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. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 23 March 2016 (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; category now contains History of the Encyclopædia Britannica and World Brain as well as the two primary articles mentioned below, so seems more worthwhile than when some of the comments below were made. – FayenaticLondon 00:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I fail to see the point of this category. At the time I first nominated it, it contained three articles - the main article, encyclopedism, which I have nominated for afd; Encyclopedistes which, since it is concerned with a very specific area, deserves to be the main article in the cat Contributors to the Encyclopedie (I have already made that change); and... a plant, whose only relevance to the subject is an editorial comment made by Diderot in the Encyclopedie. While this comment is amusing and illustrates the challenges faced by the editors of the Encyclopedie in 1750s, it is also arguably original research, as I can find no third party references about Diderots statement or the plants overall relevance to the category of "Encyclopedism". History of the Encyclopædia Britannica has been added, but that is somewhat arbitrary. Why not the histories or main articles of many important encyclopedias?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Oppose There is an open nomination to delete the main article, Encyclopedism, located here which was submitted just after this one. Once that wraps up (either way), we'll be in a better position to evaluate the category. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We have no reason whatsoever to target a particular genre of writing a research as somehow unworthy of a category (or an article; next stop AFD – if anyone is making NN claims, that will be easily disproven since there are entire books about this topic and lots of scholarly papers from textual analysis, historiography, etc.). — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I never said that the subject is not noteworthy. However, the cat in its current state is unnecessary as it only includes a few miscellaneous articles with out any real connections holding them together.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, regardless of the outcome of the AfD we should realize that not every article needs to have its own category. In this case there is one eponymous article plus three articles that should be purged as they are not about Encyclopedism. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough here to justify a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The questionable main article is kept, and 3 of the other articles seem on point. (I think Urena lobata was added in error though.) My cutoff for a category is usually 5 but there's probably room for growth. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it from Encyclopedism (It is still in Encyclopedie). So now this cat has four pages, including the main article.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect and Bellerophon5685: FWIW it being added to urena lobata is not a mistake, so it did not need to be removed for that reason (as to whether the extent of its relevance is enough is another question). Urena lobata is a plant that has nothing to do with encyclopedism, but there is a well known entry for it (as "aguaxima") written by Diderot in the Encyclopedie. The entry has almost nothing to do with the plant itself and all to do with Diderot's impatience with the idea of having to write about subjects on which there's nothing to say just because of "readers who prefer finding nothing in an article of the Dictionnaire, or even finding a stupidity, than not finding an article at all." In other words, it happens to be one of the entries in which Diderot reflects on (complains about) an aspect of the process (or business?) of encyclopedism. I could've sworn I added better sources to it before, as that entry has been covered in a couple places I've come across, but it's certainly hurting right now. I'll add to it and remove the OR tag. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 14:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I admit the statement is humorous, and that it likely reflects a point in Diderot's life when he was thinking "What the hell am I doing with the project, if all I can do is give a stupid statement like that?" It is an attitude of frustration that many modern date Wikipedians can appreciate. But we need a third party reference, or else it is WP:OR.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2016 (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: Per multiple CFDs, here[1], here[2], here[3], here[4] here[5], and here[6] just being six examples, we don't subcategorize sportspeople from Foo by the type of athletes they are. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We do actually cross-categorize by sport and geography, but not to the city/town level. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge some sports might work with this fine level of categorization, but tennis is not one of them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A bit confused here. I don't particularly care one way or the other on this issue, but why some sports and not others? What sports deserve fine level? If this goes, they should all go. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some sports have way more articles for participants than others. Categorization is meant to aid navigation, and so subcategorzing some things in a given way should not mandate subcategorzing all things in that way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge - rather than delete. Whether we should allow a category for the intersection between a (large) city and a sport should depend on whether the category can be adequately populated. I believe some previous deletions of this kind were ill-judged. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
??? Just wondering...is this only being done with tennis players? I see categories like "Category:Footballers from Newham (London borough)", "Category:Footballers from Greater London", "Category:Basketball players from Greater London", "Category:Cricketers from Brisbane", . I assume that they're on the chopping block also? If they aren't, then I'm not sure I would go along with deletion of only tennis players. It seems like country (or perhaps a state) is good enough, I just want to make sure all sports are treated equally. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:12, 21 April 2016 (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: (Speedy declined). Article previously deleted at CfD (under the title Category:Fictional anti-heroes) here. The top-level category (Category:Antiheroes) has also been deleted at CfD here, here) (as speedy), relisted after deletion review and subsequently deleted here. All delete arguments made still apply. This is an entirely subjective categorization scheme as evidenced by the lede to the article List of fictional antiheroes:"Each of these examples has been identified by a critic as an antihero, although the classification is somewhat subjective. Some of the entries may be disputed by other sources and some may contradict all established definitions of antihero." If I may quote Vegaswikian: "If we need to be using reliable and verifiable sources then we need a list. A category does not provide a way to verify claims of membership." Tassedethe (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment neither hero nor antihero can be reasonably applied in the real world. However, fictional cases have literary studies to back up their definitions and sources to cite for each case. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, real people would have such sources too. I can find sources that refer to real people as "heroes" and "antiheroes". The problem is that there is no standard, objective way of determining when such labels apply, whether in real life or in fiction. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And we would never categorize real people under such terms, per WP:NPOV. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous discussions. I don't think anything has changed. It's still a designation that is essentially POV and much to malleable for categorization. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As a fictional genre/archetype, the definition is clearly much too loose for a category. Not every list needs a cat., and as well all know, listification of cat. is a frequent outcome. If the article did not exist, we would probably listify this an create it. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:02, 18 March 2016 (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.
