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: The result of this discussion is listify. There were two arguments for deletion: the fact that there was only one article in the category, and the low league of the club (which can no change in the future, since the club was disbanded). The only editor here to vote "keep" countered the first argument, since there are now 6 articles in the category. The second argument, however, remains and was supported by all other editors. Nevertheless, since it is easy to listify, and listifying is also a sort of compromise between deletion and keeping, that seems to me to be the optimal result of this discussion. Surely there is no harm in it. Debresser (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "FK Arendal is a defunct Norwegian football club from Arendal which existed from 2000 to 2008. At its peak it played in the third tier of the Norwegian league system". This is a low league. Not likely to grow much from the single article it presently contains. Geschichte (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Listify in the club article, rather than plain delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – it now has 6 articles. Oculi (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 3rd tier teams are not worth categorizing by. Categorizing the articles by the subject having played for this team is just a form of category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 21 October 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.
Delete for now without objection to recreating when there are five or so articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without this in any way being taken to indicate the laureates are noteworthy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 21 October 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: Fails WP:PERFCAT. We should not categorise by specific show: "This also includes categorization by performance—even for permanent or recurring roles—in any specific radio, television, film, or theatrical production". Rob Sinden (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Normally I'd agree, but not here. Blue Peter is such a notable show in Britain that its presenters are forevermore associated with it and are frequently described as "former Blue Peter presenter Joe Bloggs" until their dying day. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- While they are doing this job, it will be there main job. I am prepared to allow this for the anchors of major programme, as they will do little else but prepare for and present the programme. The distinction must be drawn between these and casual TV presenting jobs. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's one of the longest established BBC TV programme as Necrothesp says (though rather less established now it has moved to 'internet only'). The formative years of many children were defined by who was presenting Blue Peter when they were growing up. Sionk (talk) 06:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep too significant to delete. Tim! (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – WP:PERFCAT has in my opinion exceeded its brief. "even for permanent or recurring roles" should be removed. Oculi (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This edit added "even for permanent or recurring roles". This at odds with the fundamental criterion for categorisation, namely defining. A permanent prominent role in a popular programme is defining. Oculi (talk) 09:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a performer by performance category, the show being notable does not change that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. It's not the fact that the show is notable. It's the fact that it's central to British culture and most of its presenters will foreverafter be known primarily for presenting it. That is the case with very, very few other TV shows. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 26 October 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.
Category:People from Brentwood, New Hampshire[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: Per WP:SMALLCAT Small one-county community with just 2 entries. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, category now has 5 entries, which is enough for WP:SMALLCAT. --Tavix(talk) 23:59, 3 October 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: This discussion is closed as keep. As is well know, the principle of WP:NOTVOTE means that decisions on Wikipedia are made on basis of the arguments as well, not just by counting the votes. This is especially so in cases where the discussion was not broad. In this case, a decisive argument was made at the end of the discussion, and was not discussed further. It is impossible to tell if he discussion ended because the previous two editors simply didn't see that comment, or whether their silence implies agreement. However that may be, the argument that WP:CATDEF allows this specific category is correct, and the argument that no reliable sources use the term is invalid. Category are units of internal organization, and their names need not necessarily be in use outside this encyclopedia. That having said, I would like to add that 4 out of the 16 articles in this category did not mention revenge as a theme, and I removed the category from them. In addition, almost none of the remaining articles included a source for the theme of revenge. Nevertheless, since the fact remains and sources can be added, that in itself is not a reason for deletion of the category. I will leave a note to the creator of this category, who has not participated in this discussion even though he was notified, to add sources to the articles regarding the revenge theme. Debresser (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unsourced category. No reliable sources classify anime or manga as "revenge" (WP:V). All articles included in category are based in an editor's interpretation of what is "revenge anime" or "revenge manga", thus violating WP:NOR. —Farix (t | c) 10:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this kind of category needs to be verified with. 333-blue 12:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep may be okay as long as the titles meet WP:CATDEF. Characters that avenge the loss of their comrades during a long action anime would not necessarily fit this scheme though. so no Inigo Montoya unless the manga is about his story of vengeance. It would have to be the overall central storyline as with Gankutsuou (Count of Monte Cristo), Masamune-kun's Revenge and Kill la Kill. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC) updated 21:22, 3 October 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.
Category:Wikipedian parents of scouts in the BSA[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: The rename is uncontested and clearly the right thing to do. There is sufficient leniency in our guidelines regarding user categories to allow for a category specific to the United States next to a worldwide category. Especially since being a "parent of" is so much more specific than being "interested in". Debresser (talk) 06:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- Is this a significant enough characteristic to merit a category at all? If it is why should it be limited to America, when Scouting is a worldwide movement (or nearly so)? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 9 October 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.
