Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Eccentrics

The following discussion comes from Categories for deletion. This is an archive of the discussion only; please do not edit this page. -Kbdank71 20:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Eccentrics

 * After some confusion (the request to merge and delete was removed from the Categories for deletion page before it had been completed), the merge has been done and the category has been deleted. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel (" Sarah ")]] 21:35, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Round one: October 10, 2004
Removed cfd notice from category and this discussion to category talk:eccentrics.
 * I count four delete votes (including those from the category's talk page), one keep, and one "at least change the name". -[[User:Aranel|Aranel (" Sarah ")]] 01:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reason: No form of discussion had taken place on that discussion page, prior to CfD listing. The category definition seem pretty much OK and workable (referring to definition on List of notable eccentrics). All the rest to be done before re-listing here is described in categorization of people.

--Francis Schonken 10:16, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC) Definition cited above:

"Eccentricity is necessarily a relative definition. An eccentric is someone whose behaviour, beliefs and/or hobbies deviates in significant way from the accepted norms that the rest of the society that defines that person recognizes as proper or as traditional. He or she may be regarded as strange, odd or at least unconventional, irregular and erratic. Other people usually regard the eccentric with apprehension but also with considerable amusement."

Although I am an eccentric, (by this definition most wikipedians are -- who does this kind of thing for free but an eccentric?) I might be offended to find that an article about me was listed at the bottom as being part of Category:Eccentrics, but it might not bother me to see Category:Notable eccentrics, and any article on any eccentric in wikipedia is likely to be a notable eccentric. Maybe we could change the category name?Pedant 01:52, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
 * Splitting this discussion onto two pages makes this confusing. There is no rule that states that there must first be discussion on the talk page for an article or category listed for deletion. But at Category talk:Eccentrics, there are currently three delete votes. There is one keep here, and one request to at least change the name. Anyone else? -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 20:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. And stop removing listings from CfD.  Postdlf 23:20, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From Category talk:Eccentrics
Moved here from CfD:

This is POV. If person A is eccentric to person B, then person B is eccentric to person A. Zh 04:58, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, this one is also redundant because there already is a list of notable eccentrics. Sietse 08:48, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, because this is ridiculously POV and a waste of time. Revolver 20:48, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've restored the listing on Categories for deletion, which is where such proposals should be discussed. I copied the votes and comments above to CfD. Further votes and comments should be placed on Categories for deletion. JamesMLane 04:09, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Round two: December 13, 2004
Apparently this category was listed on CfD in October. Thereafter the CfD discussion was moved to Category talk:Eccentrics, but the CfD notice stayed on the article (although now directing people to a nonexistent entry on this page). Copied below is what's on the category talk page, including the original CfD listing by Zh; I've added my vote after that. JamesMLane 04:07, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is POV. If person A is eccentric to person B, then person B is eccentric to person A. Zh 04:58, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, this one is also redundant because there already is a list of notable eccentrics. Sietse 08:48, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, because this is ridiculously POV and a waste of time. Revolver 20:48, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV. JamesMLane 04:07, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. If some people are widely considered to be cranks/kooks/eccentrics, how is that POV? jni 09:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think list of notable eccentrics covers it. we only need people who are notable for being eccentric, not everyone notable who is regarded as something of an eccentric. For example, I think a large portion of famous artists would qualify as eccentrics, but they should still be listed as painters, actors or musicians.--MaxMad 12:24, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: The list is sufficient. DCEdwards1966 00:42, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Absolutely keep. Dbiv 21:46, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See Categories_for_deletion/resolved. The consensus was to delete the category. It just wasn't deleted. (Which may have been my fault.) I don't believe it's necessary to go through this again. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel (" Sarah ")]] 15:34, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was listed for a merge to List of notable eccentrics. See . It was apparently removed (perhaps accidentally) before that merge had taken place. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel (" Sarah ")]] 15:46, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Just as long as the category gets deleted. Postdlf 04:55, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Round three: March 18, 2005
See Categories_for_deletion/resolved. Seems this category was deleted on December 20 and re-created on December 22. Last consensus was that a list was appropriate. What do we want to do this time? -Kbdank71 17:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. All of the previous arguments hold. Use List of people widely considered eccentric. This is a speedy deletion candidate (rule 4). -Aranel (" Sarah ") 18:03, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. agreeing with Sarah on the matter of using the existing list. I kind of smell something not quite right about the subcategories that have been set up also. Courtland 23:59, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
 * Delete. -Sean Curtin 18:20, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inherently POV, objective, unnecessary. (User:Willmcw)
 * Delete. POV. Should we make Category:Normals?  --A D Monroe III 23:15, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)