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? Retailing is a concept or an activity. Retailing exists as a redirect to retail. The contents in the subcategories are basically stores, Category:Shopping districts and streets, Category:Shopping malls. So basically the brick and mortar that is built to support retail operations. While Category:Retailing's intro states it covers retail concepts and venues I'm not sure that carrying that mix of attributes through the entire tree is clear as to the intent and use of the sub categories. I found this tree in a mall article that included Category:Retailing in Bangkok. If you look at say Category:Retailing in Bangkok, it appears to be an incomplete subset of Category:Shopping malls in Thailand and Category:Shopping malls is a well developed tree. So if this tree is just for malls and stores, would it be better named as something else? In any case, I'm not proposing any action for Category:Retailing which also includes Category:Retail buildings which is broken out by country, albeit less extensively then the trees under discussion. So maybe the solution here is to split the contents out into Category:Retail buildings and Category:Shopping malls. That would be a lot of work, so maybe a rename would be better and allow the contents to be moved to other categories over time? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There is nothing wronmg with the category name. "Shopping mall" is an Americanism, which please do not try to impose on the rest of the world. For example, Oxford Street, London is a vibrant shopping street. Property along it is in many differnet ownerships: it is not a mall, excpet possibly to ignoratn yankee visitors. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are shopping districts and streets in the US. I tire of the constant attacks on Americans as "ignorant" carried out by some editors, especially when they often seek to impose a de fact expectation that British usage is the default usage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I went through Category:Retailing in Bangkok moving companies to the company category and placing what remains in sub categories. So now that we can see what is left, I'll ask why do we need to keep the categories as they are currently named since they don't really address the topic of retailing? Retailing is a vague concept that, as mentioned in the nomination is intended to include concepts and venues in the category. I suspect that most of the content is venues as this one example showed. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a useful top-level category, especially when there is not enough to sub-divide.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 13 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:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. No content, no useful navigation. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 09:37, 28 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:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CAT#Articles, "a defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having". John Cleese, for example, is not commonly and consistently defined as someone who was expelled from school. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 09:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEFINING which states "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining". LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 12:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While being expelled may be worth mentioning in a biography, it is not something worth categorizing by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is not a defining charactertistic. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 30 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.
