Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion phrases

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
See main page of this project regarding status of this page, moderated by User:
This discussion page has been listed on RfC
But will now be removed. Maurreen 05:48, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Present content of {{cfd}} template (template:cfd)[edit]

note: this content of the "cfd" template has been modified to this form by user: too. Following the link and considering the non-obvious reconstruction of the "cfd" template (e.g. use of "PAGENAME" template) seems to indicate that this user is neither newbie nor sockpuppet - nonetheless, alas, a bit a-social, e.g. while seldomly using the "edit summary" tool.

<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="attention" style="background-color: #f3f9ff; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa;"> '''This category has been listed for [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion]].'''<br /> Please see '''[[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}|1]]''' or '''[[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#{{PAGENAME}}|2]]''' this page's entry on the [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion|categories for deletion]] page for justifications and discussion. If you don't want the page deleted, read the [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion policy]] and vote against its deletion. You may first wish to review some of the common [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion phrases|deletion phrases]]. Please do not remove this notice or empty the category while the question is being considered. </div> [[Category:Categories for deletion|{{PAGENAME}}]]

Content retrieved from project page, as created by[edit]

Categories for deletion can be a seemingly unfriendly place, especially for new users. Part of this derives from the quick, short statements some people make when voting to delete categories. While some people take on inappropriate tones, most people are just being efficient in their voting. Above all, remember that people who frequent CfD are experienced Wikipedians who are trying to help Wikipedia. Many have been through hundreds of deletion discussions, and have heard hundreds of arguments. Very rarely will an experienced user ever intend to attack a person or an article. If they use some clever phrasing to say something, it's usually just because typing "keep, delete, keep, delete" over and over gets boring and they're trying to be a little bit creative.

Please note that many of the phrases below or their definitions do not reflect Wikipedia's established norms for deletion, and should be taken only as indicative of the users' opinions, not of Wikipedia policy.

Lastly, if you feel different about any vote for deletion, explain your point of view, and if possible, modify the article in question to comply better with various policies in question.

Here are some common things you might come across that seem rude, but actually aren't meant to be.


Votes are not an attack on, or endorsement of, the category's merits, points, factual basis, or future potential. Votes are an opinion of the encyclopedic value, based on consensus, policy, and guidelines.

The category meets the minimum requirements for inclusion, or has potential.
This is not an attack, but indicates that the voter considers the category unencyclopedic, for reasons such as below.
This means that the user thinks the category should be merged to a more central topic, a common solution to things which are non-notable on their own or are otherwise redundant with an existing category.
The category's name is seen as misleading, inappropriate, biased, misspelled, or otherwise not in the form consistent with other categories, and should be moved to a new title


Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense (BJAODN) 
This refers to a page where wikipedians archive pages they deem to be worthy of saving for humor value. People do not necessarily consider the article a bad joke or nonsensical; indeed, a number of amusing and coherent articles that simply do not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion have been partially preseved in this form.
The category is seen as being in poor condition and must be reworked if kept;
Copyright violation; these articles should be listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, or if you have permission, point that out on the article's talk page, or the copyright discussion.
The subject is trivia of interest only to hardcore fans of a specific film, television series, book, game, etc. Where the line is drawn is highly subjective and can be controversial.
List would be better
It is believed that a list in a normal article would be more manageable than a category. This may be true if the information becomes out of date quickly, or if the relationship from the articles to the category in question is tenuous.
This means that the word or phrase used is not well-established enough to merit a Wikipedia article. This will be either a literal neologism (a new word which is not well-established), or a vanity neologism (a word coined in a small community but not used outside it). The article may need to be renamed or simply deleted.
Something that traditionally does not belong in an encyclopaedia, and doesn't fit the traditional definition of things that do. This in itself is usually not enough to justify a reason for deletion. Note that some users use this term and "non-notable" interchangeably.
This means that the category is about something that Wikipedia's guidelines suggest does not merit a category due to its obscurity If it's related to something more common or well-known, consider merging it with that.
Original research 
The category is someone's private theory, critique, rant, or type casting.
Overly broad 
Categories of articles should be specific enough in scope to limit what articles they could fit. An overly broad category could potentially cover a large number of articles, making it useless as a way to find things. If too many such broad categories exist, they also could clutter the category list at the bottom of many articles.
Patent nonsense 
A nonsensical category.
Personal attack 
The category specifically attacks some person, group, idea or thing, which is a violation of both Wikipedia policy and basic manners. Criticism, however, is welcome on Wikipedia, provided that it is factual, non-biased and civil.
Sometimes people believe an category's title, or mere existence make it inherently biased, thus violating Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy, and that it should therefore be deleted. They don't mean you are not entitled to a point of view, simply that the article must not support one point of view exclusively or over contrary points of view.
Promotional, Advertisement, Ad, Advertm Advertorial, Wikispam 
The category's central intent is to promote a website, product or business.
Vanity category 
This means that the category is about a person, institution or organization who Wikipedia's guidelines (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not) suggest does not merit a category; probably most Wikipedians fit into this category. Use of this term as reasoning is supposed to suggest that the voter believes that the category was created or edited by the subject of the category, but sometimes the term is used simply to express the opinion that the category lacks usefulness.

See also[edit]

Further discussion[edit]

Comments can be inserted here, or above in between text (in that case use "::" preceding every new line in edit mode)
  • I think the article above is deceptive in many ways (even if it derives from prior wikipedia content), and vote for a total rewrite. --Francis Schonken 09:17, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Pretty much everything above applies to articles but not categories. What a keep/delete/etc. means on CFD is rather different than on VFD, and I've never seen most of the reasons given here. I think it might be more productive to make a page that holds al l the CFD policies, rules, and conventions (inluding why someone might vote to keep/delete). But then it would need a different name. -- Beland 01:07, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree that much of the above relates better to articles than categories. However, I think that this can be easily fixed, and that in general, the content is good. I've even added a few things I think relevant. --ssd 04:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Let me underline my above statement. I think that most of this is very relevant to categories. Anything others think is not relevant should be removed or adjusted. Here's a list of what I think needs adjusting:
advertising and copyvio
(neutral) I've yet to see either of these (but I may have blinked)
(against this as a reason) I would have trouble deleting a category for this reason, as categories are an excellent way to mark such material for what it is.
(neutral) I have not seen any categories fitting this, but I do think they should be handled the same as such articles.
(against name and reason on this one) I've seen lots of these, but we delete them (merge with parent) because they are too small, not because they are non-notable. If enough entries exist to fill them, they are obviously notable and article criteria for non-notablity do not really apply. The closest to this description I can think of was when someone tried to make a category of right-handed people; I would fit this under overly broad, although it may not be notable either.
(rephrase description here) The reasons for NPOV in a category are different than those in an article. In an article, we want a balanced view showing both sides. With a category, we want to make sure that including the category on the article does not label the article in a POV way.


Does this page still need to be listed at RFC? Maurreen 13:29, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing this from RFC. Maurreen 05:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)