Category:Biotechnology companies disestablished in 1996[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.
OPPOSE, at least per SMALLCAT, note "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" which this is, as with other Years categories. Now, another criterion such as the expected overall small number of biotech disestablishments before say the 21st C might makes sense, so that "Biotech comps disest'" are only applied after a certain pre-determined year, which is then entered as an explainer in the header text of such categories, might be OK--but NOT a general application of SMALLCAT, I don't want to have to keep putting out fires where people see one company in "[Type] company in year N" and propose deletion, these categories build laterally as well as vertically. I also don't want to see this used as a general call to remove "Biotechnology companies disestablished in [year]", which are reasonably populated for later years. If this category is unlikely to build laterally in the 90s (which might be the case), argue that. Also note that if removed it would be put in Category:Technology companies disestablished in 1996 as populating the over-general "Companies..." category, rather than its subcategories, is to be avoided. (I personally think it has possibilities for lateral growth--which is why I made it in the first place.) Doprendek (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"WP:SMALLCAT does apply because we do not have a scheme..." This begs the question. Most chron categorization schemes will find some point in their history when the category has few entrants. The goal should be to establish a reasonable historical start point. "WP:SMALLCAT applies because the category is small" doesn't really answer this, and risks targeting later less-populated years when it's probabilistic, rather than historical, reasons for the small category. Doprendek (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing, there are other biotechnology companies disestablished in pages also. Some of them also have 1 entry. What should be done about those? I'm not comfortable arguing delete based on their not being a category tree for the rest of the 20th century. Technology, new types of companies (Television stations and channels. Disestablishment categories for these only go back to 1934 and some of the early years only have 1 entry) emerge all the time. Biotechnology, correct me if I am wrong, doesn't have a long history....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Contingent Support now (is this a thing?) if following (or similar) put in the header of the remaining "Biotechnology companies disestablished in [YYYY]" categories (based on model used in "Educational institutions established in [YYYY]" header): "Articles about a disestablished biotechnology company should be categorized by year for the 21st century (starting 2001) and later, and placed in Category:Technology companies disestablished in [YYYY] for the year 2000 and earlier." If people want I'll do the appropriate text paste-edits for the existing categories, it will only take a few minutes, not sure we should build a production template (those have problems of their own I won't go into here). Doprendek (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If this is agreed to, it would probably make sense to do something analogous for "Biotechnology companies disestablished in [YYYY]" categories as well. Without going too deep into definitions of biotech I'd suggest 1970 as a start date. This might cut off a handful of pioneers and some companies that evolved to biotech but hey. Doprendek (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2019 (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: I question whether this is really a defining characteristic, as it seems that there are many, many fictional characters who "die" at some point only to be revived at a later time. DonIago (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's too confusing what counts for this cat. Does it count when the audience is led to believe the character died, but didn't actually die? What if they come back as a clone? JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/listify The category contains some of the notable cases that occurred to me – such as Sherlock Holmes and Kenny. It's perhaps missing some others such as Gandalf but that's not a big deal. Generally, one can see why characters have been included but there are some challenges for the concept because comic book storylines often kill off entire universes -- Thanos's recent finger snap is a good example. Other issues include questions of canon and multiverses. A list format would be better because it would allow for narrative and sources such as this. Andrew D. (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but no objection against listification. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments of Andrew Davidson. However this should probably cover resurrections, not revivals. Dimadick (talk) 10:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a far too common occurance, especially in comic books, to be worth categorizing by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Fictional characters aren't alive. They dont die. The fact that they may reappear, more or less miraculously, after disappearing, is not defining. Rathfelder (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some take long to revive. The category can set a standard but no need of deletion. desmay (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2019 (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:Delete per WP:SMALLCAT and because there are no other "xx-century literary critics" categories. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2019 (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: These two nested categories were created together by the same editor. Their only content is Category:Music festivals by composer. Unless somebody can come up with a category or two that I haven't been able to think of, they serve no discernible purpose. In short, they only impede navigation. Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2019 (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:Rename. Timrollpickering (Talk) 22:35, 26 February 2019 (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 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.
