Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 11

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 13:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rename to Category:Battles and operations of the Vietnam War and Category:Battles and operations of World War II to be consistant with the other subcategories of Category:Battles by war. Neutrality^talk 05:25, Jun 12, 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 13:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For the subcategories of Category:Airports. More logical. Neutrality^talk 05:00, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I could see doing this if we had a mix of each, for consistency. But they're all the same, and I don't think we'll gain anything by making the change. --Kbdank71 14:02, 13 Jun 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 13:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see the point in

• Reuse for "Cat[egory] training and behavior". Categories show some interesting behavior, and it takes some training to make them behave.
  Seriously, though: The cat[egory] has obviously been named to match Category:Dog training and behavior. Cats do show a lot of behavior, and you can e.g. toilet train them. Therefore:
  Keep. — Sebastian (talk) 20:47, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
• Delete. There exists some precedent for training cats, but that's only enough to justify one article, not to fill a whole category. Radiant_>|< 08:23, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Good point. We should distinguish two questions:
    • Is a category needed at all? There are some articles on behavior (
      Cat body language
      – I'd categorize them if we weren't just discussing the deletion). Changing my vote to abstain since I'm reluctant to fight for categories that fit only 2 articles.
    • Should it be renamed? If we keep the category then I'd like to keep the name for consistency; it doesn't hurt to include something that exists only potentially. — Sebastian (talk) 18:41, 2005 Jun 14 (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 13:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For the same reasons as peer categories previously nominated on June 5. -- Beland 20:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. For the record, though, the other cats nominated on June 5 didn't make consensus. I'm agreeing with this one because it's empty. --Kbdank71 14:01, 13 Jun 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 13:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. There's only one airport in Lebanon, and only one article about airport-related articles in lebanon, so no need for a category.500LL 19:21, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep to preserve the standard setup. Neutrality^talk 05:00, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Neutrality's comment. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:06, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - there are more airports coming, and if we don't categorize them now, then doing later will be much harder. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 19:24, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for above reasons. Broad categorization schemes will inevitably have underpopulated members, the exclusion of which hinders the functionality of the overall scheme. Postdlf 08:00, 15 Jun 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 13:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Unencyclopedic, POV, absence of context. zen master T 07:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - inherently arbitrary. - SimonP 00:46, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vague. Neutrality^talk 04:59, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Its French for "Famous Causes", I'm guessing they want the people/celebs cat'd if they have participated in noteworthy causes. Not really sure how this would work, unless each "cause" was a sub cat. <>Who?¿? 18:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vague Gorrister 11:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't like this one either. Postdlf 08:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, has no purpose --U.U. 18:28, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. It isn't vague; it's a well known French term in common English usage which means "Famous case" (not "Famous cause"). A cause célèbre is defined in its own article. It's not arbitrary: for something to be a cause célèbre, it must be a long-running case in which the public is involved on one side or the other, preferably both, and which is an exemplar of a particular phenomenon of human society. That is what distinguishes it from merely a well-known law case. David | Talk 23:45, 17 Jun 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 13:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The contents have been moved to Category:Symphonies by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart to match the naming scheme that has been agreed on in Category:Compositions by composer. — Pladask 09:31, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Sebastian (talk) 20:51, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
• Delete. This vote is perhaps redundant when content had moved to generally agreed cat. Pavel Vozenilek
  • I agree, but it didn't match the speedy deletion criteria. Perhaps opening for this kind of speedy deletion should be considered. — Pladask 18:21, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd vote for that! Sebastian (talk) 18:45, 2005 Jun 14 (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.