Category:Tall buildings and structures in the Paris region[edit]
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:Merge. Tall is subjective. If anyone thinks these should be classified as skyscrapers, then a rename to Category:Skyscrapers in La Défense or some such should be on the table. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete impossible to define "tall"Curb Chain (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "tall" is an arbitary term, even if we defined it our use of a definition would just create an arbitary cut-off.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom for now to retain buildings in the basic category tree. But I agree this is irredeemably subjective. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:14, 23 August 2011 (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:Speedy merge C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2011 (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.
Keep and drop the disambig from albums conducted by. I understand the reasons for renaming, and half agree with them. But Frank Foster the cricketer never arranged or conducted any Jazz albums, and so I think the disambig is not needed. As the creator of this cat I am happy for inconsistencies to remain in instances like this. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. If the person is not clearly the holder of the name enough to have the name link to him, than we need disambiguation when he is mentioned in a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2011 (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: Old template sharing category, only two pages left, of which one is a user subpage and the other a template proposed for deletion. The Evil IP address (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2011 (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, on a procedural basis. Consensus to delete Category:Vegetarians is not strong here, nor is it nominated for deletion. Consensus to end subdivision of the category definitely doesn't exist. Obviously, this nomination was never going to only delete the American category, so I can't say how the nomination for all the subcategories would have gone. But if Category:Vegetarians continues to exist, then this and its brethren seem to have a rationale for their retention.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's trationale This is just a categorizing of people by a particular eating habit. It seems a trivial and non-notable characteristic. There is really not a unifying essence to being vegetarian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is this a test nomination for all the subcategories of Category:Vegetarians or is it being argued that only the American category is suspect? Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – this (or the main cat) has been at cfd before - Otto4711 argued vehemently for its retention ("I am a vegetarian and I know it is defining"). He was in favour of keeping any category that was LGBT or vegetarian and deleting everything else; Alansohn teased him remorselessly along these lines. Here it is. I am inclined to agree with the nom, but then I am not a vegetarian. Occuli (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep This should be nominated at the level of Category:Vegetarians and then applied to its subcategories. That having been said, I'm inclined to keep the category, as persons who are vegetarians do so deliberately and if it's sourced, then it must have some kind of public component or be public knowledge. For what it's worth, I'm a lacto-vegetarian, so no one wants to hear my opinion on vegetarianism. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, while being vegetarian may or may not be a defining characteristic ("So-and-so is a vegetarian and has appeared in PETA ads to support this"), being an American vegetarian is probably a non-notable intersection of characteristics, to respond to Koavf, and the nomination of this particular subcat may be justified. I also think it is worrying to suggest that only vegetarians can have a say (or have "more" say) in this CfD. Like Occuli, I am inclined to agree with the nom as well. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response The by nationality schemes serve to diffuse large categories. If Category:Vegetarians would be reasonably navigable without it, then it can be deleted. Of course, if that's the case, you need to nominate all other such categories in one fell swoop. Either way, just nominating this is inappropriate. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are 412 in the American vegetarian category alone, + 2 subcats of ultras. I am supposing John Pack Lambert would nominate the others if this results in a change. I would predict a no-consensus. Occuli (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the standard, for now anyway, is to diffuse long lists by nationality; but also because eating habits vary by culture - in some cultures everyone is vegetarian, but this is obviously not the case in the States (and is therefore somewhat notable) Mayumashu (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nationality subcats are the standard for breaking up large categories, and nominating just one of them is also irregular and unlikely to produce a result. More generally, vegetarianism is reasonably defining, or at least no less so than religion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments only. I note Roscelese comments above which, to me, seem pretty conclusive why this solitary category should not be deleted. However I checked 3 individual entries from different continents and of those 3 entries there was ONLY the category defining two of the people as a vegetarians, so not only is it not mentioned in the article, but it is also unreferenced. BLP indeed. I am not sure one's eating habits in themselves are notable, but advocating an eating habit would probably be notable (or to continue Roscelese's comments, religion is not notable unless the person is publicly advocating it). Also, if we have vegetarians, why not omnivores, carnivores? sufferers of food allergies? Or people who don't eat brocolli? None of which is really notable unless that is the reason or one of the reasons why the individual is famous. This leads me to think that these categories need to be renamed along the lines of "Americans advocating vegetarianism." Much more to the point and notable. Thanks for reading! --Richhoncho (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment well we have Category:Jewish actors but Category:American Jewish actors gets shot down if you try to create it, so the argument that cats need to be split by nationality is clearly not accepted in all cases. Even if this is kept, we need to limit it to people for whom their is mention to the fact in their articles. I have been attacked way to much in the last week for deleting unmentioned categorizations to let this discussion pass without emphasizing we need to remove all unmentioned categorizations. There are so many though even thinking about it gives me a headache.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response Yes, but that's a bad example, as it's the intersection of three qualities: being American, being Jewish, and being an actor—this is only two qualities intersecting. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:21, 23 August 2011 (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: Those templates should all be put into better subcategories of Category:Wikipedia templates (I can give it a try), as "Miscellaneous templates" really says nothing about what's in the category. If no category is found for some of them, they should be put into Category:Uncategorized templates in the meantime. The Evil IP address (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not use catch all categories. If there is not a good subcat for something we put it in the parent cat, we do not create a "remainder" sub cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2011 (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.
Category:Tall buildings and structures in Turkey[edit]
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:No consensus to delete; merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Tall is subjective. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is totally a subjectibve category. Even if we did say "tall buildings are those over 50 meters in height" or any other height, it would just be a totally arbitary cut off, and we do not do arbitary lines cats. We would not do "low buildings in X" even if the cat said they were all less than 3 meters in height.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all subjective criteriaCurb Chain (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Split/merge per nominator's suggestions. I think we have done this before for similar categories in other countries because of the subjectivity/arbitrariness of the term. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:35, 16 August 2011 (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.
Category:Utility templates used in categories[edit]
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: Old template sharing cruft, no more templates in there. The Evil IP address (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2011 (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 Wikipedia policy in general discorages award categories. This is a prize that was thought up by a group of Italian artists that met together at a resturant. We already have an article Bagutta Prize with a list of the winners. Nothing indicates that this is a premiere award and so it would seem winners of this award would probably win others. It seems if we accept categories for awards at this level we will end up with a large number of award categories in some articles. It does not appear that this category is defining to the people who win it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nomination is in agreement with guildeline on this point. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:12, 23 August 2011 (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.
Category:Recipients of the Conrad Schlumberger Award of the European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers[edit]
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.
Nominators rationale Wikipedia guidelines say that in general award categories should not be created. They fail to explain why there are exceptions, or what would constitute an exception. So we are left with hard to determine rules. However this award is given by the society to a member of the society. I am not sure there is really precedent for this type of internal awards. Also I am nto sure it is worth having an award category with four entries when the award has been around for over 50 years. I really am not sure what else to say since there is no guidance. I would say in many cases awards serve to just add categories to people without really telling us much about them. Lists are much better, since it is possible to list the what years people recieved the awards, and in some cases even list non-notable people who recieved the award, or notable people who lack articles. It is also possible to list when the award was not given, such things do not come out in categories, so it is hard to tell if the award was skipped a lot, if few notable people got it, or if they are just not being categorized as getting the award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nomination is in agreement with guideline on this point. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:13, 23 August 2011 (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. There's no similarity between this and a Nobel prize or a beauty pageant; those are primarily won by individuals, not teams. This can be a precedent for if Category:Stanley Cup champions comes up for debate.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:non-defining. Simply being on a team that won the world series is trivia-ish. There already is a category for Major League Baseball World Series Most Valuable Player award winners. CutOffTies (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we already have more than enough categories with people categorized by every MLB team they ever played with (and most minor league teams as well) plus we have specific categories for positions. We do not need this category. We generally only allow award categories when they are categorzing the recipeients, that means person x wins award y, not person x is part of team z that wins award y and we put person x in the cat for award y. Just the name of this cat would suggest to me it should be populated by the teams that won the world series, but that is probably not a worthwhile categorization plan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the comments made, but what about the very similar Category:Stanley Cup champions? Also for individual players, the hockey project contributors will battle to the end to keep this one, their main argument that differs from this nominated cat being that the players names are etched onto the actual Stanley Cup. I don't think we can delete one and keep the other - they are exact except for the names etching bit. Mayumashu (talk) 12:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep winning a world series is the highest achievement for the competitors in that space; are we going to delete all the categories for winning beauty pageants, olympic medals, Nobel prizes, and the like? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support deleting most categories for winning things. The beauty pageant cats are slightly unique, because we do generally have it set up so someone only gets in one category. There are not beauty pageant teams that contestants switch between, so they do not build up 10 cats from those in addition to the winning one. In baseball they do and so there is no need for this category. Anyway someone can be on a World Series winning team and yet never have played at all in the whole world series.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2011 (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 eponymous category. Used to contained a stub on a TV show which I merged to the bio. Now holds just the bio and a template. Fayenatic(talk) 15:18, 16 August 2011 (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:Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2011 (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.
Category:Albums with liner notes by Greil Marcus[edit]
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. Misleading categorization because a) the entries I checked do not confirm that Marcus actually wrote the liner notes, b) I am informed by the creator that in some instances only certain re-issues contain liner notes by Marcus i.e. Blonde on Blonde which did not have liner notes until the mono recordings were released earlier this year. Therefore Marcus did NOT write the liner notes for Blonde on Blonde. I would have no problem with the category remaining providing my comments a and b above could be resolved. Richhoncho (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (creator) When albums are re-released on different record labels, they are still categorized by the re-released label. When expanded editions come out with bonus discs, they are categorized appropriately then, too (e.g. adding Category:Hear Music video albums and Category:2011 video albums to McCartney II.) If albums are re-released with a new producer, they are categorized that way as well, etc., etc. Why would liner notes be any different? The argument that some of these might be miscategorized (which is not what I said) is no argument for deletion, simply for removing them from this category. Can the nominator show which—if any—of these entries fail to meet the inclusion criteria? Furthermore, I believe that this nomination is a bad faith punitive measure as the nominator is simply trying to frustrate me per this discussion (the other half was on his talk page), see also here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Who wrote the liner notes on a repackaged album 45 years later is not a defining characteristic of that album. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems we should categorize albums by who the singer/performer is. Not who wrote the liner notes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the liner notes are being written 45 years after the release it definately does not make sense. If we had an article on that particular release it would work. This is starting to sound like what happens when you allow "works translated by x" categories in a way that the Bible could be put in 1000 categories, instead of limiting it to the Luther Bible in the works tanslated by Luther Cat, the Wycliffe Bible in the Wycliffe cat and so on. What next "wroks with chapter heading by Bruce R. McConkie" in which we put the Book of Mormon because he wrote the chapter heading in the most widely used version, even though it was not published until 152 years after the original publications of the Book of Mormon. Now if we had an article Book of Mormon, 1981 edition this shcema might work, but while that example just might get a category at some time, I do not think there ever would be widespread support for specific editions of books, and even if the category was "works annotated by" I really do not think we could ever develop it into a workable system, and the liner notes with albums seems to be just as not relevant to the core of the materials.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the liner notes (particularly of subsequent reissuses) are tangential to the album, not defining. A précis of the article would undoubtedly not mention liner notes at all. 'Buy the Dylan album, great liner notes.' Occuli (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm pretty wary about even categorizing albums by producer, let alone this. Not defining, I don't think. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who wrote the liner notes for an album is not notable (if it is, it is rare and may deserve mentions in the article of the writer and album only) and clearly not defining to the album itself. I'd recommend deletion of the parent and other similar categories in Category:Albums by liner notes author. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2011 (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:Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2011 (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:Withdrawn by nominator. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: redlink record label —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the label is not notable enough, we should not group albums by it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The assumption here is that if something is notable we have an article on it. Were that true we would never need to create another article. RichFarmbrough, 16:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Response Exactly. I have no prejudice against DBK Works or their album releases, but notability needs to be established first and that needs to be done in the main namespace. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have created an article for the company that owns the label. RichFarmbrough, 16:51, 18 August 2011 (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 or delete? This seems to be created to collect Vietnamese related items outside of Vietnam. So this is really about things Vietnamese not in Vietnam. That is not how we normally categorize things. So maybe there is some rename possible, and if not this needs to be deleted. Also are all of these actually located across bodies of water? Again not defining. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vietnamese diaspora. Vietnamese outside Vietnam could be in Cambodia or China, among other places, neither of which is "overseas".John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have added the other subcategories. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep and rename to names that include 'diaspora' and remove 'overseas'. There is no reason to delete the section of the category structure. Hmains (talk) 03:59, 20 August 2011 (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.
Category:Billboard Latin Pop number-one singles[edit]
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. Latin Pop Airplay is an airplay component to the Hot Latin Songs and according to Wikipedia:Record charts#Billboard charts, it should not be used if a songs has already charted on the Hot Latin Songs, the Latin Pop Airplay should not be used. Since most songs that chart on the Latin Pop Airplay are already on the Hot Latin Songs, this category probably shouldn't be used . Erick (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The proscription is about content, not categorisation. Is this category useful? I'm inclined to think so, since otherwise "number-one" singles would not be categorise as such. RichFarmbrough, 16:59, 18 August 2011 (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. This is categorizing the cartoons that were selected as the "50 best" in a book, The 50 Greatest Cartoons. Per this guideline, these types of categories are regarded as overcategorization because they are subjective and somewhat arbitrary in scope. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and being non-defining. Lugnuts (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This is very straightforward. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm of course this is almost certainly a delete, but it does raise a (possibly) perennial problem for those wanting to do category intersections, that aren't possible if the categories don;t exist. RichFarmbrough, 16:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I'm unclear on what you might be referring to. Explain more. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is clearly not defining. It is just one list made by someone somewhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2011 (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.
Keep there will be many more buildings added to this category over the next few days. I have just not had time to add them all yet. This category fits in with categorisation style of other architects in the architecture portal including Norman Foster and Lord Rogers. If you use this rationale then the same needs to be applied to all architects who have an entry in Wikipedia. 188.39.33.226 (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC) — 188.39.33.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You may have misunderstood the nomination. Buildings designed by Bromberg go in Category:Andrew Bromberg buildings, and this proposal is not proposing that that category be deleted. But there is no need for Category:Andrew Bromberg (architect) because it only contains this category for buildings and the main article. It is also not being proposed that the article Andrew Bromberg be deleted. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I did but all I am saying is that I am still working on building the content of the categories. Maybe the best way forward is to remove this category and then when I have completed my research I can review the required categories. I used an existing page as a template and followed through on the categories. Deevincentday (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to re-creating it if Bromberg has notable created works other than buildings (or structures -- they could go in a "buildings & structures" head category). - Fayenatic(talk) 17:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The general policy is against most eponymous categories. The inclusions are exceptions and there is no evidence that we have reasons for an exception here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2011 (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.
Rich Farmbrough, 16:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC).