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:merge. Kbdank71 14:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category is essentially a duplicate of Universities and colleges in Multan. This category is not so overpopulated it needs splitting in to Universities in Multan and Colleges in Multan. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2008 (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. Kbdank71 14:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete per established precedent against categorizing media personalities by individual station. See also WABC-TV CFD of December 5, 2007. In each and every case here, the article itself is more than sufficient as a hub to link the various personalities being categorized. Bearcat (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Delete - This and the similar nominations below fall under the precedent of not categorising performers by performance. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nominator failed to use an edit summary, and deleted at least one of the categories summarily without discussion. It proves he cannot be trusted. GreenJoe 03:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no. There's already an established precedent against this type of categorization. Precedents can be overturned if there are good and cogent reasons to do so, but "the nominator didn't use an edit summary, so I'm voting the exact opposite just on principle" is not one of those reasons. Bearcat (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you're going to chastise someone for failing to correctly use edit summaries, then maybe you should take a look at your recent habit of your edit summaries (when you happen to use them) linking to this odd page:User:GreenJoe/Joe to the rescue!!. --DrPeterBlood (talk) 06:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete performer by performance categories in disguise. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and precedent against categorizing media personalities by outlet, and let's have a little more assumption of good faith from certain editors regarding the nominator, shall we? Otto4711 (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WBAI and Comment - I'm concerned about the rationale that's being used here. I don't really disagree about the wisdom (or lack of) of categorizing people by venue. But that's a separate issue from the question of whether or not these categories should be deleted: Since none of them are designated specifically for people, they can also be used for other types of articles. So the question is whether any of them have enough non-people articles to justify their existence. By that standard, Category:WBAI probably passes muster. I haven't gone through all of them, but I did see a couple of cats that had little beyond the "people articles" and probably should be deleted, as proposed. Cgingold (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Television or radio programs shouldn't really be categorized by individual station, either. A network category is one thing, but if we categorized programs by individual stations that aired them, we could easily end up with hundreds of television or radio station categories on them. Everything in Category:WBAI is filed in Category:Pacifica Radio programs now anyway. Bearcat (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of Democracy Now! the programs are specific to WBAI and aren't heard on other Pacifica stations. I'm also going to add Bob Fass, since he is/was an "institution" at WBAI and not heard elsewhere. Cgingold (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Individual television or radio stations should never have their own dedicated categories. Bearcat (talk) 05:39, 16 May 2008 (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. Wizardman 02:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete - being part of this programming block is not a defining characteristic of the programs. BKN contains a list. Otto4711 (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2008 (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. Kbdank71 14:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category not likely to be expanded. OCAT. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2008 (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. Kbdank71 14:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category not likely to be expanded. OCAT. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2008 (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. Kbdank71 14:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category not likely to be expanded. OCAT.Vegaswikian (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2008 (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:keep, aka oppose renaming. Wizardman 02:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Standard spelling of medalists in categories is with one l. SeveroTC 11:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose But not in the UK. (I have no info on Cyprus - let a Cypriot speak.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this argument is aimed towards the idea that categories on the Commonwealth Games should used the Commonwealth spelling of "medallist" over "medalist", then the other 52 categories under recursive Category:Commonwealth Games medalists need to be renamed. If the argument is that all countries that use Commonwealth English should use the "medallist" spelling, then there's a load of cats housed in Category:Olympic medalists that would need looking at. Fact is these 5 are the odd ones out amongst hundreds of categories spelt with a single l, which would indicated a de facto consensus. SeveroTC 18:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's certainly medallist here in New Zealand, and it also is in Australia IIRC. The spelling also appears to be used in India. I suspect it is in all Commonwealth countries outside the Western Hemisphere; we really need some comment from West Indian and Canadian Wikipedians to know what the standard is in that part of the world, though. I'd support changing all non-Western hemisphere ones to medallist unless there is good reason to suspect that it's wrong. Grutness...wha? 01:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the US is *NOT* part of the Commonwealth, and therefore it is inappropriate to use American English in Commonwealth categories. It also violates English pronouciation rules, with one "l" making the "a" a hard "a" sound. And it is not what is done in Canadian English either. (Two l's in Canada). 70.55.88.176 (talk) 04:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No reason to use US English here. I suspect ignorance rather than "de facto concensus" accounts for the current spellings. There may be a case for consistency in the Olympic categories (as one l) and across the CG ones (as 2) , rather than trying to work out what every country uses. Johnbod (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain Is it only the three categories to re-name, plus categories and individual entries for athletes and other competitors from Cyprus? I wondered when creating a new medal category (silver) for New Zealand why my first try ended up with a Red Link for the page of the individual athlete - until I realised that I had to change "Commonwealth games silver medallist" to "Commonwealth games silver medalist for New Zealand" with one "L". So most individual athletes (apart from Cyprus) would not need to be amended? It does look rather odd for "gold medalists" to be a subcategory of "medallists" (or whichever way round it is?) Hugo999 (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The concensus seems to be emerging here to rename all the Commonwealth cats with one l. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To remove your ambiguity, if I may, Johnbod, that is rename any that currently have one l to a double-l form. Grutness...wha? 01:14, 14 May 2008 (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 and redirect. Kbdank71 14:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge, duplicate category; target uses accepted naming convention for people from the U.S. state of Georgia. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}}Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per long precedent - but are you share they are all from US State? Peterkingiron (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2008 (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:close; not much to do. The only subcategory of "Vehicle manufacturers" is Category:Plug-in hybrid vehicle makers, containing only one article, Aptera Motors, which does in fact, make cars. Not saying this can't be recreated for "Lorry makers" or "Motorcycle makers", etc, but right now, it doesn't bear holding one subcat. Kbdank71 14:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge, New category is essentially a duplication of the older target category. A reverse merge could be possible if editors want to use "vehicle" as a more broad term than "car". Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}}Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A truck, lorry, bus or motorcycle, between many other, are not cars. There are more vehicles than merely cars. --Mac (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep encyclopedia means universal and universal includes more vehicles than only the cars. There are bus manufacturers that are not car manufacturers, for example. --Nopetro (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - car manufacturers should be one of its subcategories. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Are the first two keeps/stong keeps saying that things as they stand now should simply be kept, or are they saying that the cars category should become a subcategory of the vehicles one, or are they saying they should be reverse merged? There's more to this than just a "merge or keep" issue. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If someone wants to reparent this to Category:Vehicles and include all of the vehicle manufacturing categories then there would be no reason to delete. I'm not sure if that is needed, but it would tend to avoid confusion in the future and on the surface seems reasonable. Can we change the category focus during the CfD? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine with me if editors want to adopt that approach. It seems reasonable to me and I wouldn't oppose. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One minor problem. Do we want to keep Category:Vehicle manufacturing companies or Category:Vehicle manufacturers? I think the later might be preferred as shorter. Not sure if there is a difference between the two. Do we have a preference since I have seen both forms used in multiple places and I'm not sure there is a preference. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since most of the subcategories omit the "companies", I would be inclined to keep Category:Vehicle manufacturers and merge the contents of the other. Doing that will require another CFD, I suppose. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:15, 15 May 2008 (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. Wizardman 02:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Clearly a typo, but I can't even figure out what the missing word(s) should be. All the included cities are in India, but they are not located in a single province or anything like that. I suggest deleting, unless the creator could fill us in on the missing word(s) for a possible rename fix. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}}Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment The origin of this problem seems to be the Infobox Indian Jurisdiction. Use of this info box in articles results in the Category:Cities and towns in being placed on the article page--unless some field is filled in correctly. I don't see what that field is, but maybe someone can find it. I suppose someone then came along and got rid of the redlined [false] category in these articles by creating a category with the current [wrong] name! Hmains (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The field is state_name =. I've looked at three of the cities so far, and each one has had a different problem — in one, I can't find which state the place is in at all; in a second, the field was just "state" instead of "state_name" (which worked as far as filling in the infobox, but apparently doesn't fill in the necessary blank in the category name); in the third, the text field above it hadn't been closed. But basically, what happens is that the infobox creates the correct "Cities and towns in state_name" category tag if the state_name field is filled in correctly — but if there's any sort of problem with that entry field, then it creates this instead. And because this was on six articles, it ended up listed on User:Random832/WantedCats, a database of redlinked categories that is used to monitor for misspellings, bad categories, categories that need to be created but haven't yet, etc., and because it was there, somebody went ahead and created it. Textbook example of the unintended consequences that can result from using templates to perform functions that aren't supposed to be assigned to templates, really. Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Got 'em all. If anybody's looking for a big fat cleanup job, the "Cities and towns in (Indian state)" categories need to be applied directly to the articles themselves — it's precisely because things like this happen if even the slightest little mistake is made that we shouldn't be relying on templates to create the categories for us. I've also mentioned this on Template talk:Infobox Indian Jurisdiction. Delete category and refer the whole shebang to a cleanup crew so that this doesn't happen again, please. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Thanks Bearcat, for your work on this. I could not figure it out! Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt - This will prevent miscategorisation, through negligent use of the template. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, salting wouldn't prevent articles from ending up in this pseudo-category again — the only thing it would actually do is prevent somebody from mistaking redlinks for a valid category that actually needs to be created. The only way to actually guarantee that no articles ever get miscategorized in here again would be to actually take the category-creating code off the template entirely, and individually recategorize all the cities and towns. Bearcat (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
commentI agree that it is very unhelpful to have category code of any kind in templates; suggest a review as to whether this can be banned in policy/guidelines and then finding and getting rid of all such code in templates. Hmains (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2008 (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. Wizardman 00:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Allowing categorization of sportspeople by the number they wore is probably not a precedent we want to set. In nearly all cases, it will be overcategorization be trivial characteristic. (When nominated, the category didn't even include Wayne Gretzky, the one sportsperson for whom wearing 99 might actually be considered "defining".) Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}}Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No way. While athletes may be defined in part by the numbers they wear, the numbers are certainly not defined by the athletes.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom, although certain jersey numbers in the US sports tend to be sufficiently defined by a player that the jersey and number are retired by a team, or at least in one case, the entire league. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2008 (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:merge, redirect. Kbdank71 13:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge, as re-created category that was renamed/merged with target category here. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}}Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and leave a cat redirect. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2008 (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:keep. "No reason" isn't a great reason to change this and make it more difficult to understand. Are we trying to make this encyclopedia easy to use right out of the gate, or is clarity only something that is gained by prior knowledge or jumping through hoops? Only two of the four articles mention Lilongwe outside of this category, so Bearcat is wrong when he states that getting to the category from one of its articles has already clarified the context. And Good Olfactory is correct when he states that we should not take the worse of two options (true that if you don't know where Malawai is, "People from Lilongwe, Malawi" isn't going to help you, but that isn't a reason to screw the people who know where Malawi is but not Lilongwe). Kbdank71 14:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. No reason to have "Malawi" in the category title. Punkmorten (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Soman (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is; instead, rename the parent category from Category:Lilongwe to Category:Lilongwe, Malawi. There is a very good reason to have have Malawi in the name: clarity. Few readers will know where Lilongwe is. The idea of an encyclopedia is to provide information to people who do not already know the information, not confirmation to the insiders who do. Hmains (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then they can go to the article Lilongwe to find out where it is. Articles need to always be at the simplest possible title that isn't in conflict with other things. The title's primary job is as a placeholder, not as an imparter of supplementary information on the topic — that part is the job of the article. The only reason to move the title to "Lilongwe, Malawi" would be if there were other Lilongwes of similar importance in other countries.
Rename per nom. I have sympathy for Hmains' position, but alas all but US places get their names, whereas the US places are burdened with their state name. Convention. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Renaming is consistent with the applicable naming convention. The one "keep" vote here is based on the notion of supposed "clarity", which is far too subjective a criterion to be of any value. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Excuse me, guys, but I wholeheartedly agree with Hmains on this -- and I hope some (or all) of you will have second thoughts about it. I seriously doubt that one reader in a hundred would have a clue where (or even what) Lilongwe is. Outside of the region, it is utterly obscure. The whole point is to assist readers in using the categories. If they have to follow a link from the category just to find out what the hell it is, they're unlikely to do so. That is completely different from coming across the article itself, in which case you're already there and can immediately see where and what it is. Let's not forget that articles & categories about all parts of the world are supposed to be intelligible to readers from all parts of the world -- they're not intended only for residents of the particular area. Much more than article names, category names shoulder an extra burden in terms of informing readers with clarity what they are about. Cgingold (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is ever going to stumble across the category by accident. In fact, it's virtually impossible to get to any category without having seen another page, either an article or a parent category, which already clarified that context. I concede that it might be possible to have a situation where a category name needs to be disambiguated differently than its head article does, but I don't see how this is one of those cases. The article is at Lilongwe. The general Lilongwe-related category that parents this one is at Category:Lilongwe. There's no pressing need for this to be treated differently than those are, especially given that there's also already a Category:People by city in Malawi parent as well. Are we going to change that one to Category:People by city in Malawi, Africa just because people might not know where Malawi is, either? I doubt it. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing up these points, Bearcat. I'm not going to argue one way or the other on adding "Africa" to the country cats, although a case can certainly be made in that regard. However, I am going to take Category:Lilongwe to CFD immediately and ask that it be renamed to Category:Lilongwe, Malawi for clarity and consistency with this sub-cat. Btw, a reader could easily stumble across this among the 56 sub-cats of Category:Capitals in Africa. Moreover, after looking at those sub-cats, I feel very strongly that all of them need to be renamed as well, to include the name of the country. As it happens, I'm at the high end of the scale in terms of geographic literacy, but I'm not ashamed to say that there are more than a few cities in that list that I'm uncertain about. That being the case, it's apparent that these (and other) African city categories need to be renamed in order to be useful for the average Wikipedia reader. I really do not see any good argument not to do that. Cgingold (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
a reader could easily stumble across this among the 56 sub-cats of Category:Capitals in Africa And even that parent category makes it clear that Lilongwe is a capital city in Africa. So you're still not getting there blind. Funny dat. Bearcat (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hmains. "Going to" the article to figure out where Lilongwe is located is possible, but it is an extra step which could be avoided for most by keeping the name the way it is. In a clarity vs. "naming convention" debate, I'm entirely a pragmatist — include the helpful place term. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any clarity problem posed by using just "Lilongwe" would inherently require there to be more than one Lilongwe. If that isn't the case, then no "clarity" problem exists. Bearcat (talk) 05:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand what type of "clarity" I'm talking about. If you have no clue where "Lilongwe" is, but you know where Malawi is, then it's more clear to such a person to see "Lilongwe, Malawi", than "Lilongwe". I know you disagree with this appeal to clarity, but it's a position I agree with. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what if you don't know where Malawi is, either? That state afflicts an emphatically non-zero number of Wikipedia readers, too. Bearcat (talk) 05:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe you are out of luck. But that's not a reason to take the worse of two options. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:00, 16 May 2008 (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. Wizardman 00:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP - If people can be in categories relating to their employment roles, then surely a category can contain/indicate the current governors of a prostegious institution.Chendy (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being a governor of a prestigious think tank is not trivial. please read about the Ditchley foundation if you feel it is trivial. Also the category will be populated when I have some spare time.Chendy (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. I did indeed read the Ditchley Foundation article before I nominated the category for deletion. The organisation itself is indeed notable, but the involvement of John Majoret al with the foundation is a very minor part of their careers. Would those politicians listed above be notable if they had no involvement with the Ditchley Foundation? Yes, of course they would. If they have never been active in politics but were governors of the Ditchley Foundation, would they pass the notability tests in WP:BIO? Highly unlikely. Senior politicians participate in a lot of bodies like this, and they do so only as a consequence of the things for which they are actually notable. Categorising them by this sort of peripheral activity just creates category clutter. Please read WP:CAT, and also don't populate this category further unless this CFD debate is closed as "keep". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-defining for many of those included. Listifying would be a good compromise. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, checking all are included in the article, as looks to be the case (and assuming they should be). Johnbod (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2008 (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.
