Category:Off-price department stores of the United States[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: No clear inclusion; the term off-price does not have an article Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This would leave at least some of the articles out of the Category:Department stores of the United States tree. So this would need to be an upmerge if there is consensus to change something. Unsure about the use of off-price at this time. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to department stores and Category:Discount stores of the United States, both of which make this topic navigable enough. I don't think we need to subdivide discount stores by the high level retailer type. SFB 10:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate Alternate Upmerge to Category:Discount stores of the United States but not Department Stores. The ones I clicked through have too narrow a range of merchandise and are too small to generally be considered department stores. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:10, 19 October 2014 (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. The main article is says it is for the Palestinian territories and supported by naming of some subcategories. The parent category for years was Category:Palestine, until it was removed without explanation this week. Based on the main article, I placed it in Category:Palestinian territories rather putting it back into Category:Palestine. I also removed the intro introduced at that time saying is was for the State of Palestine. I'll let the area experts sort out what it should be and determine if the main article is incorrect for the category and its contents. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Noticed the blue link and realized the target was apparently emptied out of process this week. I'll ljust restore them to where they were for this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support these all seem to relate to the Palestinian territories not mandatory Palestine, Roman Palaestina or something else, or the whole of what sometimes is referred to as Palestine (including Israel). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename The parent and child categories, use "Palestinian territories", and this should be consistent throughout the structure. I point out that Category:Transport in Jerusalem probably does not belong in this structure, based on its contents. Alansohn (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2014 (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:no consensus to delete. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: If you ever wanted an actual reason why Wikipedia is male-dominated, this is as good a one as any. More to the point, it's not a defining category; If someone is only notable for being a girlfriend of a footballer, then per WP:NOTINHERITED. they're not notable. If they're notable for something else, then it is somewhat insulting to define them by their boyfriend/husband. Black Kite (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
July 2014, no consensus. The nom in any case is very confused: a non-notable person will not have an article and is thus irrelevant to the discussion, 'defining' is not necessarily connected with notability, and in this case wikipedia is merely reflecting obsession in the media with 'celebrities', male or female. Oculi (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a well-documented media phenomenon-cum-occupation that adequately captures a defining aspect of many of the subjects' notability (beyond a more vague "media celebrity"). This kind of media coverage makes the subjects easily pass the threshold of notability; to not categorise subjects like Coleen Rooney as such would be disingenuous. Portraying this phenomenon as something generated by a male-dominated Wikipedia greatly exaggerates Wikipedia's part in perpetuating such roles. Comparing this role to that of family member in other professions completely ignores the magazine industry which thrives on coverage of footballers partners (Closer alone, for example, has circulation of over 300,000 issues per edition). As I mentioned last time, I think the category should be used for people who are mainly subject to coverage for this reason (not Shakira, for instance). SFB 18:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again ... if their main coverage is for that reason, why are they notable in themselves? Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish argue that such literature with millions of regular readers is not a valid form of social expression, then your arguing for an elitist perspective that doesn't have much truck on Wikipedia (and for good reason from my view). Perhaps you should call Palgrave Macmillan and let them know they've accidentally published a book on a topic that isn't worth a few kilobytes of Wikipedia space. SFB 20:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral to the nomination as such (because how else should we classify these wives and girlfriends), but I strongly agree that these wives and girlfriends shouldn't deserve an article in WP when they aren't notable for anything else. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Such issues can be addressed through the general notability criteria. Still, there are more than enough women who pass the threshold of notability for this reason as to merit a category. SFB 21:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question What has changed since the July nomination?RevelationDirect (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- UK footballers (especially in Presmership) are grossly overpaid. The result is that their womenfolk have vast amounts of money to spend. Some of the antics in which they engage get into the press. The majority are probably more notorious than notable, but even that probably makes them notable in WP terms. I agree that this is an unusual category, but if it is to be attacked, it should be by AFDs on the articles. If the category becomes empty, becasue all the articles are deleted, the cateogry will be deleted as a matter of course. However, some such as Victoria Beckham are clearly notable in their own right. Could WP ignore her being the wife of David Beckham as well as having been one of the Spice Girls? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carlossuarez46....William 00:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per points already raised. Also Victoria Beckham is an excellent example for the problems with this category. She established her notability from being a Spice Girl and not being a footballers wife. So this is not notable for her and she should not be in the category. This is an example of the inclusion criteria being subjective and yet another reason to delete. Since we have these issues and more, membership in this group is best covered by a list. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Using the word "notability" can be confusing, since that means something else on wikipedia. None of these women are notable for being a wife or girlfriend (per WP:NOTINHERITED) but they are all known for it. Victoria Beckham is a case in point - the secondary sources clearly emphasise and discuss her status as a footballer's wife. The category (as a defining characteristic and cultural phenomenon) is well discussed (some would say, over-discussed) in reliable sources, unlike the hypothetical "Scientists' husbands and boyfriends" mentioned above. StAnselm (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2014 (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.
