Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 10

< September 9	September 11 >

September 10

Category:Famous climbs in cycle racing

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 12:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Famous climbs in cycle racing to Category:Climbs in cycle racing

Nominator's rationale: Rename, Famous is pejorative, simply removing this word leaves the category essentially the same meaning. I tried, but failed, to think of a more appropriate adjective! Severo^TC 23:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - I think Climbs in cycle racing is appropiate. The current name of the category just leads to discussion on whether a climb is famous or not Drunt 23:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above. "Famous" is subjective. Either it's notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia or it's not. Wryspy 07:25, 11 September 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Disappeared cycling races

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 12:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Disappeared cycling races to Category:Defunct cycling races

Nominator's rationale: Rename, in common with most other former sporting leagues/organizations/teams as shown in Category:History of sports. Severo^TC 22:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - I'm the user who created that category and I agree with your point of view. I didn't know that other sports used 'defunct' instead of 'disappeared'. Drunt 23:50, 10 September 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:National Road Champions

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 12:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:National Road Champions to Category:National cycling championships

Nominator's rationale: Rename, Category refers to actual races rather than championships. Slightly expanded coverage to cover all disciplines of cycling. Severo^TC 22:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - No discussion. Championships simply is not the same that Champions. Drunt 23:53, 10 September 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Victims of Russian political repressions

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 12:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this category is an out right violation of Wikipedia:NPOV policies. First it's name: "victimsof Russian political repressions"? And also one may dispute wether these people are indeed victims of repressions. QZXA2 21:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or perhaps rename as "Victims of Russian repressions" by analogy to Category:Victims of Soviet repressions. "Russian" here means "in contemporary Russia" rather than in the Soviet Union. This does not seem to be a problematic category because we have a general Category:Political prisoners and victims and even more general Category:Victims and Category:Political repression. Biophys 21:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inherently POV category. While there is a usual consensus about most of the victims of Soviet repressions there is no such consensus about convicts in contemporary Russia. All such cases are controversial and putting the category as a fact without possibility of presenting the opposing view is violation of WP:NPOV and usually WP:BLP (the judges, jurrors, etc. are usually living people capable of firing libel suits). Alex Bakharev 04:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But this is only a matter of sourcing. If reliable sources claim this to be a politically motivated prosecution, it belongs here, no matter if this is Soviet Union, Russia, or China. If this category is deleted for any reason, all the corresponding pages should be moved to the parent Category:Political repression in Russia, which in turn belong to Category: Political repressions by country. This will only result in a less convenient categorization of the data.Biophys 14:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with WP:BLP, since those are biographies of victims, not biographies of jurors or judges.Biophys 18:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Rename to a more neutral format, such as Category:Russian victims of human rights abuses, per other subcats of Category:Victims of human rights abuses. The term "political repression" is POV, but "human rights abuse" can be objectively measured against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Cases such as that of Larisa Arap should indeed be grouped together, but not under a POV term. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.Such category certainly makes a lot of sense, but it is much wider than "political repression" or simply "repression". Usually, "repression" means illegal arrests, imprisonment of political opponents, executions, etc. "Human rights abuses" may include such things as violating property rights, rights of sexual minorities, disability rights, etc. I respectfully disagree that "repression" is POV term. It is only logical to have Category: Political repressions by country as we currently do.Biophys 14:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (changing my !vote), unless we are deleting all the other subcats of Category:Political repressions by country. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:57, 14 September 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Vanity record labels

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep under present name. Sam Blacketer 16:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: It is difficult to construe the modifier "vanity" as anything other than pejorative. Skomorokh ^incite 21:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this was just renamed from "vanity labels" less than a month ago. Vanity label doesn't indicate that the modifier is generally or even often seen as pejorative. Otto4711 21:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Category:Artist-run labels. On the one hand, this is a useful category. On the other hand "vanity label" seems to be music industry jargon for an artist-run label - Article "Just Don't Call it a 'Vanity' Label" uses "musician-run" or "composer-run" but artist-run seems more generic and more used. Google Search hits: 1,460 for "artist-run label" and 1,520 for "artist-run labels" ; 199 for "artist-run record label" and 94 for "artist-run record labels". Of course, article Vanity label should be moved accordingly and its lead namecheck both names... — Komusou ^talk @ 00:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (mainly to Otto4711): Wikipedia is not a source. Our current article at Vanity label is simply incomplete and badly titled, and can't be used as proof unless this point is sourced. Articles such as from Entertainment Weekly or from CBS News clearly use "artist-run label" and only pejoratively "vanity label". — Komusou ^talk @ 00:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Otto. "Artist-run" is surely a decorous and misleading euphemism in most cases. Aren't they run by grubby businessmen just like the rest, but even more so? Johnbod 00:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Otto and Johnbod, either the businessmen take money up-front from the band, because it is so unlikely to produce sales in meaningful volume or they make it on volume sales; this classifies the former business model. Carlossuarez46 02:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No one addressed the hard fact that the current name is pejorative and jargon, vs. the proposed rename which is neutral and in regular use (as shown in the WNYC, EW, and CBS News citations above). Wikipedia is descriptive and not here to judge on "grubby businessmen" or to concoct our own terminology, that's just POV-pushing. Why not a Category:Grubby businessmen too? — Komusou ^talk @ 20:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed it and I disagree that it's a "hard fact." Otto4711 02:46, 18 September 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Islam and communism

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete as emptied. the wub "?!" 12:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I moved all content into new, more meaningful category, Category:Islam in communist states: "Islam and communism" would mean interaction of the two ideologies as ideologies. I don't see such articles yet. Mukadderat 19:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - should something similar occur in future, I suggest that you propose the existing category for renaming. Emptying a category and then nominating it for deletion is very bad form. Otto4711 21:29, 10 September 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:National Fraternities for Christian Men

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: While "National Fraternities for Christian Men" sounds like a superorganization, it reads no google hits; I therefore moved all the articles to the more appropriately named Category:Christian Fraternities. (Previously nominated in CfM discussion here. —Scouter Sig 17:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appologize for the mix-ups. The category is currently nominated for deletion, as per above. —Scouter Sig 17:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete category appears to have been emptied before nom, but even so. "National" is inappropriate - "Almost entirely in the Southern US" would be more accurate. Johnbod 17:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "National" in Greek-letter societies means only that there is more than one chapter, regardless of their geographic distribution.-choster 22:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and the user is supposed to know that, which is in any case not true in at least one case in the article? Johnbod 23:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Johnbod. It's also incorrectly capitalized for Wikipedia style. Wryspy 07:24, 11 September 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:National Fraternities for Christian Men

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy close due to being essentially duplicate nomination. Bduke 06:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:National Fraternities for Christian Men to Category:Christian fraternities

Nominator's rationale: While "National Fraternities for Christian Men" sounds like a superorganization, it reads no google hits. Threfore, I am moving all of the entries into the second category, Christian fraternities, as it is more appropriately titled. —Scouter Sig 16:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN AND MOVED TO "CfD" AS MORE APPROPRIATE

Speedy close needed - see above Johnbod 22:04, 10 September 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Psychedelic groups

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 19:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Psychedelic groups to Category:Psychedelic musical groups

Nominator's rationale: To follow the musical groups by genre category format, and since this is a subcategory of the musical groups category, it should follow the same format. Sdornan 16:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Category:Musical groups by genre really doesn't have a convention. Sometimes it uses "musical groups", sometimes "music groups", sometimes "ensembles", sometimes "bands", sometimes other things entirely. And there's a few cases where trying to rename everything for consistency would be more confusing than it's worth, i.e. Category:Brass bands, which is the common name. In some cases, there's also a danger of confusion with Category:Musicals if we rename (though I suppose this probably isn't such a case, but changing e.g. "rock music groups" to "rock musical groups" would be). That said, I suppose it might be nice if this category actually implied some connection with music, so I don't know.... Xtifr _tälk 08:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename not for the non-existent consistency but to get a mention of music into the name, as per my comment above. I wanted to see what sort of reaction my comment would get before choosing a formal position, but since there's been none, I think nom's suggested name is good enough, even if his stated argument was somewhat off. Xtifr _tälk 19:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Xtifr, mainly Johnbod 20:07, 19 September 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Flamenco bands

Relisted for further discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 20#Category:Flamenco bands. the wub "?!" 19:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disco groups

Relisted for further discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 20#Category:Disco groups. the wub "?!" 19:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famous people living in the DFW Metroplex

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete and redistribute to correct city categories. the wub "?!" 19:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People from the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, convention of Category:People from Texas. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. LeSnail 14:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redistribute the contents to an appropriate city category. We already over-categorize by city IMHO and categorizing by city conglomeration just makes things worse. Otto4711 16:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, per Otto, and per ample precedent about "current" categories. Carlossuarez46 17:35, 10 September 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hamilton Academical FC

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete as emptied. the wub "?!" 12:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The contents of this category were moved to Category:Hamilton Academical F.C. - PeeJay 11:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Hamilton Academical Football Club -- the correct name of the organization, spelling out the acronym. LeSnail 14:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The club article is at Hamilton Academical F.C., and all articles related to the club are located at Category:Hamilton Academical F.C. Furthermore, most other British football club articles and categories use "F.C." rather than spelling out "Football Club". All I want is for Category:Hamilton Academical FC to be deleted as it is now empty due to its contents being moved to Category:Hamilton Academical F.C. - PeeJay 22:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but you would have been better off going through rename in the first place. Severo^TC 10:48, 11 September 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Commercial failures

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 19:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Inherently POV; there can never be a neutral, verifiable definition of a flop. There was once a series of lists on this topic, but they were deleted a while ago (example: miscellaneous commercial failures, aviation flops, etc. This CFD also includes all subcategories, one of which, Category:Commercial failure lists, has only one article. szyslak 11:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep everything. It belongs to Category:Failure and finally to Category:Reliability engineering. There is nothing POV in failures. They are a part of life. Failures (including commercial ones) must be studied to avoid them in the future.Biophys 22:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The POV is not in the concept of commercial failure, which I imagine could be a valid article topic. Rather, my concerns are about whether Wikipedia should enforce the POV that "this or that is a failure". Take the Boeing 747SP, for example. It's in this category, but the article itself says nothing about failures. Just 45 were built compared to nearly 1,400 for the 747 as a whole. But is that because it was a "failure", or because Boeing built it as a niche-market product? What is the boundary between success and failure, or between failure and mere disappointment? Yes, Wikipedia can address the subject of commercial failure, but this isn't the way.
  - If someone classifies a specific article as a "commercial failure", this should be justified. For example, a reliable source claims this to be a "commercial failure". This has nothing to do with the category.Biophys 15:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most articles in that category are distinguishable for the sole reason that they're failures. Irk _{Come in for a drink!} 22:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overbroad categorization, arbitrary inclusion guideline... 1 source calling a product a failure doesn't make it true... remember slashdot called the iPod a failure at its launch. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 21:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, even 10 sources calling a product a failure doesn't make it true. But remember: "verifiability, not truth".Biophys 20:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm with Alkivar on this; this is one of those cases where a list is going to work better because the context needs to be discussed and inclusion needs to be sourced. The 747SP is a good example. Whether it was a failure or not would rather depend on how many Boeing expected to sell. There's no doubt that things like the Ford Edsel are commercial failures, but I believe more Edsels were sold than Facel Vegas - does that make the Vega a commercial failure? It's not objective or uniform enough to be a clear-cut call. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. If you believe that "list is going to work better", why did you vote to delete the list of commercial failures too? ~~I hope this is not a potential conflict of interest.~~Biophys 21:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:AGF. szyslak 10:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Commercial failure is more verifiable than most things. Anyone who thinks that a significant variant modern jetliner selling only 45 planes can make a profit must be kidding. The article itself says it undersold Boeing's expectations, which I imagine is a massive understatement. Johnbod 20:14, 19 September 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hip_hop_singers

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 19:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Poor definition of the concept of a hip hop singers. Most of the members of this category are already in a suitable musical group (i.e. "Rappers", "Neo soul singers", etc.) Cander0000 07:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This may need cleanup, but I see no reason to delete. A hip hop singer is someone who sings hip hop, no? Is that not a good enough definition? This is part of a whole tree of Category:Hip hop musicians, so I'm not seeing why this was singled out. LeSnail 21:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hip hop isn't singing anyway, IMO, but that's not a good reason to delete. - PeeJay 22:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, categorizing singers by genre is part of the standard categorization scheme at WP:MUSCAT (although it should, per that guideline, be subdivided by nationality). Those who really don't belong in the category can be removed, but I see absolutely no reason to delete. Xtifr _tälk 08:50, 11 September 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Nord-Pas-de-Calais

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 19:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Nord-Pas-de-Calais to Category:Nord-Pas de Calais

Nominator's rationale: Main article's at Nord-Pas de Calais, which I believe is correct. It must be said that a web search produces almost every conceivable permutation of hyphenation, including on official sites, and even the occasional oblique. At any rate, we should strive to be consistent, at least internally. Rename to match article (or failing which, do the reverse). Alai 04:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also tagged in Category:People from Nord-Pas-de-Calais, and see also this SFR. Alai 04:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I suggest you look at the French WP article, which (sort of) explains why both versions are found. Rename the article. Johnbod 04:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just did (for a second time) and all that leaps out at me is a) that the latter is the spelling the région itself uses officially, and b) that that article itself isn't entirely consistent either (along with everyone else). Is there any actual evidence as to which is the common/generally preferred version? Alai 04:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly much confusion in France - I think the government uses three hyphens but the regional authority itself two. I think we should just follow French WP, who are clearly in the best position to judge. And use redirects per LesSnail below. Johnbod 12:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move article to Nord-Pas-de-Calais, following the lead of the French WP article and leave the category where it is. Or the other way round is ok, since both options are flawed. The most important thing is that whatever we do, we are consistent. And we need category redirects. LeSnail 14:05, 10 September 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rascal Flatts members

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Keep, nomination withdrawn with only "keep" votes made. Non-admin closure by nominator. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category, will never grow beyond the three articles, as I don't think Rascal Flatts' lineup will ever change. Blatant overcategorization as well. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 03:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn nomination - I didn't realize that such categories were exceptions to WP:OCAT. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - part of the Category:Musicians by band structure so it should remain regardless of the size of the band. Otto4711 12:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Part of an emerging structure of categories.--Mike Selinker 15:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—this is one of the standard exceptions to WP:OCAT#Small with no potential for growth. Albums, Songs and Members are the standard categories for musical groups. Xtifr _tälk 08:53, 11 September 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rascal Flatts

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Per OCAT precedent in like categories. --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for the band Rascal Flatts; blatant over categorization. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 03:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - eponymous category not needed for the subcats and band article, per precedent. Otto4711 12:28, 10 September 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Secret Service Inc. albums

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Part of Category:Albums by record label. The record label article was deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret Service Inc.. I suspect this means the category should go to, but am not certain. GRBerry 02:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless the articles in the category are deleted. They should have a home in Category:Albums by record label, if they exist. LeSnail 13:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm unconvinced that every album article needs a home in Albums by record label. Label doesn't strike me as defining an album the way that artist does. If the record label is not notable enough to sustain an article then I don't think there should be categories named for it. Otto4711 18:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: album-by-label is not part of the standard categorization scheme laid out by WP:ALBUM. There's no problem with using such categories if they exist, but I don't believe there's any reason to retain such categories just to have one tagging each album article. There are too many obscure small labels and single-artist (self-publishing) labels. Some artists have even had multiple single-artist labels! Xtifr _tälk 08:46, 11 September 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:FIFA U-19 Women's World Championship

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Apparently redundant, and presently empty. --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repetitions by Category:FIFA U-20 Women's World Championship.--Kanabekobaton 12:23, 10 September 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.