Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 3

: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 Speedied by Lucky 6.9

Speedy. Bad cut and past used to create. Vegaswikian 20:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Deleted per creator's comments. Soltak | Talk 01:02, 4 January 2006 (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 K1Bond007 04:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As is being discussed on the talk page, there is no such thing as an "historically accurate film"; this category is useless. Adam Bishop 18:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• DeleteBenami 19:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination --ThreeAnswers 09:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. - Darwinek 09:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No argument. siafu 05:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. With the exception of documentaries, I don't think I've seen one entirely "historically accurate" film yet. Many of the films in the list are quite accurate anyway; I don't see why a small degree of artistic license qualifies the film to be branded as "inaccurate." If there were a crop of movies about the Germans winning World War II, then we can talk about a category for historically inaccurate films. Runnerupnj 16:33, 8 January 2006 (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 K1Bond007 04:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Dene-Caucasian languages is a contraversial (to say the least) grouping of languages. It doesn't make sense to use it for categorization. Languages already tend to be overcategorized, but adding categories for every language group ever proposed is over the border. --Pjacobi 16:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, "controversial" is a euphemism for "crackpot" here. No serious linguist believes in the Dene-Caucasian hypothesis, and it should not be encouraged by the presence of its own category. --Angr (t·c) 17:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — I have depopulated the category except for the Dene-Caucasian languages article. I did this because the category was inappropriate for the language articles to which it was appended. For example, placing Category:Dene-Caucasian language at the bottom of the Basque language article is inappropriate because the vast majority of linguists reject such a classification. Therefore, unless there are suddenly a large number of articles on the Dene-Caucasian hypothesis, language articles cannot be included in this category. The category is thus useless and should be deleted. --Gareth Hughes 17:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Angr. Nonsense. siafu 05:24, 5 January 2006 (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 K1Bond007 04:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

What on earth is a "Renaissance city??" Of the 4 currently listed, the great history of Venice, and her architecture, is medieval; Gaeta's history and monuments are Roman and medieval; Caltanissetta is hardly Renaissance, but later — and was not in any way notable in, or characteristic of, the Renaissance. Florence can be called a "Renaissance city" but equally well a medieval city. At any rate, very, very few cities, usually only small planned fortress-towns, could be called "Renaissance". The whole idea is bad. Delete. Bill 13:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete but the nominator's comments about Venice are not very accurate. A professional encyclopedia could have such a category, but it won't work here. CalJW 19:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Hmmmm, I live in Providence, Rhode Island, and we think we're a Renaissance city (at least, that's what the PR types downcity say):-) Delete Benami 19:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No argument. siafu 05:25, 5 January 2006 (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 K1Bond007 04:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Being replaced by :Category:Indian singers as per the norm in :Category:Singers by nationality. See Category talk:Indian vocalists. Shawnc 12:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds good. Let the switcheroo commence. JHMM13 (T | C) Image:Flag of the United States.svg Image:Flag of Germany.svg 21:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Already emptied, apparently. siafu 05:26, 5 January 2006 (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 Deleted by Kbdank71

Empty category, redundant with :Category:Infinity Broadcasting radio stations (which is to be renamed below) Delete. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. ×Meegs 17:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete...my first CfD vote :-). JHMM13 (T | C) Image:Flag of the United States.svg Image:Flag of Germany.svg 21:06, 3 January 2006 (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 K1Bond007 04:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Old name not necessary now that Infinity Broadcasting changed names several weeks ago. Rename. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge. No argument. siafu 05:27, 5 January 2006 (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 to :Category:CBS Radio stations K1Bond007 04:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the three stations listed here have no special ownership than any other radio station controlled by what's now CBS Corporation. Merge. (NOTE: The category to be merged to will actually be determined by the above CfR nomination.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC).

• Comment: Shouldn't this be merged to :Category:CBS radio stations per the above nomination? siafu 05:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Obviously, yes, considering that the category this is to be merged to is being merged into that one. This, of course, is what the disclaimer that begun with "NOTE:" meant. Just FYI. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:28, 5 January 2006 (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 K1Bond007 04:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

We already have an ABBA category. I don't think that starting categories for anything with a connection with a main category is particularly helpful - everything's related in someway to so many other things that the bottoms of articles would soon get very cluttered if this became common practice. CLW 00:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, that's what the "related changes" button is for. Radiantmeta:mergist 00:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Sufficiently related articles are already collected in :Category:ABBA. siafu 05:28, 5 January 2006 (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.