturers of Foo" would be better overall than the current "Fooish Aircraft Manufacturers". siafu 22:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Point, however the rest of the subcats under Category:Aircraft manufacturers are currently "Fooian (or Fooish if you prefer) Aircraft Manufacturers", and I'd rather not get into another umbrella situation right now (esp. with Czech and Soviet ones to deal with). --Kbdank71 15:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:American aircraft manufacturers. Hiding talk 15:24, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
- 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 no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 13:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just one article since it's creation almost a year ago; unneccessary without other articles. siafu 00:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Necessary for complete and accurate categorisation. CalJW 09:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as of CalJW argument above. -- Elisson • Talk 11:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. One article does not a category make. --Kbdank71 12:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete per KBdank, but hope that a cross-referencing category system will be implemented some time this year. Radiant_>|< 12:58, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as per User:CalJW. — Instantnood 20:28, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per Kbdank71. IMO, a better solution would be a Category:European aircraft manufacturers, having the European countries' aircraft manufacturers' categories as members along with articles on 'only-one-in-a-country' manufacturers (like Saab). --Wernher 19:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, we could probably do that with Category:Aircraft manufacturers, as there are only 32 subcats there, so at most, there would be a mix of 32 subcats and articles.--Kbdank71 19:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Move per Wernher, though I'm leaving the now strictly as it is to not complicate the votes made already, I think that, upon reflection, this solution is better than a simple delete. siafu 19:13, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am borderline on this one (del or keep NO merge) Kbdank71 & Radiant make excellent points. I think this may just be a lack of articles atm, I could have swore I seen articles on specific Swedish aircraft manufactures, and it would be used in the future. If they cannot be found by the end of the discussion however, it would not be needed at this time, and can be created later. ∞Who?¿? 07:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- According to List_of_aircraft_manufacturers_T-Z there is also a company called Windexair that would qualify, but it's currently a red link. siafu 16:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Putting orphan manufacturers one level down feels inconvenient (people would move other articles here). Pavel Vozenilek 23:53, 19 July 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.