Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Nonagenarians

The following discussion comes from Categories for deletion. This is an archive of the discussion only; please do not edit this page. The decision was to delete the category, merging its contents into a list (see Nonagenarian) as appropriate. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 22:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Nonagenarians
This is a redundant category of very limited use which only adds to category clutter of the affected articles. The information is already visible in the very first sentence of a biography article. And it is already encoded in the birth/death categories for SQL queries. --Pjacobi 10:17, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
 * Replace with a list. Courtland 05:24, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
 * Keep Completely harmless and will lead some people to articles of interest to them. I have no idea what a SQL query is and I feel sure most other users haven't either. This site is for the use of the general public, not just techies. Wincoote 08:42, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No biography is in the Wikipedia alone for being a nonagenarians alone. This category hast nothing to do with the reason, why someone is notable. Hans Bethe would have surely not liked to be noted for his age. --Pjacobi 09:30, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)


 * Keep. Why should this go when we are quite happy to categorise people by race, real or supposed sexual preferences, etc? The supposed wishes of the subject are rarely considered for other categorisations, are they? Filiocht 09:35, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * As you might guess, I consider those categories a defect, too. But categorisation is obviously out of control on en.wikipedia. --Pjacobi 10:07, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
 * So we should delete the one with no pressure group to ensure it's survival (how many nonagenarians are there here?) because there would be no consensus to delete the others? BTW, I don't get the category clutter argument. A few small links right down at the bottom of the page that nobody has to click on if they do not want to; what harm are they doing? Filiocht 14:41, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * O.K, it seems my preferences are better served by turning off category display in my skin. But let's wait the usual period, to see if anybody shares my point. (In fact, until now I had categories to display at top, a relict of the time were categories captured the most important facts of an article). --Pjacobi 15:09, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)


 * Actually I agree with Pjacobi. There's no need for duplicate systems (and they tend to diverge). Since you can already search for people by age using the extensive years system, there's no need for categories to group people by age. Cat:teenagers? Cat:People that are 35 years old? Nah. Delete. Radiant! 10:27, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but many, many people reach the age of 35 AND do noteworthy things. It's not everday that somone noteworthy reaches the age of 90+. It's not really that big of a thing, why not just leave it?--Canadian Paul


 * Delete Silliness. -- Netoholic @ 20:11, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)


 * If you are interested, the categories of People by year allow to build a list of the some 2200 articles about nonagenarians. -- User:Docu
 * Delete. -Kbdank71 21:55, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Maintenance hassle, as it will become out of date as people age or die. Vacuum c 02:41, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)