Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 9

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 17:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It is just a redirect to Category:Graphic novels. --Error 23:37, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy <>Who?¿? 00:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Hiding 20:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 list and delete --Kbdank71 17:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a totally unnecessary category, which contains a selected number of cases in which US Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia issued any kind of opinion, whether majority, concurrence or dissent. No similar categories exist for opinions of other Associate Justices nor of the Chief Justice, and having a category exclusively for the Scalia-watchers seems to me absurd. Whig 9 July 2005 09:42 (UTC)

• Keep Before we rush to delete this we should consider whether related categories for other justices with a certain philosophy or notable justices should be created. For example, a category on
  Brennan's opinions would all be useful. Perhaps 20 of the approximately 100 past and present justices would be worthy of such a category. NoSeptember^T
  9 July 2005 13:19 (UTC)

• Delete. This purpose is better served by an annotated list article, explaining what kind of opinion Scalia wrote in a case (majority, concurrence, dissent) and what position he took. The category isn't even properly named, because none of the articles are actually about his opinions—they are about SCOTUS decisions in which he happened to submit an opinion (and he rarely even writes the majority). "Category:Supreme Court cases in which Antonin Scalia submitted an opinion" would be the most accurate title for this, but I think absurd as a category name. Furthermore, the thing about categories is that creating one necessarily implies creating others just like it—there's really no way to limit that floodgates effect, so the end result would be every court decision article peppered with "Opinions of" categories. Think of what a mess Griswold v. Connecticut would be (six separate opinions). Lest anyone think that we should at least have categories for who wrote the majority opinion, the Justice who "presents" the opinion of the Court isn't always the one who actually wrote it. There's a lot of seniority and internal politics that determines who presents the majority. No "Opinions by" categories should be created. List articles are the way to go. Postdlf 9 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)

• Keep I see three criticisms here - that the category contains only a selected number of cases, that the category is not specific enough, and that no similar categories exist for opinions of other Associate Justices nor of the Chief Justice - which I will answer in turn.

I The fact that it contains only a limited number of Scalia cases if reflective of the fact that Justice Scalia has written >600 opinions, and not every single one currently has a Wikipedia entry. So that criticism is moot, in my view.

II Of those 600+, not every one of them is particularly good, or particularly important, and thus will not merit a Wikipedia entry. So maybe the category should be called something different - but what can it be called that isn't hopelessly cumbersome or POV? "Dissents of Justice Scalia" is too narrow a category (althugh that, too, would suffer fromt he problems I previously countered); "Masterworks of Justice Scalia" (which is essentially what the category is) sounds too POV. Thus, while this is a valid problem, I suggest it be resolved by suggesting an improvement, not nominating it for deletion. A bad article which can be improved is always better than no article at all.

III Lastly, not every Justice is equal in this regard. There will never be a category "opinions of Justice Peckham". Justice Cardozo may or may not have been a better legal mind than Justice Holmes, but the latter's opinions while on the SCOTUS bench have never been held in so high regard as the fomer. Likewise, C.J. Rehnquist may have been more important to the development of the court, and Justice O'Connor may have been more influential to the court's direction, but neither of their opinions are as widely read or widely cited as Justice Scalia's. I remember reading somewhere recently that upwards of 50% of all the citations of opinions of currently sitting justices are citations of one Justice: Scalia.

Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. I oppose the category's deletion; I would certainly agre that it could notionally be improved, but I think it has a valid place here. I also agree with NoSeptember's view on the creation of other categories for the great justices, and submit Justice Black's name to his proposed list. 63.134.135.42 9 July 2005 17:46 (UTC)

• Delete. Since I didn't express my position above, I'll do so here. I am in agreement with the opinion expressed by Postdlf. The opinion of the unregistered user 63.134.135.42 above is hardly to be regarded as impartial, indeed he admits that this category essentially is "Masterworks of Justice Scalia", an extremely POV position at best. Furthermore, the ultimate legacy of a sitting Associate Justice, unlike Benjamin Cardoza or Learned Hand, for instance, is still unknown. Whig 9 July 2005 17:56 (UTC)
• Delete See no need to even list, all of these cases are "listed" specifically on Antonin Scalia. So whether or not its POV/NPOV, opinion, etc.. it is evidentally the "opinion" of Scalia, as they were his rulings, and such listed on his article. No need to categorize. <>Who?¿? 22:00, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify any not listed yet, then delete. The cat serves no useful purpose in this case. -Splash 02:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify. Radiant_>|< 09:53, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Also, a new categry: Majority Opinions of Justice Scalia. Ebeisher 19:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Eh? It's not bad enough to have Opinions of..., maybe we should also have Majority Opinions of..., Concurring Opinions of... and Dissenting Opinions of... for Justice Scalia? These might make an interesting list, but probably best under the Antonin Scalia article, per Who. Whig 03:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• List and delete. Do we really need to add nine additional categories to every Supreme Court case? -Sean Curtin 00:22, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There is already Category:U.S. Supreme Court cases, I don't think we need to break it down further by who wrote the majority decision, or in alot of cases, the dissent. --Kbdank71 16:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this silly category. If only deleting that silly justice was so easy... -- Visviva 04:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, though this could make for an good article or list.
  siafu 00:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 17:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category is useless, deaths are categorized by year, and this used to be a redirect to

• Speedy delete. That article in question Gillo Pontecorvo, has been removed, improper use of Template:Lived created the bad categorization, and most likely the culprit for the creation of this category. The article has been fixed. I am also going to make a note on the template, to not use it, if there is not a dod (date of death). <>Who?¿? 22:06, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Either that means "date of death" or you're an agnostic with a head cold! ;) Grutness...wha? 00:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a little of both ;) <>Who?¿? 00:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Josh Parris ✉ 08:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.