Category:National Football League players with multiple rushing titles[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:TRIVIALCAT, while this category may be interesting, it is trivial to their overall career. TM 19:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and then delete -- This sounds as if it is in the nature of an AWARD categpry, which we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2018 (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. There are only three articles on Wikipedia which fall into this category, and since Lenar is now defunct, it is unlikely that that number will grow. The parent article has already been deleted due to lack of independent notability.Martin IIIa (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ReykYO! 10:23, 1 February 2018 (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:Cultural depictions of Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener[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:keep, without prejudice to removing pages which are inappropriately categorised here, e.g. passing mentions rather than actual depoictions. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While WP:SMALLCAT is a bit vague as to what constitutes a small category, I believe this one may qualify. DonIago (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – these seem to be 'pages which mention Kitchener'. Oculi (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: These are instances of Lord Kitchener being portrayed in popular culture, by actors, as a sculpture, as part of an illustration, in novels,... and provide insight in the historical and cultural impact he has had. - User:Kjell Knudde, 3:37, 26 January 2018 (CET).
Why not have both a navbox and a category?--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in my nomination, it appeared that this might be a WP:SMALLCAT. I leave it to consensus to decide whether that's a legitimate concern or not. DonIago (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I had always thought SMALLCAT applied to categories with no potential to grow beyond five articles, but reading it over again, I noticed some of the examples it cites included 7-10 articles. This does make me wish SMALLCAT was less vague, and perhaps gave some rationale; it's easy to see why a category with just two articles is useless, but the problem with a category having "only" ten articles is less obvious (to me, at least). But back on topic, surely this particular category has realistic potential for growth?--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much of a horse in the race either way, but thought it seemed like enough of a potential case that it should be brought here for discussion. I'd be happy to see SMALLCAT clarified, though I'm doubtful as to whether that will happen. No idea as to whether Kitchener's likely to receive additional cultural depictions at any point in the near or far future. I do think a navbox may be a better approach regardless. DonIago (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The most frequently used cut-off is 5 articles, I wouldn't mind if that would be explicitly mentioned in the guideline, as a best practice. This category is much better populated, hence keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Bit of a conundrum for me here. I'm fine with self-closing this (is that permitted?) on the premise that SMALLCAT is intended to only be applied to cats of five items or fewer, but I'm reluctant to do so only to have that interpretation not end up making it into the guideline. In other words, I wouldn't want to close this as not applicable under SMALLCAT if the actual consensus for SMALLCAT ended up at, say, 20 items or fewer. Hope that makes sense! DonIago (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I counted 14 articles, which should be enough, though I suspect that his connection with a few may be peripheral. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've started a discussion here to try to get some clarity around what constitutes a small cat. Again, I'm neutral on this specific category, but I do think it should be more clear when a category does or doesn't become problematic for having too few members. DonIago (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.... but there's a problem here. The threshold for inclusion in this category appears to be "he was referenced", which doesn't pass WP:CATDEF. Nobody would describe Around the World in 80 Days (2004 film) or Entente cordiale (film) as being films about Lord Kitchener, right? Removing those items would probably result in this being a small enough category for people to say "it's a small category".... thing is, WP:SMALLCAT actually prescribes keeping categories that could grow. Could there be more cultural depictions of Lord Kitchener in the future? Or could we be missing some that are already out there? Absolutely. This isn't a closed-ended category with no future. — Warren. ‘ talk , 00:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep hardly a "small" category Hugo999 (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2018 (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: This category is populated with albums not the artists as suggest by its name, and there's no real connection between the albums themselves outside of the novelty that they were the only albums released by whatever artist recorded them. If kept, the name needs to be changed to accurately reflect its content or the content needs to be changed to fit the title. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Here is a CfD from October 2009 for a similar category and the same issues presented here were discussed. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Personally, I don't like this category, and I was considering nominating this one myself. But if we understand it as it's used and not as it's written – that is, as "Albums that are the only studio album by an artist" – it does seem to be a defining characteristic of the albums: when they're mentioned, they're usually referred to as “[x]'s only studio album”, not unlike debut albums. It strikes me as overcategorization, and I don't want to make an OTHERSTUFF argument, but if "debut" counts as a defining characteristic, I don't see why "only" wouldn't as well. -- irn (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Nothing wrong with this category. I did my investigation through other sources such as Rolling Stone magazine. Oculi (talk, Talk to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by DougXavierCan (talk • contribs) 15:25 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Delete, studio album count is not a defining characteristic of a musician. Also, the use of "only" is weird. Also, we don't use the word artists to refer to bands or solo musicians. Also, why have a "one" article but not a "two", "three", "four", or even "zero"? Also, would the category apply to Vinnie Colaiuta, who has one studio album in his own name but literally dozens of studio album credits with other bands? — Warren. ‘ talk , 03:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
why have a "one" article but not a "two", "three", "four", or even "zero"? That's a good point. Just like with "debut", you could say "second" or "third" is a similarly defining characteristic in the way I argued above. This is making me think that maybe we should delete "Debut albums" as well. -- irn (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting thought, but I'm not sure if I agree -- being the first work of an artist could be considered a defining characteristic of that work, especially if it establishes the notability of the artist and their related works. But on the other hand, yeah, why categorize debut albums but not, say, Category:Final albums? Could make for an interesting CFD discussion. — Warren. ‘ talk , 00:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whether populated by the albums or by the artists who record them, this is not a defining characteristic. As Irn pointed out, while such albums usually are identified as the artist's only album when mentioned, that doesn't make it a defining characteristic. A good illustration of this is to consider what happens when an artist releases a second album. Their first album would have originally been put in this category, and would be removed from it when the second album came out, but you wouldn't say that the nature of either the artist or their first album had been changed by the release of the second.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a defining characteristic. Also, most entries are not artists but albums.--☾Loriendrew☽☏(ring-ring) 02:08, 30 January 2018 (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.
Comment, most previous "terminology" discussions have led to an upmerge, basically per rationale of nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I often work on articles on specific words and terms, and I am not familiar with any such rule. Dimadick (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, there are articles about words and terms, but these articles are not about words, but about concepts. Nikola (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2018 (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: DMOZ is no longer active, so these Wikipedians really can't contribute. – S. Rich (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, of the 30 users listed in the category, only 12 have been active contributors in the last 12 months. All 12 have gotten a notice about this CfD. – S. Rich (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)05:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Curlie.org, the successor to DMOZ, is active, although it's possible that not all formerly active editors are aware of it, as "we" haven't got editor e-mail working. On the other hand, this category never met the current criteria in Wikipedia:User categories. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 05:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the 12, I have no objections. 15:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Gerald Tan (talk)
Delete - Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. It does not benefit Wikipedia to know which users happen to contribute to another website. VegaDark (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even forgot about DMOZ after all these years... GastelEtzwane (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, did a quick head-count and it looks like there are just three active Wikipedians who have this category on their user pages. Most of them rest of them haven't been here this decade. — Warren. ‘ talk , 03:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, (For some years I was an active editor at DMoz.) I'm not sure this category would have ever been particularly useful. Many, if not most of the editors there, as well as here, chose to remain anonymous (me included), just as they do here. So the category would never have been close to complete, was not verifiable, and was of interest to extremely few people. Now that DMOZ is gone, there is even less of a reason to keep this category. – 2*6 (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2018 (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.
