The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was:delete; no real "consensus" here but seems reasonable since main article doesn't even exist yet. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This category appears to refer to the Kuala Lumpur Rail Transit System, which currently has no article of its own. It contains only a template subcategory, so it's not of much use for navigation. Stepheng3 (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was:delete, no main article, company not notable. Kbdank71 14:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. The category's main use is to group people who work for this company, which is unlikely to be a defining characteristic. The company itself has no Wikipedia article yet, so I wonder if it's even notable. Stepheng3 (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Company should probably have its own article. However, the company is a defining characteristic as it's how many of the people involved, like Philalawyer, got arguably their biggest career boost. For others, like New York Times Bestselling author Tucker Max or designer Erin Tyler, it's been a project they've been working on for months. WelcomeAtlas (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable company with one barely notable employee, Tucker Max. The other people named are not notable and their articles should be nominated for deletion. Paul Wall is a friend of Rudius Media in the way that is not relevant to Wikipedia Theserialcomma (talk) 08:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - leaving aside for a moment that notion that a company with no article should not have a category in the first place, this is to collect people by media outlet. As such it is no different from the dozens of categories that collected broadcasters by the networks on which they appear and which were deleted. People can and do work for many different media outlets over the course of a career and categorizing them all could lead to clutter. As always, pointing at other categories to justify this one is an argument coated in wax. Otto4711 (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. The inclusion criteria are subjective, and the subject company may be non-notable. I don't see how this contributes to the encyclopedia project. If kept, this should be renamed to Rudius Media friends or some such. - Stepheng3 (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rudius Media Friends is a very specific group of people who are extremely notable, including Grammy nominated artist Paul Wall and New York Times Bestselling author Maddox. Having so many notable artists in the group makes the group notable. WelcomeAtlas (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough for a category. While Paul Wall, Maddox, and Tucker Max are notable enough, their existence doesn't make Rudius Media Friends notable. Why not just make a category called Paul Wall's Friends and list every famous person he knows? Theserialcomma (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not every definable group needs a WP category, and these appear to be nothing more than listings on a blogroll. If these people are central to RM, place them directly in the RM category.-choster (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a defining characteristic and subjective inclusion criterion. What does it mean to be a "friend" of a website and who must "consider" one so to be included. Otto4711 (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I don't see much utility in categorizing schools by courses offered, except for broad categories like Category:Medical schools. A narrow categorization like this gives the appearance of advertising or promotion, especially with the inclusion of a company name. Stepheng3 (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sufficiently defining as a basis to group schools. Alansohn (talk) 05:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as school offer courses based on what the community needs, such course would change from year to year dependent on enrollment numbers and faculty. Maybe a broader Category:Schools with computer networking courses, though that is such common place schools would more notable for not offering such courses. This is ignoring the question of defining what type schools Gnangarra 12:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was:delete, empty. Kbdank71 14:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge, Categorizing people by ancestry is problematic enough without trying to distinguish between fullbloods and partials. At time of nomination, the category contains only one article. Stepheng3 (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose People who are a quarter or a third Hungarian ethnicity should not be described as "Hungarian-American" - it s simply poor English use and is utterly misleading. (the later should be a sub-cat of the former.) moreover, this page can easily be populated Mayumashu (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Reverse merge -- A couple of months ago Mayumashu put a lot of effort into renaming all categories to the form "Booian of Fooian descent". That form should be retained. Booian-Fooians is liable to be ambiguous becuase it can refer to Booians in Foo or Fooians in Boo. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom. There is no reason for this continuing campaign to try to strip away locale usage (the entire United States) of terms that the locals (Americans) use to describe their ethnic groups. This question has long been settled. Hmains (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was:delete. Kbdank71 14:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This probably would not be considered a defining characteristic for such individuals. Stepheng3 (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This is the odd man odd from the below nomination. It's the only "Fooian political controversies" category. Its lead article is List of Australian political scandals but the text of the article identifies its contents as "controversies" and not all of these are listed. I'm probably making too much of a deal about this but there's enough inconsistency that I thought it best to list it separately. My preference is to rename to Category:Political scandals in Australia to match the accepted naming format. Otto4711 (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I suppose, although the main thing that jumps out is that we need a US sub-cat of Category:Political controversies and articles from other countries need to be added. The "scandals" and "controversies" don't seem to linked as yet, which they should be - maybe even merged, as scandal is rather POV. Johnbod (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but I wanted to try to clean up one structure before trying to deal with another. It all seems rather arbitrary, largely depending on whether the person who wrote the original article called the incident a "controversy" or a "scandal." Otto4711 (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well not all controversies are scandals, as many concern policy issues like abortion, terrorism legislation etc, and I suppose some scandals, with bribery etc & convicted people, are just that, but many are only scandalous in the eye of some beholders. Johnbod (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Main prob is that many of the included examples are not "scandals" in any sense (not that I like the word to begin with as it's too POV) and isn't even a good catalogue of "political controversies", a more neutral term. In the cat, we have a few genuine scandals, at least one of which wasn't political; a few misspoken words at interviews; cases of Government abuse of power of the sort Amnesty International would be interested in; an Act of Parliament which I'm not sure the right wing of Australian politics would see as in any way scandalous (the left on the other hand seeing it as a classic example of the abuse of executive power); several refugees who were detained for an overly lengthy period of time, etc; and a few non-political names (two of which should be in some Crime in Australia hierarchy however). I'm not even sure why Vince Gair is there at all, he was simply the head of a minor party. In fact, this is quite a disorganised category and a considerable BLP risk even as it stands, without renaming it. I'd propose that the category be dissolved and depopulated, and more specific categories be created to handle the few articles that merit such a classification to begin with. Orderinchaos 23:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename for the same reasons stated by others and support Gnangarra's suggestion which seems to be the more logical action. That the category is the odd man out is irrelevant. Obviously there is a need for it. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be snippy about it. I only said it was the odd man out as a way of explaining why I didn't nominate it below. Otto4711 (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and my suggestion is to create a category for the scandals consistent with the nomination below, which AL already said he supported... Gnangarra 13:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename all. Per the outcome of this discussion, "Political scandals in Foo" was chosen as the preferred naming format. Otto4711 (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. The "scandals" and "controversies" (above) don't seem to linked as yet, which they should be - maybe even merged, as scandal is rather POV. Johnbod (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Naturally I'm going to support the same formulation that I suggested in the other CFD -- I'd say the same reasoning applies here. Cgingold (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was:delete. Kbdank71 14:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was:merge. Kbdank71 14:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge, The description states it's for technological fads of the 2000s; there's no reason to separate it from other 2000s fads. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 16:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No doubt duplicates a better named cat. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was:delete; it appears to me that those ascribable to a specific decade have been so assigned. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. No determination as to whether an article should be in the category. No possible determination of whether an article should be in the category. Possible upmerge to Category:Fashion, but I doubt it. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 15:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to appropriate "Fashion in decade" cats - most are already in onew of these, but some, eg New Romantic need it adding. Johnbod (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Concur with Johnbod, change !vote to selective upmerge. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 15:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Apparently an arbitrary (although chronologically contiguous) collection of fashion articles. No justification for the selection. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 15:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should stay. It's an interesting category and might be useful for anyone researching the Cold War era.--jeanne (talk) 08:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm not aware of my wardrobe having been altered due to the cold war. •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aw come on, you never bought any Cold War-style svim vear? Otto4711 (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Arbitrary time interval (in fact the category creator changed the date and repurposed at least one of the articles just before creating the category.) If it were a valid category, specific events associated with it and year/decade categories, not articles, should be listed. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 15:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A category that's potentially about everything that happened in recent times, or about everything that's happened since the arbitrary demarcation line of 1970 as defined for the category:Postmodernity, is far-and-away an overly broad, and is foreseeably a massively unwieldy category that fails to provide any meaningful information for articles to which it might be applied. Another category for "Modernity", potentially applied to everything that's happened in "modern" times (since the 16th Century, according to the definition given in the category page) is even more unwieldy. IMO, both of them need to be deleted before it gets out of hand. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Meaningless buzz-word, currently description is a catch-all, list of articles now in category have no unifying philosphical theme. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.
