This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kappa (talk | contribs) at 17:16, 22 September 2006 (→[]: link discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:16, 22 September 2006 by Kappa (talk | contribs) (→[]: link discussion)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| < September 21 | September 23 > |
|---|
- Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September)
22 September 2006
Finger Lakes Christian School
Votes were approximately 12-12. The closer's argument that it is "absurb" to believe that wikipedia should attempt to cover all established secondary-level schools is itself unreasonable. Kappa 17:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Category:Transgender and transsexual scientists and engineers
This is just one of the subcategories of Category:Transgender and transsexual people, which includes Category:Transgender and transsexual actors, Category:Transgender and transsexual musicians, Category:Transgender and transsexual sportspeople, Category:Transgender and transsexual politicians, and Category:Transgender and transsexual writers, which have not been nominated for deletion similarly. It is not correct to single out one profession and not others. It is true that being TG/TS generally doesn't have much influence on one's scientific or engineering work, but it does have a tremendous influence on one's life. Also note that TG/TS writers, musicians, etc., listed aren't just those that have written or sung about being TG/TS, but rather all of them, including those whose work hasn't been directly influenced by it. AnonEMouse 14:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- So what you're saying is if someone nominated the other TG/TS cats, you'd be ok with their deletion? --Kbdank71 14:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I would vote against that on CFD, because I do think they are useful categories, giving interesting and encyclopedic information ... but if the consensus came up to delete the whole lot, I wouldn't bring that up on deletion review. :-). The deletion review page says it is for process, rather than content. While I do think the category is useful content-wise, that's not my main objection to this deletion here, this is more of a process objection - we have only one of several clearly parallel cats that have been deleted. Side note, I don't think I've ever added a page to any of these. AnonEMouse 15:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Thank you for the response. I don't have an opinion on this drv. I'll stand by my closing decision at CFD, but only because consensus seemed to indicate the deletion. It wouldn't bother me if it was overturned. --Kbdank71 16:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I would vote against that on CFD, because I do think they are useful categories, giving interesting and encyclopedic information ... but if the consensus came up to delete the whole lot, I wouldn't bring that up on deletion review. :-). The deletion review page says it is for process, rather than content. While I do think the category is useful content-wise, that's not my main objection to this deletion here, this is more of a process objection - we have only one of several clearly parallel cats that have been deleted. Side note, I don't think I've ever added a page to any of these. AnonEMouse 15:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse closure, I too would have closed that as a delete. Several people commenting said that some professions were more relevant to categorisation, so I don't think that they would have been happy with a group nomination for all of them. Thryduulf 17:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)