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. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:25, 11 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.
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small town with just two entries ...William 23:09, 27 June 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.
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.
Category:Articles wtih Jakaltek language external links[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: Implausible typo redirect not recently created Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:37, 27 June 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.
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. While this may be interesting information to include in the music video section of the articles for these songs, where the music videos were shot is not a defining aspect of any song. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-defining for a song. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The articles are about songs, not music videos. If we had articles on the music videos themselves, instead of just mentioning them in the song articles this would probably work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 3 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.
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:administrative close: no such category exists. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. it is known for oNE of the mario games. Kgk1g2kgkh (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close. The article Super Mario Bros. was incorrectly tagged and there is no such category. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:14, 27 June 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.
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: My category for the band Scale the Summit was deleted recently on the grounds that there are not enough articles to populate it. I would like to invoke that precedent and use it on this category. This has such a narrow focus and given that Hung retired completely from music a few years ago this category has no reasonable prospect for expansion. LazyBastardGuy 03:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – "Please note that all single-artist album articles should have subcategories here, even if it's the only album the artist has recorded". The deletion of the category mentioned (an eponymous artist category) is not a precedent for deleting an albums category (this one has 3 albums). Oculi (talk) 10:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, may I be directed to the page that says this? Thanks LazyBastardGuy 05:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With the result of this discussion fairly apparent at this point, I will now create Category:Priestess albums. Evidently the consensus is eponymous categories should not exist if very sparsely populated, but eponymous album categories are okay, regardless of how many articles fit the bill (as long as there is at least one). I am creating this new category with the understanding that nobody will nominate it for deletion here. If they do, they better have a better reason than I did here. I, for one, have learned my lesson. On that note, is it possible to just close this discussion early? I withdraw my nomination of this category. LazyBastardGuy 20:56, 29 June 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.
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:upmerge to Category:Appalachian Trail and purge. There might be enough of a lean toward deletion for a delete result, but that seems a bit draconian. Some of these people seem quite important to the Appalachian Trail's history, while others just hiked it. So I'm putting them all in the trail category and letting folks attentive to that category sort it out.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. In this recent discussion, the contents of Category:Appalachian Hall of Fame were listified and added to Appalachian Trail Museum. Five minutes after the discussion was closed, this category was created, with exactly the same contents plus Randall Lee Smith, a man who killed someone on the Appalachian Trail. Given that the user who created the category participated in the discussion by proposing that Category:Appalachian Trail people be created, it seems to me that this just defeats the validity of the previous discussion. If users can get around the deletion of categories by slightly changing the name of the category and slightly expanding the scope so as to include one more article, what's the point, really? If this category is allowed to exist, I'm totally adding Mark Sanford to it, since in addition to the Hall of Fame inductees it seems to be encompassing anyone with any sort of passing connection to the Trail. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (speaking as the user who created the category after seeing that the earlier discussion closed as "listify"). The earlier discussion focused on this solely as an award category associated with Appalachian Trail Museum. My comment about its association with the actual Appalachian Trail and Category:Appalachian Trail came too close to the end of the discussion period to get attention, and (unlike some CFD participants) I didn't go out and canvass for new participants, nor did I create the new category and empty the old one out of process.
I thoroughly agree that it was an inappropriate award category, and I thoroughly agree with listifying the hall of fame inductees. What I don't agree with is removing these people from the Appalachian Trail category just because the hall of fame category was a bad idea.
The Appalachian Trail (not the museum) is an important institution that has its own category (Category:Appalachian Trail), which has contained people articles since 2009, when Arthur Perkins (judge) and Nestell Kipp Anderson were added to it. The four people whose articles were included in that category for a long time (i.e., Perkins, Anderson, Benton MacKaye, and the murderer) were people who are strongly associated with the Trail, whose notability is largely due to the Trail, and (in at least two cases) whose biographies are a major part of the Trail's history. This is similar to the basis for categorizing some people in Category:Yellowstone National Park, Category:Yosemite National Park, Category:Hawaiʻi Volcanoes National Park, Category:Oak Ridge National Laboratory people, and numerous categories for academic institutions. The association of these people with the Appalachian Trail is a defining characteristic. The user who created the hall of fame category populated it by moving the MacKaye and Perkins articles into the hall of fame category and creating some additional articles about individuals who also were strongly associated with Trail. Deletion of the hall of fame category, without either upmerging to Category:Appalachian Trail or creating this new category, would have had the effect of removing all of these people from the category by which most of them are best defined (while leaving Mr. Anderson and the murderer in the category). All of these people belong in a category for the Appalachian Trail, and since there are 9 articles about people whose notability is related to the Appalachian Trail, I think it makes sense to have a category for "Appalachian Trail people" instead of leaving them in the parent category for the Trail. (And Mark Sanford doesn't belong in an Appalachian Trail category because his only connection with the Trail is lying about it.) --Orlady (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Category:Appalachian Trail hikers" (under Category:Hikers) and make clear that it's only for people who are notable for hiking the AT. Upmerge those articles about people who are notable because of the AT, but not as hikers (e.g. as campaigner or criminal). DexDor (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Interesting idea, but I think it may be an idea ahead of its time. Only 4 of the 10 people now in the category are notable for hiking the trail. Several of the others almost certainly hiked parts of it, but their more important connections were that they had the idea of creating it, publicized it, and/or built it. Also, there are no other trail-specific categories in Category:Hikers. I don't think that Wikipedia is ready for an Appalachian Trail hikers category. --Orlady (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; is anyone really notable only for having hiked (part of) the Appalachian Trail? Isn't it really the excuse used by a certain politician to disguise his extramarital dalliance? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Your delete vote seems to be based on a misconception. This is not a category for hikers. The subjects of most of articles in this category are people who pioneered the idea of a long-distance trail and made this trail a reality. They include Benton MacKaye, who originated the idea of this long-distance trail in 1921; and Arthur Perkins (judge), Myron Avery, Nestell Kipp Anderson, and Raymond H. Torrey, whose work in the 1920s and 1930s made the trail a reality. This is absolutely not a trivia category about notable people who hike the trail once. The category does include four articles about people who hiked the trail, including the first and second through-hikers, the first woman to hike the Trail, and two authors of notable books about through-hiking the Trail -- all notable achievements directly related to the Trail. --Orlady (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...or (if not renamed) delete/upmergeCategory:Appalachian Trail people isn't a good category because it groups articles about people who have very different relationships to the AT; it is categorizing by type of article (bio) rather than by topic. If Category:Appalachian Trail needs diffusing it would be better (from the readers perspective) to diffuse by topic - "Usage of the AT", "Promotion of the AT", "Crime on the AT" etc. However, for many of the articles currently in the AT category (e.g. Fontana Dam) the AT isn't a WP:DEFINING characteristic so purging rather than diffusing is needed. DexDor (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a trivial way to categorize people. If these people are notable as hikers they can go in Category:Hikers and nationality sub-cats. We do not need to categorize hikes by trail.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do I have to do to get you people to recognize that this category isn't primarily for hikers? --Orlady (talk) 04:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but REname to Category:Appalachian Trail founders and then purge of others -- The Hall of Fame categoiry was an awards category, which is not allowed. However, I checked 3 or 4 of the articles and think there is the basis of a category here, for those who organised the establishment of the trail and the first people to walk its full length. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Founders" may be a misnomer, since the Trail didn't exactly get "founded" at one time. The process of formulating the idea of the trail, promoting the idea, and building it spanned the decades of the 1920s and the 1930s; the first through-hike was in 1948, the second through-hike was in 1951, and the first through-hike by a woman was in 1955. Eight of the ten articles in the category are associated with those events. Another article is about a man who got Congress to enact legislation (in 1968) that established the national trail system and later (in 1971) was author of a book that popularized the idea of through-hiking the trail. I think his contributions are similar to those of the people who had the initial idea and publicized it. Only the murderer does not qualify by the criteria you list. --Orlady (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename to Category:Appalachian Trail founders or Category:Appalachian Trail hikers. I'm not convinced about how defining this is for the latter or if we really can objectively populate the former while keeping it from being a catch all for everyone who walked the trail. I'm not commenting on the outright deletion besides commenting that this category was mentioned in the close that I did that for the Category:Appalachian Hall of Fame discussion. There was no support for this category in that discussion, however it was offered in one of the last comments on that discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OK, after looking at the discussion here, the previous one and the ones for other trails, which raise different questions, deletion seems to be the most logical option. This probably falls into the class of a solution looking for a problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:42, 15 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:Candidates for speedy deletion as rejected AfC submissions[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:Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Following discussion at WT:CSD, the scope of criterion G13 has been widened to cover unsubmitted AfC drafts more than six months old. I propose that "rejected" be changed to "abandoned" to bring the maintenance category's title into line with the language currently in use on the policy page: "G13. Abandoned Articles for creation submissions". SuperMarioMan 01:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sure. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:23, 1 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.
