Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 24 July 26 >

July 25[edit]

Category:Songs written by Daisuke Suzuki[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: Rename to Category:Songs written by Ami Suzuki. No objection to someone adding the second category if that is appropriate. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category contains currently only 1 article, Negaigoto. The text of the song was written by Ami Suzuki and the music by Daisuke Suzuki (musician). Thus the category should either be renamed to Category:Songs written by Ami Suzuki or to Category:Songs with music by Daisuke Suzuki (musician) (in this case Category:Songs by songwriter should be replaced by Category:Songs by composer on the category too). Armbrust The Homunculus 10:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nom
Comment. Like many other Japanese song articles, the lyricist is considered "the writer" and I have interpreted this as lyrics by Ami Suzuki and music written by Daisuke Suzuki. These are two different persons. Previous decisions have primarily been opposed to two or more categories in the songs by songwriter/lyricist/composer categories for the same person. NB I created the article and raised the speedy, I am still in favour of Songs written by Daisuke Suzuki (musician) unless somebody can prove that he does not write lyrics in which case I am more than happy with above. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cart before the horse. Do we even need a category with one entry? Resolute 13:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:SMALLCAT applies. Probably would be more entries if the articles had the information. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2013 (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:United Kingdom employment law[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: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is United Kingdom labour law, which title was chosen in this RM discussion. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nom
  • Category:United Kingdom employment law to Category:United Kingdom labour law – C2D. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:United Kingdom employment case law to Category:Category:United Kingdom labour case law
      Oppose both: Employment Law is the standard terminology in use in the UK, so as Speedy criteria C2.C(3) says "This criterion will not apply in cases where the category tree observes distinctions in local usage", I think the Speedy criteria process is not applicable to this rename request. Rwendland (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment. The article recently moved to United Kingdom labour law by consensus. It's at the article level that appropriate regional names are typically selected, and then the relevant category name generally just follows the article name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The User Rwendland is confused about the content of this category. It covers the wider category of labour law, rather than the narrower category of employment law. I know because I wrote almost every one of those 195 case pages. Also, Rwendland is confused about standard terminology in the UK: labour law is more standard for the reasons I gave on the talk page. Wikidea 17:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Alternative proposal: The fact that the WP page has recently been renamed from United Kingdom employment law to labour law, which I was unaware of and surprised by, does put a different complexion on the issue. However as every single legal bookseller's website I have visited has a category called "Employment Law" and none have a "Labour Law" category, eg [1][2][3][4][5], and the seminal OUP Blackstone's Statutes book is called "Employment Law"[6] not "Labour Law", I would contend that the UK local usage for categorisation is clearly "Employment Law" - so this rename would be contrary to Speedy criteria C2.C(3). I propose that the existing employment law categories be made sub-categories on new UK labour law categories, and articles clearly about the employee-employer legal relationship be left in the employment law categories, and wider legal trade union, safety etc labour relationship articles be placed in the new UK labour law categories.Rwendland (talk) 09:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment From your comments it looks to me like you don't even realize, that the proposed renamed isn't under the C2C speedy criteria, but C2D. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Whoops, I'd missed that, thanks. However C2C also applies to this case, so we should have some cognisance of the C2C criteria. Looking at C2D(2) it does say "If the page names are controversial or ambiguous in any way, then this criterion does not apply." As it seems every UK legal bookseller uses the category "Employment Law" rather that "Labour Law" for this area of law, and the Law Society also uses "Employment Law", I would say there is at least ambiguity in UK usage - not to place UK case report articles, at least, in an Employment Law category is confusing for WP users. It seems to me my suggestion of having some employment law sub-categories of wider labour law categories resolves this in the best way for WP users, compatible with the mainline WP categorisation convention. Rwendland (talk) 11:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      No, I'm afraid Rwendland is mistaken. As I explained before on the discussion Talk:United Kingdom labour law the proper term is labour law: this is the main textbooks' and the universities' view. The book shops' section titles are irrelevant, because employment law is a subcategory of labour law. They are not talking about the content of this category. That's why, when I wrote those 195 case pages, I called the category labour law. Please move it all back as soon as possible. Thanks, Wikidea 14:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      As you say, it is reasonable to view employment law as a subcategory of labour law, so why not have some more specific WP employment law subcategories of labour law as I suggest, as Employment Law is the common UK local usage? While Oxford and Cambridge use Labour Law as the main topic, many lesser universities use Employment Law, such as City London[7], Bristol[8], Manchester Law[9]. Major legal firms use Employment, such as Clifford Chance[10], Outer Temple[11], Slaughter and May[12]. Whenever I look around for evidence I simply do not see that Labour Law has superceded Employment Law as the common UK term for this field. Rwendland (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, labour law is the correct term for this category. It shouldn't have been moved. Those courses and those practices, are not this category. Wikidea 19:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, perhaps I misunderstood you. Yes, I should get round to creating more subcategories like I have here: Category:English contract case law - there should ultimately be categories for employment contract cases, discrimination cases, trade union cases, and so on. If you're happy with that, I'll do the work, so long as we put it back to the overall category of UK labour law cases speedily! Thanks! Wikidea 16:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the main page has been put back rightly to UK labour law, because it was always the wrong name. Employment law (about employer and employee) is a subcategory of labour law, and those who favoured moving all this in the first place hadn't realised. My reasons are all on the Talk:United Kingdom labour law. Please move these categories back asap! Thanks, Wikidea 15:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match main article name. As mentioned, labour law and employment law are not synonymous; the latter is a subtype of the former. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2013 (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:Real C.D. España[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: Keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is Real Club Deportivo España. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nom
  • Oppose - I do think that categories should consistent with the article-names, but I've reverted the move and suggested to open a WP:RM instead. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mentoz. – Michael (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2013 (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:Assassinations by country and Category:Assassinated people by nationality[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: Keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Right now, Category:Assassinated people by nationality is very full, with subcategories for almost every nationality that currently exists. On the other hand, Category:Assassinations by country lists only 5 country subcategories: India‎, Malaysia‎, Serbia‎, Turkey‎ and the United States.‎
Additionally, "assassinations by country" is unclear. It can mean a) the assassination victim's country, b) the location where the assassination took place or c) assassinations committed BY the state (state-sanctioned executions).
While there is ambiguity existing in categories that organize "people by nationality", the fact that so much work has already been done in organizing assassinations using this categorization method and the fact that "by country" is so underdeveloped and unclear, I believe that the 5 subcategories in Category:Assassinations by country should be subsumed into Category:Assassinated people by nationality and I'd be happy to reassign the articles.
This nomination was created by this edit [13] DexDor (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Assassinations category should be for articles about assasinations (i.e. events) (and also might include attempted assassinations), whereas the Assassinated people category is for articles about people (i.e. biographies). Several statements made in the nomination are misleading - e.g. "assassinations by country" may be ambiguous, but the categories below it (i.e. the categories that articles are placed in) are all "in <country>" categories. DexDor (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to be "misleading". Perhaps if this is the majority point of view, there should be Category:Assassinations by country for every country, instead of just 5. For instance, there is no category Category:Assassinations by Germany or Category:Assassinations by Syria or Category:Assassinations by USSR. I was trying to trim categories in order to combat "category bloat" but maybe we should create a couple hundred new ones that don't exist but should. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those pages exist and it will take hours to create category pages and add category tags to them. This is going to be a lot of work. Maybe since you are so active on these pages, you could explain to me what an "assassination BY a country" means...is this assassinations by government agents? Because there are hundreds of articles about people assassinated by government agents of the Nazi Germany and the USSR.
In this case, I guess they are all three: someone who was purged in 1937 could be Category:Assassinated Soviet People, Category:Assassinations by USSR and Category:Assassinations in the USSR. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 01:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have a scheme of assassinations-by-state-actor, and not sure one is needed. The 'in' cats are sufficient. Just make sure the killings in question are called assassinations by sources - most people purged in soviet Russia cannot really be termed assassinations.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just found Category:People_assassinated_by_the_Soviet_secret_police however, and another one for people killed by Soviet Union.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't think we have a scheme of assassinations-by-state-actor, and not sure one is needed. The 'in' cats are sufficient."
So, do you think that these "by" categories then should be merged with "in" categories then? It is confusing because it seems like you are offering argument both for and against the proposal. And, because not many people are commenting, your opinion holds a lot of weight.
As for Category:People_assassinated_by_the_Soviet_secret_police, you can also find categories of people assassinated by Nazi government. But it's clear that there is not the Parent category ("by USSR", "by Germany") as exists for those 5 countries mentioned above. Hence, the confusion I tried to bring to address (unsuccessfully, it seems). 69.125.134.86 (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as is again and again. There is a complete difference between the categories, one of which is by location and the other of which is by people (victims). Hmains (talk) 05:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that there are three categories: Assassinated People, Assassination by Country and Assassination in Country. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite - there's the "Assassinations (sorted) by country (in which they ocurred)" category tree, the "Assassinated people by nationality" category tree and the "People by organization that assassinated them"(I've just created that category to group the subcats) category tree. It's the "by organization" tree that should be (listified and) deleted because it goes a step beyond categorizing people by cause of death. Also, which organization was responsible may be disputed. P.S. Category:Assassinated people by nationality has not been tagged. DexDor (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It might not be clear with all of the discussion that has happened but my real issue (which I bring up on your July 27th proposal) is Category:Assassinations by country. Category:Assassination by the United States is different from Category:Assassinations in the United States. Location of death and ethnicity and occupation of murder victim is not being questioned. It is the designation of whom is responsible for the assassination that is problematic.
Right now, there are only 5 countries that have Category:Assassinations by country listings and a smattering of other "Assassination by organization" or "Assassination by 'specific government administration'". I think attribution of crime is really haphazard (outside of wartime) and this needs to be addressed and standardized. Newjerseyliz (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just discovered that an editor has since retitled the 5 "assassination by country" categories (that are mentioned in my very first paragraph) to "in country" although the parent "by country" category still exists.
There still exist some unaffiliated "assassination by" categories. Examples: Category:Nazi leaders assassinated by the Allies, Category:People assassinated by Hashshashin, Category:People assassinated by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna, Category:People assassinated by the Soviet secret police and Category:People assassinated by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Some of the categories are marked for possible deletion, I assume, based on this continuing discussion here and on the July 26th proposal. Newjerseyliz (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
you may be misremembering. Lowly editors cannot rename a category, only admins, and they don't do so willy nilly. Again, "x by country" just means "x grouped by country" or "x listed by country" as countries themselves don't *do* things - their governments can, but that's not the same thing.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OWK, I saw that you renamed the "by country" to "in country" 5 subcategories but not the larger category. I don't know who has or has not privileges to rename category pages.
As for "willy nilly" between this proposal and the related one created on July 26th, it seems like a lot of discussion has gone on. I was expecting some decision on this next week. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't rename a category, you had added a non-existent parent/container cat of "x in country" instead of "x by country". That's not the same thing - I was technically just changing it from being a member of a cat that doesn't exist to one that does. The only way cats get renamed is through discussion here, or at the speedy rename board for non-controversial ones. It's trivially easy to create a category, and not always easy to kill it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow your explanation but it's not necessary that I understand. I believe it is as you say. As for creating a category, I have tried to find out how to do that and I think I've finally found an answer. There are pages and pages (so many pages!) on Category guidelines but not much "how to" simple instructions on how to create a new page.
Until these discussions are resolved, I'm laying off categories but I just wanted to know how to create a new categoory page. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC) @Liz[reply]
  • Oppose many people were assinated in places other than their place of nationality. For example we have Assassination of Meir Kahane, an assassination of an Israeli in the United States. Additionally one of these is meant to categorize biographical articles, the other is meant to categorize the articles on assasnations. We probably should end the presence of direct biographical articles in the assasinations by place tree, possibly while creating several redirects.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose seems to be working and not be duplicated. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2013 (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:German socialists opposed to the Third Reich[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: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: By analogy to Category:German conservatives in the German Resistance and Category:German monarchists in the German Resistance. Or perhaps the pattern "Fooists in the German Resistance" would be better for all subcats, per Category:Communists in the German Resistance. At any rate, this title is misleading as it implies that there were also (a significant number of) socialists supporting the Third Reich.  Sandstein  07:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - OVERCAT, content, and DEFINING issues. There are socialists and social democrats in this cat (not the same), as well as Max Tschornicki, who was a member of the French Resistance who happened to be German. According the Franz Vogt article (also in the cat), most of the members of the Social Democratic Party of Germany were opposed to Nazism, which is what defined the Third Reich. So it seems to be misnamed either way for several reasons, and as a political ideological confrontation, a rather trivial intersection. MSJapan (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a category expert, so I don't really have an opinion on that; I'm not sure whether it's useful to use this system of classification by political outlook. If deleted, the categorized articles would need to be recategorized as Category:German Resistance members.  Sandstein  18:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Virtually all prominent and most rank-and-file German socialists were opposed to the Third Reich and many of them died for it. It is implied that if one is listed as a "German socialist," one was opposed to the ultra-nationalists who suppressed democracy and jailed their opponents. If there's going to be a category that adds value to WP, German socialists who supported the Third Reich would at least be interesting — although very nearly unpopulated. Carrite (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Although almost all (non National) Socialists were opposed to the Nazi regime, not all were involved in the resistance and not all in the resistance were involved in the socialist movement - let alone socialists. So this is a worthwhile category IF properly focussed. JASpencer (talk) 10:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being a member of party x opposed to government y is not the same thing as being in the resistance. We may need the target, but we should not just merge the current category. Their definitions and limits are too different.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable construct - any more than Category:Republicans against the income tax or Category:Democrats against school desegregation and any other contrivance you'd like. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2013 (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:AR-10 derivatives[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: Discussion closed. Not sure what was expected, but Hmains offered up Category:AR-15 family of rifles which would make sense. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a proposal to create this category at Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Redirects#Category_request:_Category:AR-15_variants. Comments on the best title are invited. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about 'AR-15 family of rifles'? This term seems to be used in various articles on this subject. Hmains (talk) 04:48, 31 July 2013 (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:Snooker venues[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: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category says, "This category is for venues that are principally established for, or which are notable as, places for the playing of snooker." A quick look suggests that exactly one of the members actually meets this standard. All the other members are halls of some sort or another where presumably some competition was held at some time or another, or are large complexes which have some small part where there's a snooker table. If these were removed (as I believe they should) it would be a tiny category. Seyasirt (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (or tighten up the inclusion criteria to remove "or which are notable as" and purge). It's actually worse than the nom says as an article like Pontins is about a business. Note: This category was CFDed a few months back with a "Snow keep" result. DexDor (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We do not want to categorize places by every type of event they have hosted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is nothing wrong with the category in principle. Venues don't have to be purpose built snooker venues: WP:OC#VENUES states it is legitimate to categorise venues "regularly used in a specific and notable way", which certainly applies to several members of this category such as the Crucible Theatre and Wembley Conference Centre which are internationally renowned for the snooker events that are/were held there over decades. I'm actually struggling to see what rationale this category is being deleted under; sure there are some venues that simply should not be included (for instance Pontins is most notable as a package holiday venue) and if we stripped away those venues we would be left with a handful of authentic category members. I don't know of any size limitations on categories, but I know sometimes small categories are upmerged if they are overly specific, but this in itself is a problem because the super category Category:Cue sports venues itself is a container category so an upmerge is not possible in this case. Either way I am against the deletion because clearly more than one member of the category qualifies for inclusion under WP:OC#VENUES so the deletion rationale itself is flawed. Betty Logan (talk) 04:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me that in most cases the other two-thirds of the guideline are more apropos. Consider Wembley Conference Centre: it is (oddly enough) an early example of the big, all-purpose conference center. The history shows that the person who created the article did so because he was interested in snooker, but really, the whole point of such complexes is to host any sort of event that will fit. The Crucible Theatre is, well, a theatre which was found convenient for snooker events; but it wasn't built for that, and from what I gather it's a sidelight to its more usual purpose of presenting conventional theatre productions.
That's what I've found in each case: these venues are all like the Madison Square Garden example of the guideline. They are general purpose arenas and halls which are capable of accommodating a snooker match and its observers, as well as a vast array of other functions. There's nothing about them that's defining about snooker. Seyasirt (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Crucible may be a general purpose theatre but WP:OC#VENUES does not preclude that. The fact remains the Crucible is famous for the snooker world championship, as indicated by this BBC article (The Crucible is as famous for snooker as Wembley was for football, Wimbledon is for tennis and Lords for cricket) and this article on the Sheffield University website (Sheffield's Crucible Theatre may be best known for hosting the annual World Snooker Championship), so the category is entirely appropriate in this respect. Betty Logan (talk) 08:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete isn't Sydney a snooker venue? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Consensus isn't determined by votes, so comments like "Sydney is a snooker venue" (which isn't actually true by the way) aren't exactly helpful in this context. This same category was up for deletion six months ago at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_25#Category:Snooker_venues and the outcome was a snowball "keep", simply because the category was deemed to be consistent with WP:OC#VENUES. So far no-one has put forward any fresh argument that was not already put forward at the previous CfD, or explained why the previous arguments were incorrect or indeed what has changed since then. The bottom line is that the category is consistent with "categories that indicate how a specific facility is regularly used in a specific and notable way for some or all of the year", and no-one can argue this isn't the case with places like the Crucible or Wembley Conference Centre, so the arguments above are of a WP:IDONTLIKEIT nature. I suggest an early close to "keep" unless someone explicitly lays down a substantial argument as to why WP:OC#VENUES does not apply to regular high profile international snooker tournaments. Betty Logan (talk) 08:19, 1 August 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_25&oldid=1090391130"