Category talk:Justin Bieber

Deletion debate

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Category:Justin Bieber

Overly fine.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep per Category:The Wizard of Oz and others. Poliasz 20:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Now. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do you add now? Because you don't like him? Don't be so stodgy. Poliasz 20:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Note that the category only contains terms derived from Bieber, so is redundant to [[Bieber#Derived terms]]. (And I'm not convinced all of the terms meet the CFI, anyway.) —Ruakh_TALK 21:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete with extreme prejudice. (and all the Bieber crud as well) SemperBlotto 22:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete, and obvious at that, and including the entire content of this category. How does this require even a discussion? (To the creator: You cannot compare a piece of world literature (celebrated for over a century) with the temporary hype around a teenage popstar.) -- Gauss 00:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete Category:Justin Bieber per Ruakh. --Daniel. 00:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment not much different than Category:William Shakespeare lexically speaking. Assuming the terms inside don't fail RFD/V, this category should follow the outcome of #Category:William Shakespeare above. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 00:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Is the problem that it is "overly fine", cruddy, or redundant to a "Derived terms" listing or that it contains only neologisms or only commercial spam? Which of these are sufficient? DCDuring TALK 00:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

While that's an important question, I don't think that its answer or the lack of an answer to it affects the outcome of the RFD. The U.S. Supreme Court — whose procedures are not binding on us but are informative nonetheless — often enough has a "decision of the court" with no "opinion of the court", when a majority of the justices agree on a decision, but no majority agrees on a reason for that decision. (The downside of that situation is that none of the reasoning that went into such a decision is binding precedent, and the same, I suppose will be true here if the situation is analogous.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

My primary interest is that each individual's vote/decision not be obviously and exclusively visceral, as that undermines the legitimacy of the whole process. All of our decisions are written. Imagine a SCOTUS decision that included "Yechhh". Everyone has visceral reactions which may motivate their decisions, but the decisions should have some kind of reasoned connection to criteria. DCDuring TALK 14:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

We more or less don't have any criteria for inclusion of categories, or indeed things outside NS:0. So if such debates seem to come down to personal opinion, it's because there just isn't anything else it can come down to. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Even fundamental questions, like "should the number of topical categories be ~0, ~1000, or ~1,000,000?", are still up in the air. —Ruakh_TALK 18:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, a recent poll showed that the answer to that particular question is not "0", anyway.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, but it also suggested that many editors prefer "0" to "~1,000,000". The eventual consensus against "0" seems to me to be a rather weak one, dependent on hopes that we can avoid "~1,000,000". —Ruakh_TALK 19:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)