Category:Video game companies established in 1889[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 this is unnecessary as there will only ever be a single member of this category. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All other game companies have a category for the year they were founded. NP Chilla (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONSENSE applies in this case as there is no purpose for a category with a single entry. Wikipedia doesn't advocate blindly following precedents without regard for exactly why. Additionally, Nintendo was certainly not a video game company at that point, so that classification is dubious.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as misleading. As obviously there were no video games in 1889, all companies would have been established as something else. Nintendo, in particular, was established as a card company. Brandmeistertalk 07:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure if single-article-category is a valid rationale for deletion but the fact that Nintendo did not become an electronic games producer until 1974 most certainly is. CravinChillies 10:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- Nintendo is already in "entertainment companies established in 1889", so that there is no need to merge anywhaere. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and guideline? There's quite a few examples of this kind of thing - Nokia is another where it becomes nonsensical to talk of a 19th-century mobile phone company. The situation is particularly acute in sports clubs - many association football clubs started out doing something else in the early 19th century and then added a football division in the 20th (particularly in Germany). This leads to categories of "Association football clubs founded in 184x" when the Football Association was founded in 1863 and Sheffield F.C. (founded 1857) is regarded by eg FIFA as the "oldest football club now playing football" although it didn't adopt association football until the 1870s. The anomalies are reallly highlighted when you create the standard categories (which the people starting these categories usually fail to do) and you end up with "Category:1889 in video gaming" etc. Perhaps there should be an explicit guideline that in these cases the category should use the year in which the organisation started doing the activity, rather than the year of its original foundation? Le Deluge (talk) 04:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Nintendo wasn't formed as a video game company, and the concept of them in general didn't exist until the 1950s. ~ Dissident93(talk) 21:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If not for the grounds of size, then on the grounds of common sense. AusLondonder (talk) 07:22, 5 September 2017 (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. ℯxplicit 00:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I fail to see how a minor gameplay element like this deserves to have its own category. For the vast majority, if not all, of the game articles that uses this, they don't even mention it in prose. No game uses slow motion as a core gameplay concept either, unlike something like time travel. ~ Dissident93(talk) 22:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the closest game in that category I can think of that actually uses slow motion as a mechanic is Superhot, the mechanic isn't primarily used for the other video games listed. jd22292(Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot see the point of the category and it serves no good reader navigation purpose. As mentioned above, few if any articles will mention the existence of an optional facility like slow motion so there is no verification that the facility is provided. The creation of the category on that basis must therefore be a form of original research. CravinChillies 11:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (However, there are a few games that slow-motion is actually a key part of gameplay, like Max Payne, Killing Floor, Super Hot, and Cluster Truck, but this still not a readily defining trait to use for a category). --MASEM (t) 14:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is not a video game theme, it's a mechanic and it would be silly to categorize every game with a certain mechanic into it's own category. For instance, you'd never see a category for "Video Games with a Jump button" or "Video Games with Auto-save". If nothing else, the title totally misrepresents the product (IE: These games are not entirely done in slow motion, which is what is implied here). --Deathawk (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2017 (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:WP:SMALLCAT for two mayors and a list. While this category was formerly more populated, several of the mayors have been deleted at AFD as not properly satisfying WP:NPOL's inclusion criteria for mayors -- and even one of the two that are still here has an open AFD for the same reason and is on track to be deleted soon as well. Only one mayor (Kinnaird) has a clearcut NPOL pass at all, as she also served in the state legislature. But as always, we do not routinely create one of these for every town or city where one mayor has an article -- we create them only when at least five or six mayors have articles. I'm actually the original creator here, back when enough of them had articles, but it's not warranted anymore now that most of them have been deleted. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per proposal. Carrboro is evidently too small a place to warrant having a category of mayors, especially when all but one (or at most two) are not notable enough to warrant individual articles. Using Category:Mayors of places in North Carolina is the sensible approach. As for Category:People from Carrboro, North Carolina, I see no reason why the Kinnaird article should not be added to that now, as it serves a different purpose, so I don't think a "double upmerge" is necessary. CravinChillies 11:12, 29 August 2017 (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: Unnecessary per WP:OCEPON. An eponymous simply to hold an albums category and image files of the covers of those albums. No potential song or band member articles/subcategories to populate it. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and OCEPON. Every band that exists does not automatically get one of these to parent its standard albums category and its eponymous article — a band only gets one of these when (as with Category:The Beatles or Category:The Rolling Stones) there's a lot of spinoff content that needs band-related categorization outside of the standard categorization schemes that already exist. That doesn't exist here. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article about the band itself is not in the category. It seems that the category was created for the wrong reasons and it serves no useful purpose. I agree that a major act like the Stones should have a category but not a group like this with whom it is a case of creating a category for the sake of creating a category. CravinChillies 11:19, 29 August 2017 (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.
