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: To match parent article submarine sandwich and prevent arguments over whether or not they're fast food. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would indeed work. Like I said, I don't know if things like Schlotzszszsky's count as fast-food, so just using "Submarine sandwich restaurants" works best. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as recommended in nom. In addition to any concerns about calling these 'fast-food', the word 'sub' is ambiguous. --RL0919 (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for the reasons already given. -- BRG (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2009 (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; I also considered the comments in the related CfD below. This seems to be in line with past precedent for artists and producers of music. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Despite three Top 10 country hits to his credit, Ben Hayslip can't possibly be made into an article, as there are no sources to be found anywhere for him. This is similar to Cory Batten, below. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same argument for keeping as for Cory Batten. I created the category on the grounds that writing 3 top ten hits was notable in itself. There are those who are notable because of their public face and then there are the "backroom people" who usually remain relatively non-notable in themselves, but not in their contribution to music. Irrespective of whether there is an article on the person I thought it would be a useful category to link all Ben Hayslip songs together. I don't actually think the criteria for performing artist can apply to a songwriter. In many cases performers will change a couple of words around on a song and get a songwriting credit, and it's fine to create a songs by category for them because they are notable, but a real songwriter can't have a category because they haven't trod the path to notability. Oh well, if this category goes, it goes! --Richhoncho (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability for a subject requires some degree of coverage by reliable sources, not simply success in one's chosen profession. If the subject is not notable enough for an article (and I make no assertion one way or another about that), then there should not be a category based on him either. So if/when an article is created that shows sufficient notability to pass CSD/prod/AfD, then a category could be created. Doing it the other way around is backwards. --RL0919 (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The guidelines in WP:CREATIVE would seem appropriate, and "three Top 10 country hits" seem to me to meet the status of notability. (See below as well where I comment on a comment regardinfg Cory Batten.) -- BRG (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2009 (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:Keep. Jafeluv (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Lotteries in this form is ambiguous. Is it the games or the lotteries themselves that the state runs? Clearly it has to be the games and the title should reflect that. The general state information about the programs is in Category:State lotteries of the United States. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have Lottery, don't we? I do not find the nominator's argument convincing. Debresser (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, which one has the games? It could be either. Also, Category:Lotteries in the United States is not about lotteries, but rather the games that the lotteries operate. Could you guess that from the title? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to match title of parent article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansohn (talk • contribs) 21:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is an overview and history of the state lotteries and not the games which is what this badly named category is about. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to match title of parent article. The other countries are "Lotteries in ...." (not Lottery games in ..) And "Lotteries in the United States" is a category for all lottery games, not just state-run ones. I presume the subcategory "State Lotteries in the United States" excludes privately-run but state-authorised lotteries and any other US lotteries eg Lotteries on Native American land and any Federal Lotteries (probably nil?). Hugo999 (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2009 (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:Cory Batten does not have an article, and despite having co-written three chart singles in the past year, Cory doesn't have the potential for an article given the lack of potential sources. Precedent is that works-by-artist categories should have a parent article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I created the category on the grounds that writing 3 top ten hits was notable in itself. There are those who are notable because of their public face and then there are the "backroom people" who usually remain relatively non-notable in themselves, but not in their contribution to music. Irrespective of whether there is an article on the person I thought it would be a useful category to link all Cory Batten songs together. I don't actually think the criteria for performing artist can apply to a songwriter. In many cases performers will change a couple of words around on a song and get a songwriting credit, and it's fine to create a songs by category for them because they are notable, but a real songwriter can't have a category because they haven't trod the path to notability. Oh well, if this category goes, it goes! --Richhoncho (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability for a subject requires some degree of coverage by reliable sources, not simply success in one's chosen profession. If the subject is not notable enough for an article (and I make no assertion one way or another about that), then there should not be a category based on him either. So if/when an article is created that shows sufficient notability to pass CSD/prod/AfD, then a category could be created. Doing it the other way around is backwards. --RL0919 (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if Cory Batten were the sole writer of one the songs I would say keep (on the grounds that the writer is a defining characteristic of a song, unlike say a producer). However the 3 songs are all co-written so this seems marginal. Occuli (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Under WP:CREATIVE, "played a major role in co-creating" is considered the equivalent of "created." Thus I would say Keep. -- BRG (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the songwriter is not notable, I don't think being written by him is a notable enough feature for a song to warrant a category. Jafeluv (talk) 08:28, 5 October 2009 (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:rename all. Jafeluv (talk) 08:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with common naming style employed by the other subcategories of Category:Aircraft carriers by navy. Related CFDs for cruisers and destroyers by navy: 1 and 2; Active CFD for submarines by navy. — Bellhalla (talk) 00:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency per proposal. Sandstein 14:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nominator. In my opinion this sould be a speedy criteria. Debresser (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match predominant format of parent category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansohn (talk • contribs) 23:02, 30 September 2009 (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.
