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. Although possibly as rare as the perfect numbers, it's nowhere near as interesting a property. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 23:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What makes Granville numbers less interesting than perfect numbers?
It is true that there is far less scholarly work on Granville numbers than perfect numbers, but they were only defined in 1996 as opposed to perfect numbers which have been defined for over 3 millennia.
Also, even before I started editing the articles on numbers, other editor had mentioned them in Perfect number, 24 (number), 96 (number), and 126 (number), so I was just trying to tie them all together by putting them all in the same category. Mjpam (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The creation of categories must not be taken lightly: one must be able to demonstrate that the category would be populated by a significant amount of articles on notable topics."
Delete - we don't have categories for articles on numbers with a particular property (with a very small number of exceptions). The numbers in this sequence are listed in the Granville number article. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2011 (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 associated with the Shevchenko Scientific Society[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:Rename and do a manual prune afterwards if some memberships are unknown. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Removes the vagueness of "associated with" while still reflecting the contents of the category accurately. Pichpich (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I have also added link to the Society as, when I went ot the category, I had no idea what it was about. --Bduke(Discussion) 04:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or split. The problem is that for some people it is not really clear whether they were members or not. For example, Symon Petliura was "publishing and working as an editor for [...] the Shevchenko Scientific Society" — but was he a member? Nikola (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2011 (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.
Rename to avoid confusion.--Lenticel(talk) 01:31, 29 March 2011 (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:Companies based in Juno Beach, Florida[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:Rename to a wider scope. There are around 3500 people in Juno Beach so this category is unlikely to grow. It's also important to avoid isolating companies in small categories that don't reflect the actual economic influence of a company: any business in this small town would typically have an impact on the whole county's economy. Pichpich (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2011 (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.
Rename to avoid confusion and to match parent article.--Lenticel(talk) 01:32, 29 March 2011 (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:Speedy rename per C2C. The issue in the sole objection has been taken to a new nomination. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Categorising parliamentarians by the parliament they served in is a long-established practice on Wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and definitely keep. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - uncontroversial, could probably be speedied. Warofdreamstalk 14:48, 30 March 2011 (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:speedy merge due to typo.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge The name of the present category is the result of a typo. Pichpich (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2011 (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:Wikipedians by alma mater:Visvesvaraya Technological University[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:speedy merge due to typo.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge For obvious reasons. Pichpich (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2011 (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:Places affected by the 2010 Chile earthquake[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: I don't think we should be adding any articles to this category, it is pointless. Most of these are already mentioned in the earthquake's article, and way too many cities/towns/beaches are not in the category, so... I say let's delete it. Diego Grez (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The reasons indicated in the discussion, some months ago, for Cat:Places affected by the 2010 Haiti earthquake apply here: Ambiguous/vague/unclear inclusion criteria: These category includes places and structures "affected by" the 2010 Chile earthquake. In the case of a major natural disaster, such as a magnitude 8.8 Mw earthquake, virtually every place and structure in the area will be "affected" to some extent. As a result, the category group together an extremely diverse range of objects, including articles about individual settlements, a church, a cultural center, a neighborhood of 200 people, a provincial capital and a first-level administrative division of Chile. More importantly, the type and extent of the effect of the earthquake on these places and structures varies greatly. Up to 80–90% of Dichato and Talcahuano was destroyed, yet Agustín Ross Cultural Center and Los Navegantes do not even mention the earthquake. It is precisely here where the ambiguity lies: what effect is sufficient for a place to merit inclusion in this category? From the perspective of structural damage: if even a single building in a particular settlement collapses (and this fact is documented by a reliable source) then, technically, that settlement was affected by the earthquake. And there are other perspectives: human death (of someone from a settlement in the affected area or a visitor who was in the affected area), economic effects, socio-political consequences, geologic changes, and so on. Categorizing structures poses the same problem: how much and what type of effect is sufficient for a structure to be placed in the category? Bad precedent for overcategorization: This is not much of a problem yet because similar categories have not proliferated for other events (the only other one is Category:Places affected by Hurricane Katrina). However, even accounting for the magnitude of the Chile earthquake, there are countless events for which such categories could be created. Many places and structures routinely are affected by major natural and man-made events. Consider how many Places affected by Hurricane (Name) categories could be added to Miami, Havana, Jamaica, and many other places and structures. Consider how many Places affected by the (Name or year) wildfire categories could be added to settlements and counties in California; and how many Places affected by the (Name or year) flood, Places affected by the (Name or year) drought, Places affected by the (Name) earthquake, and so on... And there would be, in principle, no reason to not extend this categorization scheme beyond natural disasters: e.g. Category:Places affected by the Iraq War, Category:Places affected by World War II. The information conveyed by this type of category can be useful. However, for the reasons indicated, categorization is not a good way of conveying this information; what would be better is a list that provides details about the type and extent of the earthquake's effect on each individual place and structure. See List of populated places affected by the 2010 Haiti earthquake for an example of such a list. -- Black Falcon(talk) 01:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete per Black Falcon. "Affected" is far too vague a concept to make for stable categorisation, but a list can set and explain inclusion thresholds, and group entries by the degree and type of damage sustained. Note that I support retaining this sort of category as a quick-and-easy-way of grouping articles while details of the event are unfolding and content is being built. However it is now over a year since the 2010 Chile earthquake, and it's time to consolidate the data into a more encyclopedic format. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I created the cat but I agree, it's a waste of time. Ericoides (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Where the creator supports deletion, as immediately above, I think this warrants a speedy.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a few days old, then I'd accept that speedy deletion was appropriate. By by the time a categ is a month old (which this one is), I don't think it's fair to regard it as new or one-contributor-only, so I;d prefer to let this CFD run its course. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 28 March 2011 (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.
Rename the category was created before the organization changed its name to Brampton United (see article) and the category's name should match the article. Pichpich (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match parent article--Lenticel(talk) 01:33, 29 March 2011 (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:Speedy rename. Per C2C - convention of category tree. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per the nominator.Shyamsunder (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2011 (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: To say that one thing is critically acclaimed and another is a job for the critics, not for Wikipedia Quentin X (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment category is not tagged for deletion Hmains (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now tagged in these edits. I will now notify the category creator ... but the closing admin may want to consider letting this run for 7 days from the time of tagging. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:05, 31 March 2011 (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.
