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 or Add New. Assisted suicide is too general of a category name for what could be more accurately described as physician-assisted suicide. For example, William Francis Melchert-Dinkel assisted in others' suicides and is a criminal. His actions are in no way related to physician-assisted suicide is legal in two US states, Oregon & Washington, under their Death with Dignity laws. I suggest renaming the category Category:Assisted suicide to be physician-assisted suicide and to remove Mr. Melchert-Dinkel from the category. Melissathebarber (talk) 15 September 2010
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. Jafeluv (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete - through a series of recent AFDs the contents of the category have all been deleted or redirected as lacking independent notability. Category is not needed for the episode list. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sole article is sufficiently categorized.--Lenticel(talk) 23:57, 16 September 2010 (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:Upmerge. Jafeluv (talk) 12:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: overcategorisation emerson7 19:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge - to all parents. small category with no growth potential (or at least not much; I assume there aren't that many hotels at the resort). Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge - to all parents. (We do this because an article in a subcat is automatically in the parent cat, and a straight 'delete' loses this info.) Occuli (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An article in a subcat is not automatically in the parent cat. Nice try. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2010 (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. Nothing has been added to this category to suggest it will be more broadly used than it was in July.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: overcategorisation emerson7 19:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – this has been discussed at cfd recently, where it survived despite my own views. It fails WP:OCAT#Eponymous, as can be seen by the random collection of articles that have been collected (for which we have 'What links here'). Occuli (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i didn't see the previous discussion before nominating today, and i'm not sure i would have had it noticed it. however, my guess is that it will not be the last time it appears here, and i reaffirm my nomination.--emerson7 21:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I try not to look back to see what happens in cfd (to avoid tiresome exchanges) and am surprised to see this one survived. It depends to some extent on who turns up. (File:MattJanse&Fiance.jpeg is rather a stretch.) Occuli (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (f we're considering this again). I still think this fails Wikipedia:OC#EPONYMOUS, for the reasons set out by Occuli. I suppose it's fine to consider this again since the last discussion was closed as no consensus. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons stated in the previous discussion, and on the grounds that it is too soon to bring this up for discussion again. MissionInn.Jim (talk)
If there is no consensus one way or the other at the end of a discussion how can it ever be "too soon" to raise the issue again? Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "too soon" wasn't the right choice of words, but if no significant change has occurred in the Wikipedia Style Guide, it wastes time bringing up the same items for discussion. There are many more important things to clean up on Wikipedia. Although you can win a point by repeatedly bringing it up and wearing people down, or waiting until you get the answer you desire, taking that approach will discourage Wikipedia contributors, and undermine on-going efforts to retain contributors.
I admit the Mission Inn category is likely to be of interest to a small number of people, but helpful even so. I also believe in standards. The bottom line should be whether or not the Mission Inn category is useful. It is unclear to me if those against the category are blindly applying a standard, or taking time to consider if the category is useful to readers and editors of Wikipedia.
As stated in the previous discussion, if it is deleted now, I believe in the long term the Mission Inn category will be added back. Wikipedia is still very young. Unless Wikipedia fades away into obscurity in the next 10 or 20 years, many more articles will be added, and categories will continue to become more and more specific. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the bottom line is whether or not it is useful. Many things are useful but are not included in WP. My vote is based on the standard for categories, part of which is set out in Wikipedia:OC#EPONYMOUS, which this category appears to me to fail. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - upon reviewing the previous CFD I find the arguments for deletion to be much more compelling than those for keeping. Loose association of articles which can be adequately interlinked through the text of the various articles. While three months may seem a bit soon for opening a second CFD there is no minimum timeframe requirement between discussions. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 05:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still Delete as OCAT and loosely held cat--Lenticel(talk) 23:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still Delete I can only reiterate my opposition to this category. As stated above, it does indeed seem to be a fairly random grouping and a misuse of our category structure as a kind of 'What links here'. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2010 (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:Electronic sports players who are deceased[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:Delete. To be an electronic sports player and to be dead is not notable, death will happen to everyone, eventually. Tassedethe (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I think we have categories for sportspeople who died while (or as a direct result of) competing but this is an intersection of unrelated events. Occuli (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Occuli is correct, we categorize sportspeople who died while engaged in their sport but do not otherwise categorize them as dead sportspeople. I think there were a slew of dead wrestler categories a while back that all got deleted. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 05:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining characteristic.--Lenticel(talk) 23:54, 16 September 2010 (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:Chiropractors who are college presidents[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:Delete. Overcategorization. All these people are correctly categorized separately as chiropractors and college presidents. Tassedethe (talk) 09:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and use as a textbook example of trivial intersection. Occuli (talk) 09:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless intersection. Roscelese (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OCAT--Lenticel(talk) 23:55, 16 September 2010 (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:Theatres in the Palestinian territories[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. Jafeluv (talk) 11:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. It already has a non-existent parent cat of "Cinema of the Palestinian territories" which could be replaced with the renaming.--NortyNort(Holla) 11:21, 16 September 2010 (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. — ξxplicit 08:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unlikely to expand; company owns a few shopping centers but almost all have proven too small for articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:50, 15 September 2010 (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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 25#Category:Assisted suicide. — ξxplicit 08:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)