Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 2
- 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 19:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a useless category. All sports are invented sports, and this category seems neither informative or useful. Wikibofh 23:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Rather senseless. Next will be "written books", "discovered inventions", and "people who were born." Postdlf 08:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. -- Lochaber 13:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Please read Invented sport. The great majority of sports are "traditional", rather than invented historically by a specific person or group for a specific purpose.--Pharos 06:08, 9 May 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 delete --Kbdank71 19:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now empty category, with hard redirect to Category:Ottawa. RussBlau 23:01, May 2, 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 19:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now empty category, duplicative of Category:Biodiversity hotspots. RussBlau 22:50, May 2, 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 "Muckrackers" and "contemporary muckrackers", no consensus on "early muckrackers" --Kbdank71 19:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They're all misspelt, of course, but the term "muckraker" is PoV and (despite the rosy picture painted in the Wikipedia article, which conflicts with all the other reference works at which I've looked) negative. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. --Kbdank71 13:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Muckraker is not really negative; although "just a muckraker" could be negative today, "a great muckraker" is an expression one finds very often. There is a huge gulf between socially-conscious investigative journalism and scandal-sheet reporting. I think "muckraker" may sometimes be used rather loosely in a contemporary context for the latter, but this is not the meaning in a historical context. Keep at least for 'Early muckrackers' which is a well defined historical group of investigative journalists in the U.S., although perhaps this should be renamed to Category:U.S. Progressive Era muckrakers or something like that.--Pharos 22:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete, although I see the sense in renaming the second one as Pharos suggests. -Sean Curtin 01:28, May 6, 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 19:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Should be renamed category:British rule in Hong Kong, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalisation). — Instantnood 21:29, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Doesn't this qualify as speedy? --Kbdank71 13:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles moved, this cat is now an orphan please speedy euthanize SchmuckyTheCat 18:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted. James F. (talk) 00:15, 5 May 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 delete --Kbdank71 19:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Zero articles under this category. --minghong 18:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Redundant, empty and meaningless category. --Mecanismo 08:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I suspect the original intent was to categorize ANSI standards, in which case there already exists Category:ANSI standards. RedWolf 23:52, May 7, 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 19:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant of Category:Artistic techniques, to which I've moved all articles, so Visual art techniques is now an empty category. --sparkit (talk) 14:31, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment From above: Unless the category to be deleted is non-controversial – vandalism or a duplicate, for example – please do not depopulate the category (remove the tags from articles) before the community has made a decision. --Kbdank71 20:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. I read that after I'd moved the articles. --sparkit (talk) 21:15, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Okedoke. Delete. --Kbdank71 13:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Postdlf 08:08, 3 May 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 delete --Kbdank71 19:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty duplicate of Category:Japan-related stubs Grutness|hello? 
10:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. redundant. --Mecanismo 08:32, 3 May 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 delete --Kbdank71 19:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Only two articles in this category. Since there were only two Marshals executed, there won't be anymore added. *Kat* 08:34, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Extreme example of overcategorization. I can't even see this narrow of a topic surviving as an independent list article. Postdlf 08:11, 3 May 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.