User:MusicMaker5376/Articles for deletion

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete, early close per WP:SNOW. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 09:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Match Attax Cards

Category:Match Attax Cards - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: The category is a set of football/soccer trading cards, and each member of the category is a footballer article. I don't think Wikipedia should use categories as trading card checklists. I believe that (for example) William Gallas being featured in this set of cards is an attribute of the trading card featuring William Gallas, not of William Gallas himself. Jameboy (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - spam, of no value whatsoever. Camillus (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as meaningless. EP 22:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. If this category can exist, it opens the door to millions more, all equally trivial. -GilbertoSilvaFan (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No encyclopedic value and as GilbertoSilvaFan says, it will open the door to even more meaningless categories. Woody (talk) 11:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Homophobia in Jamaican music - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is controversial, and is being used as a POV categorising of Living people. I'm not arguing whether Jamaican music is homophobic or not, but it doesn't belong in a Category as this shouldn't be an encyclopedic classification. There is already an article on the topic: Murder music. This category is being used on artists themselves. Rasadam (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: Most of the entries in the category are infamous for their murder music and their calls of hate and violence against gay people. Some of these articles were already in Category:Homophobia. This category brings a common topic together in a way which the category system was designed to handle. If some of the entries truly don't belong, then they can go. However, keeping the category is still appropriate. - Gilgamesh (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 1. I think it should be noted that you were the Category's creator, for clarification.
  • 2. This is not about the use of categorisation, but the fact that this is a POV classification and arbitrary. Every article in the Category is the artist themselves (not even individual songs, which I would also disagree with). The list gives it the appearance of fact, that these artists are inherently homophobes, which is widely disputed and not fact (the whole subject of anti-gay Jamaican music is murky). The topic should be left to an article, which can mention the artists involved citing both sides of the argument. But a category, linked on these article's main pages are misleading and a blatant generalisation at the very least. If these artists were under the Category:Homophobia before, they should not have been in the first place. Rasadam (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Honestly, I mostly just tidied what was already there. I don't know for absolute certain if murder music is in and of itself an appropriate title, even. But it's certainly interesting to read about. - Gilgamesh (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Forgive me if I'm interpreting your opinion incorrectly, but it's basically okay because it was there before? Rasadam (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
      • And just for the record, your statement of "Some of these articles were already in Category:Homophobia" is incredibly misleading as you put ALL these articles in the Category:Homophobia category moments before creating this category then reclassifying. Rasadam (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, I added a few, but I distinctly recall that Buju Banton was already there. It just seemed appropriate and in good sense to add the others too. This trend in Jamaican music is considered especially notable as much of the rest of the English speaking world finds it incredibly abhorrent and disturbing, and they remember things like these, giving it an element of fascination. I live nowhere near the West Indies and news coverage of these things have reached my attention along with many other people's. Yes, it is controversial, and that makes it notable. And categorizing them in one place helps them learn more about the trend. - Gilgamesh (talk) 04:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Since you admit to have no real knowledge of Jamaican music, you also wouldn't know that there are many other controversial issues that regularly come up in it. I'm not arguing its notable, I agree with you there. But it's not appropriate as a category on artist profiles. It is suited to an article devoted to the topic, which may reference the artists involved. To relate, this is like creating categories Category:Anti-War in American Music or Category:Global Warming in UK Music and categorising every single artist page that ever had an anti-war or global warming lyric in their song on it. There definitely are homophobic themes in some of the songs of these artists, but certainly not all their songs, and not even the majority. This is just a ridiculous method of categorisation. Rasadam (talk) 04:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
            • Hm...you have some interesting points. It may or may not be appropriate. However, I'll wait and see how the vote goes. - Gilgamesh (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - the article Murder music serves as an appropriate navigational hub for the artists and songs who/that have been accused of promoting homophobia and placing this category on articles for people raises serious WP:BLP concerns. Personally I find the so-called "artists" to be scumbags but from an encyclopedic standpoint the category is inappropriate. Otto4711 (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. If you read the articles, you see that each of the musicians in question is particularly notable for homophobic lyrics, and in some cases have been excluded from visiting Britain as a result. I recognise the danger of this category (it could easily be over-applied), but it is a notable and relevant intersection, and for the particular people included in it at the moment, it is appropriate. Terraxos (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. There's certainly a valid article to be had on this topic, but a category isn't really appropriate. Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Otto and Bearcat. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete may be a good article topic, but not a good cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 13:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Albums produced by Steve Lillywhite - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Amounts to films by actor categorization. —  MusicMaker5376 15:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - The proper analogy here isn't "films by actor" -- it's Category:Films by producer (or even Category:Films by director). And I also note that Category:Albums by producer has 53 other sub-cats. I'm wondering if perhaps MusicMaker might want to consider withdrawing this one. Cgingold (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Cgingold. The first thing that came to mind was this category was more like "Films by director" than "films by actor". If there are 53 other categories under the parent category, then deleting one doesn't make sense. The whole lot should be examined together.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Cgingold's comments have convinced me. Grutness...wha? 01:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Not yet proven unmanageable, and unrelated to the actor precedent.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Numbers in pop culture - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category acts to group articles on totally different topics based on an arbitrary notion of "popularity". Also, the article groups things that have nothing to do with each other except vague semantic relations. To me, this is like those categories we mostly got rid of years ago, like "Books that have the word 'red' in their title". Looking through the cat, I really do not understand why most of the articles are in the category. A book Nineteen Eighty-Four, e (mathematical constant), Seven of Nine, A113. It's nonsense.Andrew c ^[talk] 05:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; bizarre! Johnbod (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Clear delete - entirely useless for any plausible purpose. Terraxos (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.