Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 6

: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 13:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Under the misapprehension that Minnesota, like some other states, placed its images in the public domain, I created Template:PD-MNGov. (Whichever images of the MN government are in the public domain, it's not true of all of them.) I learned that I was mistaken about this and did depopulate it (eventually), placing it in Templates for deletion. By then, someone had seen it, I gather, and had created this category under the same mistaken assumptions and linking to the template I'd created. It's not of my own creation so I can't ask for a speedy delete, but it is depopulated except for some explanatory text (there is also a page that links to it, apparently). (At best to keep as a category of images that are in the public domain and produced by the MN government, of course, but with the assumption that they are-unless-shown-otherwise removed, etc. ...) Schissel : bowl listen 22:52, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Explanation sounds reasonable to me. Sebastian (talk) 06:32, 2005 Jun 10 (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 13:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The North Carolina category does not contain any articles, and its only subcategories are the Cary and Durham categories. The Cary and Durham categories each contain the current members of the respective municipality's governing council, as well as the mayor of the respective municipality. None of these people have done anything notable, except for holding local office. I believe that recent VfD discussions have strongly favored deleting articles written about such persons (and I have nominated all but the mayors for VfD). There is no reason that Wikipedia should include categories filled only with articles that ought to be deleted. NatusRoma 22:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Keep. If history is any guide the articles on the city councillors will be kept and the categories will then still be needed. - SimonP 01:16, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Listify since most people in such cats are unlikely to get a non-stub article. Radiant_* 07:07, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Listify. Agree with Radiant%21 ;-) Sebastian (talk) 06:35, 2005 Jun 10 (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 13:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rename to :Category:Food utensils to make it more inclusive (forks, knives, etc. are not preparation utensils). Neutrality^talk 17:44, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Rename as per Neutrality. Sebastian (talk) 06:52, 2005 Jun 10 (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 13:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This category should be deleted for the same reasoning as :Category:Conservative Parties of Canada below. This particular category is additionally confusing because it may infer to someone new to Canadian politics that all parties contained here are formally affiliated with each other, which is incorrect. Kurieeto 09:01, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, same reason as below. Radiant_* 09:32, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• And btw what would you say about :Category:Canadian socialist organizations? Radiant_* 09:37, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• What about replacing it with :Category:Political parties subscribing to liberalism policy in Canada? 132.205.45.148 19:10, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I don't see a slanted POV, as it does not ascribe any political leanings to the included parties, for people to argue the objectivity about calling a party liberal or not. 132.205.45.148 19:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• POV or no, I still see no reason to subcategorize 'Canadian political parties', since there aren't that many of them really. Radiant_* 07:12, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: The category is relevant and big enough to live on its own, and I don’t think the POV issue will kill us. However, I don’t know much about the subject, so there’s a chance to convince me to abstain. Sebastian (talk) 06:53, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
• Delete, as unnecessary categorization. --NormanEinstein 03:26, Jun 13, 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 13:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, but extremely verbose title. We could probably come up with a more concise one. Radiant_* 10:34, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC) I originally listed this for renaming, but a lot of people voted to delete it. So I've replaced the CFR tag with a CFD tag now, and moved the discussion to the top just to make sure it gets enough time here. Abstain. Radiant_* 07:37, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

It's a poor idea. Articles are not improved by having their "significance" explained. They are improved by editors' not spending their time here slapping rather rude tags onto articles, and instead communicating with the articles' originators directly and actively improving the article. Cue six or seven deletionists who will explain the vital role this tag plays in making them feel all powerful. Grace Note 06:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Agree with Grace Note (it happens from time to time). Either an editor should make the minimal efforts required to determine whether a subject is significant, or he should go off and does something else. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I don't know about anyone else, but I don't need a tag to feel all-powerful. Delete. --Kbdank71 17:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Same fate as the template. Good point. --Kbdank71 15:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Hold. This category exists only to list articles with Template:explain-significance. The latter is on TFD. Thus, please comment to avoid fragmenting the discussion. This cat should be deleted iff the template is deleted. Radiant_* 11:04, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• I agree. Many, many articles could be imporved if Wikipedia could explain it's significance. But it can't.
• Same fate as the template. As per Radiant!. --cesarb 20:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Same fate as the template. Sebastian (talk) 06:57, 2005 Jun 10 (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 13:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The creator of this category designed it to include "parties with the name Conservative in Canada, and not for the categorization of politically right parties, or conservatism-subscribing parties, unless they are a Conservative Party".

The subject of political parties in Canada with the word "Conservative" in their official name is not notable enough to merit a category on Wikipedia. The category as it exists now is confusing, as one could find it and assume that it is a category for political parties in Canada that have a conservative ideology, which it is not. For example, this category could not include the Reform Party of Canada, a major conservative political party in Canada in the 1990s.

Additionally, as User:Saforrest pointed out on the Category talk:Conservative Parties of Canada page, should we also have categories for political parties in Canada that have the word "Bloc" or "Democratic" in their name? I feel this category should be deleted for the above reasons. Kurieeto 02:37, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I don't think any country in existence has so many political parties that they need to be subcategorized beyond 'parties in '. Especially since subcatting them would tend towards POV. Radiant_* 07:21, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• What about replacing it with :Category:Political parties subscribing to conservatism policy in Canada? 132.205.45.148 19:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I don't see a slanted POV, as it does not ascribe any political leanings to the included parties, for people to argue the objectivity about calling a party conservative or not. 132.205.45.148 19:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (or rename as proposed by 132.205.45.148): The category is relevant and big enough to live on its own, and I don’t think the POV issue will kill us. However, I don’t know much about the subject, so there’s a chance to convince me to abstain. Sebastian (talk) 06:56, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
• Delete. As Radiant! mentioned, it seems to be unnecessary subcategorization. --NormanEinstein 03:23, Jun 13, 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.