Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 27#Category:Variance analysis

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The original research this user spammed across several articles, who created this category, is going to be deleted (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Developmental Smuggling Model (DSM)). Also, there are no articles in this category. - Centrx 23:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Empty. --Kbdank71 17:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 14:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Need a more suitable name for this area of economics/environment crossover. Open to suggestions, but status quo I think is not acceptable. Rd232 21:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Due to a reorganisation of the anatomy categories as per the wikipedia: WikiProject Preclinical Medicine. Contents moved to the hand category. PhatRita 21:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per the experts. :Category:Hand covers the topic better anyway.
• Delete per the anonymous edit above. Pavel Vozenilek 19:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; this is ridiculous. --User:Merovingian (t) (c) 04:32, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

68.46.186.13 decided to create this category after voting on Category:Toupee_Wearers_and_Hair_Transplants Cfd, which btw also removed the {{tl|Cfd}} tag from that cat. Unencyclopedic cat, I can not think of any celebs who are notable just for their hairpiece. Delete. ∞Who?¿? 20:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy as a recreate. --Kbdank71 20:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy per Kbdank71 and warn the user. -Splash 00:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• This is speedy category. Pavel Vozenilek 19:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. --User:Merovingian (t) (c) 04:32, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• I am speedying this for the following reasons:
• #This category was created against policies of CFD--i.e., moving articles before discussion is complete.
• #The previous category's discussion is nearly unanimous, and as such, this category violates the likely result of the previous CFD.
• #It would be bad precedent to allow such trivial categories to be created about people, and worse, allowed to hang around by allowing anon users to rename them during a vote.
• #I doubt anyone on that list would like to be remembered as famous for having a hairpiece.

---ssd 15:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

There's only one item under this category. Since the maker is defunct, there is no potential for growth. And the Rogue_Entertainment article serves this purpose fine, with a list of all 4 products from the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.239.215.48 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 27 July 2005 ∞Who?¿? 19:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I'll agree with the anon. If anyone wants to at some point write articles about the other three games that were made, the category can easily be recreated. --Kbdank71 20:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Whoops. I thought I was logged in. I apologize. --Taniwha
• Delete ∞Who?¿? 08:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Chicagoland highways was created initially by me, then I realized it wasn't clear... highway can mean more things than I intended. All moved to :Category:Chicago area expressways. --Rob 17:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Appears to be empty, and nothing links to it, so I imagine it to be redundant. - IMSoP 16:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, redundant with :Category:Information technology. -Splash 16:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is speedy candidate (as listed in deletion criteria page). Pavel Vozenilek 19:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied. --Kbdank71 17:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was discussion moved back to wikiproject mathematics --Kbdank71 14:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Present name inappropriate, most of the articles have nothing to do with the order of the sets they discuss. Furthermore, if Odd perfect number is ever an article by itself, we will be dealing with the somewhat vacuous concept of the null set as a sequence. Septentrionalis 15:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why it is a good idea to move the debate here, instead of keeping it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, where it originated. First of all, the category deals with conjectures, proofs, and other topics relating to integer sequences, its not just a list of integer sequences. So, yes, odd perfect number would be a valid article in this category. Next, (and strong disclaimer: I'm not an expert), but "properties of integers" sounds like a neologism to me; is this what the American Mathematical Society calls these things? Does this occur in the titles of books on the topic? I note that OLEIS stands for "Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences", and not "Online Encyclopedia of Properties of Numbers". Also, renaming this category fails to address the original questions that were posed and discussed: what is the correct name for the "category of articles dealing with number properties which are defined by means of the totient function" (there are about a dozen articles in that cat) and "category of articles dealing with number properties which are defined by the divisor function" (another dozen, maybe two, in that cat)? I vote to move the conversation back to WP:WPM where other mathematicians can participate in a reasonable discussion forum, instead of this Siberia of forced wiki-labor. linas 17:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Surely "properties of integers" is a considerably broader category. I've no idea whether that's appropriate (or better), I'm just pointing that out. Rd232 10:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 14:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

to fit in with all the other Cambridge colleges and just in case there is a St Catharine's College somewhere else. David | Talk 14:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Note, I moved this to the 27th from speedy. --Kbdank71 14:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Why? I'd say it's an obvious typo. David | Talk 14:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• It doesn't match any of the speedy criteria listed above. A typo would be changing colege to college. --Kbdank71 15:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• I'd call it a typo if you any words out of your sentences. David | Talk 15:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• I've moved this to the talk page. --Kbdank71 16:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Rename per nominator, but not speediable per talk page. -Splash 16:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Convert to list and delete category. RedWolf 06:31, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
• There's a list already at St Catharine's College, Cambridge. Personally I would rename the whole lot of them :Category:Alumni of Foo College, Cambridge rather than 'former students'. I'm still a member of St Catharine's College, and I'm still learning, albeit not at the college. David | Talk 09:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• I second that suggestion. (And for now I support the addition of "cambridge" here, as is standard.) Rd232 09:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• And I third it. I'm tempted to execute it by changing my vote above, but that would be rather disruptive. Once this is done, if the closing admin could remind me, I'll put together a blanket CfR for them. -Splash 00:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to match the articles title; St Catharine's College, Cambridge. Do not oppose listify. ∞Who?¿? 23:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Listify & delete. Also, should be 'alumni' rather than 'former students' (since I'm sure none of these people were transferred out or dropouts). Radiantmeta:mergist 16:17, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Listify and delete. Uppland 11:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• I didn't nominate it for deletion so these votes are null and void. David | Talk 11:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• No, they are not void. Otherwise, we'd have to renominate this for deletion and start the process over, which would be a waste of time. I vote to listify and delete. --ssd 05:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• What do you have against Catz that doesn't apply to the rest of Cambridge? Let me try to explain why your votes are null and void.
• # Someone starts creating categories for former students of Cambridge college.
• # When they get to Catz they accidentally drop the description "Cambridge" from the end of the category name.
• # I notice and nominate it for renaming as an obvious mistake.
• # It turns out that policy does not permit mistakes of even the most obvious kind to be rectified.
• # The nomination for renaming is then chucked in with the Categories for deletion, although it has not been nominated for deletion.
• # There is no rationale for deletion given; nor are any of the other Cambridge colleges nominated.

So if you want to propose the category for deletion, please do so, but you will have to propose all of them at the same time. They must stand or fall as a collection. This individual category is simply proposed for renaming; due to technical limitations or a decision not to have a separate Categories for Renaming other than speedy page, it just happens to be on here. If it is deleted I will recreate it under the correct name. David | Talk 08:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• You just don't get the idea of a consensus, do you? At the rate this is going between the renames and the listifies, there isn't going to be a consensus, and the category will stay as is. --Kbdank71 17:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with David. The question at issue is whether to rename a category to fit the standard naming convention for categories of that class. Suggestions to delete the category entirely are, in both the logical and usual sense, absurd, and therefore void. Those who feel strongly about this voidness may propose modifications to the entire class, wherever that's appropriate. In the mean time, this proposal cannot reasonably be opposed. Somebody just do it, and then suggestions for "Former students" -> "Alumni" and for Listification can be discussed for the entire class (whatever that class is; Cambridge alumni? all alumni?). Rd232 18:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 14:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I would like this moved to :Category:Hills of Dorset please. All the other sub-categories in :Category:Mountains and hills of the United Kingdom use "of" not "in". Grinner 14:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Rename for consistency. But please do call in on the discussion at Wikipedia:Category titles which is a related question. -Splash 16:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was suspend per outcome of titles debate --Kbdank71 14:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

This was placed in speedy by User:Vsion. Doesn't exactly follow speedy guidelines, so I'm moving it down here. --Kbdank71 14:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Suspend debate (or equivalently do not rename) pending outcome of Wikipedia:Category titles discussion. (And not speediable, per Kbdank71.) -Splash 16:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Rename per outcome of category titles debate, but "educationist" is not acceptable. siafu 13:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Empty category that had 2 articles which belonged to Accounting category. In any case it should have not existed in the first place. Too narrow and small category. Renata3 13:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator; redundant. -Splash 16:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Capitalisation aside the name is totaly misleading, only survivors of the fire are listed. Anyway there are only two articles in the category (the main article mention 3 survivors, don't know how many thre where though) so I think it would be best to just delete and listify as "List of survivors of the General Slocum fire" (a "List of people killed in the General Slocum fire" (over 1,000 people aparently) would also make sence if anyone can find the list anywhere (the article link to a list on commons, but it's empty and up for deletion there). --Sherool 13:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Not so sure about the lisfitying anymore, only 2 survivors mentioned (although there should be hundreds, including the whole crew) and they are mentioned in the main article, although there might be some potential for growth for such a list. As for the list of killed people I found it on Wikisource:List of General Slocum victims, so I see no need to duplicate that list here. I'll just fix the interwiki link in the main article. --Sherool 13:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No argument. siafu 14:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

No precedent for this sort of cat, as far as I know. Agentsoo 13:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

:Delete If this caught on there would eventually be terrible category clutter in some actors' articles. It's much better to explain significant actor/director relationships in articles, as they can be put into context there. Osomec 02:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Osomec. siafu 14:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 13:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The category was created today, but the idea behind seems nonsensical. Every second monarch should be listed in this category. What's the point? --Ghirlandajo 10:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I made this category; having one figure singled out as a city founder is rare. Your reasoning of "every second monarch should be listed in this category" is in itself nonsensical, by that reasoning Category:Monarchs or Category:Cities in Louisiana could be deleted because they would have hundred of entries.- JCarriker 10:55, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This looks like a valid category. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems interesting. Agentsoo 13:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Not distinctive; most Greek and many American cities had founders, real or mythical; and we've already included Brutus of Troy's completely spurious founding of London. Will be larger than the number of cities in Wikipedia. Septentrionalis 15:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — the problems cited by Septentrionalis are very true, as is the nomination. E.g. in the UK, the monarch hands out city status and thus is the founder of all cities. This will only lead to fights over who did/not found the city. Plus, I'm not convinced this is especially interesting (by which I presume is meant "encyclopedic) as a cat. Also, 'city' is a risky choice of word: is 'hamlet/town/village/city' what is really meant? -Splash 16:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for various reasons stated above. This has potantial to grow without any limit and worst: there's no clear way how to separate it into subcategories: Greek cities?, Ancient Greek Cities?, Is Taranto Greek or Italian? Pavel Vozenilek 19:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

: The /idea/ is very interesting and encyclopedia worthy but it should be rather series of articles. Cities were often founded by groups of refugees/colonists/monks/etc and within some historical context. A category doesn't allow such subtleties and give any context information. Pavel Vozenilek 19:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

: I'll give example: city of Terezín (now Czech Republic), founded 1780 as military fortress. Who was founder: emperor?, a clerk in war office who picked the place? , designer of the fortress?, the serfs forced to work on this? There could be very informative article listing cities founded as military structures, with lot of historical background. Name category doesn't help. Pavel Vozenilek 19:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep idea seems interesting and worthwhile. There are too many great figures in history (i.e. Alexander the Great, King Solomon, and Peter the Great) that have been related to this that it is nonsensical to delete it. Dbraceyrules 20:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe an interesting topic for an article but the category looks like typical Wikipedia List Disease. Rd232 09:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with Pavel, this is going to grow until it is unusable. --Kbdank71 17:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; this seems worthwhile. --User:Merovingian (t) (c) 04:28, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting category on historical key figures. UH Collegian 04:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting and worthwhile. — Instantnood 14:17, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• For all those who said something along the lines of "interesting" and/or "worthwhile", may I ask why you think so? How will this be interesting or worthwhile if, as pointed out, it gets populated with thousands of names? --Kbdank71 17:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. However this category was intended by JCarriker I doubt it's gonna end up in a sensible form. Just thinking locally, Peacehaven and Welwyn Garden City are a couple of examples, and the US being much more recently populated must have hund... thousands of towns that have recorded founders, notable or otherwise. --zippedmartin 20:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Septentrionalis. siafu 14:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting and worthwhile as long as the articles themselves are encyclopedic. — (To Kbdank71: The number of articles is irrelevant – or else we sould delete :Category:Explorers, too.) — Sebastian (talk) 19:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Looks like a useful category. It's no problem if old cities have no clear founders (having multiple claims) - even newer cities don't have clear founders. The false claims will be removed in time. Also if getting too big this can be broken up by most popular nationalities or founding centuries. feydey 22:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Empty miscapitalisation of :Category:Urban studies and planning. Agentsoo 09:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy renamed Zzyzx11 (Talk) 10:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Empty miscapitalisation of :Category:Taiwanese writers. Agentsoo 09:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy renamed Zzyzx11 (Talk) 10:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Can I invite interested particpators over to Wikipedia:Category titles? -Splash 16:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Empty cat written as an article. Already well covered in Silent Hill and related. Agentsoo 09:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, it's empty and the subject is covered in List of Silent Hill characters. --Sherool 14:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Question, how does this come to be empty when there are cats for many other works of fiction characters? It must surely have been populated at some point? -Splash 16:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, not nessesarily List of Silent Hill characters have been around since May, the category was created in June, and even the first version of the category just listed a bunch of characters in the category text. I see no evidence seperate articles about the characters have ever existed (no articles on theyr names at least). The person who created the category have probably just seen such categories for other games but been confused over the nature of a category. --Sherool 12:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Sherool. siafu 14:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Even the guy who started it seems to see it as just a joke. MK2 07:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, excessively silly. Also, POV. --Yamla 09:47, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Joke category. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. Punkmorten 12:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete absurdity. -Splash 16:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• This should be speedy to save time of people here. Pavel Vozenilek 19:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Deletions should be thought over not rushed through. This case doesn't qualify as a speedy deletion - it's not nonsense, it's not derogatory, it's not redundant, it's not misspelled or ungrammatical, and it's not empty. So we'll go through the proper process. MK2 21:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• That sounds like following procedure for the sake of following procedure to me. The creator of the category wrote on it "a totally POV page", and "delete if you must", clearly nobody is going to want this kept, so why wait? (by the way, I think we should delete.) -- Joolz 22:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Because while I agree (obviously) that this particular category should be and will be deleted, I have seen cases in which some people appear to use speedy deletion is a means to bypass a general discussion and the possibility that their opinion might not prevail. The process is important. MK2 01:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy. Not nonsense?? --Kbdank71 18:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• The two women listed in the category are both generally considered attractive and they do have overbites. So it may be trivial and subjective, but it's not nonsense. MK2 05:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete MK2 is right. Follow the procedure. DJ Clayworth 19:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and although I don't know if there is a speedy policy that covers this, the vote so far is unanimous. --ssd 14:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• To answer your question, yes, there is a policy on speedy deletions and what you did violated it. I swear, some people seem to treat Wikipedia like it's some kind of cancerous tumor that needs to be reduced as quickly as possible by whatever means are available. MK2 02:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• And some people want to keep every piece of crap that gets created, what's your point? So far there has not been one person who said keep. On the extreme offchance this swings the other way, the category will be undeleted and repopulated. That said, even though I think it's nonsense, that itself doesn't qualify it for speedy, and it should have been given a week for discussion. --Kbdank71 17:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• If you are not sure what the policy is, surely you ought not to be deleting on the basis of it? -Splash 02:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Empty cat, and unnecessary; already well covered elsewhere like :Category:Australian crime figures. Mobsters isn't a word often used in Australia either. -- Longhair | Talk 04:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC) 00:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vernacularly named cats. -Splash 16:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Osomec 02:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was soft redirect already added --Kbdank71 13:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Empty cat, and unnecessary; already well covered elsewhere. Agentsoo 00:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Where? I mean in the "why isn't there an overarching group like this that includes churches, mosques etc etc?" sense. How does it come to be empty?-Splash 16:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Seems to be duplicated with :category:religious buildings. — Instantnood 14:12, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and redirect to :Category:Religious buildings. It seems like a "logical" name, so it might just get recreated otherwise. --Sherool 23:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• {{tl|Categoryredirect}} added. — Instantnood 08:01, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 13:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The only notable ones are already well catered for in :Category:Motorcycle gangs. Empty cat and likely to remain so. Agentsoo 00:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

:Mmmmm. Not entirely convinced. "Gangs" has a different connotation. The Hell's Angels is a gang; the Harley Riders' Association is a club. I'd have seen gangs as a subcat of clubs rather than as a synonym for it. Grutness...wha? 01:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as per Grutness. Harley Owners Group isn't a gang. (I fixed the cat listing, it's clubs with an S). --Kbdank71 18:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above. Osomec 02:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Grutness. siafu 14:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Miscapitalisation of Indian forts. When-o-when will we have cat redirects? Agentsoo 00:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy renamed to :Category:Indian forts. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 10:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

This cat was being moved. All articles have now been moved so we can delete it. Agentsoo 00:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Are there any notable hills in England? I live there and can't think of any. Category is empty, unparented, and no other countries have an equivalent cat. Agentsoo 00:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and populate. The Wrekin, Brown Clee Hill, Yes Tor... There are plenty of notable hills in England (those three are off the top of my head, and I don't even live in the country!). A quick glance at List of Marilyns in England will give you quite a number of potential candidates. (Hmmm. No article on Yes Tor...?). Grutness...wha? 01:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Why not create :Category:Puddles in England then? --Ghirlandajo 10:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, we have :Category:Mountains and hills of England. Grinner 09:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Ghirlandajo 10:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Grinner. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Grinner. Punkmorten 12:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Grinner. Otherwise I would have voted keep per Grutness. -Splash 16:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep iff there's a proposal to split mountains and hills (shouldn't it be "hills of England" for geographical features?). — Instantnood 19:44, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Grinner. --Kbdank71 18:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Grinner, do not oppose Instantnood's suggestion, but too few at this time, unless populated further before end of Cfd. ∞Who?¿? 23:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a category with one member, and the content of the member is on the category page. Not to mention the actual name/potential contents of the article itself... [[smoddy]] 21:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.