The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

---

The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Keep. Consensus is to keep -- Enfcer (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Elections in the 2000s (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Overcategorization. I don't think the entries here have anything in common that makes the category helpful. We also don't have so many election articles that we need to group them by time. Auntof6 (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

• Keep - what they have in common is that they were all elections during the 2000s. Alternatively, they could be subcatted by country. More election articles will be created in future, so it makes sense to subcat them in some way. Jim Michael (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, they have that in common. What I'm saying is that that isn't enough to warrant a category. If/when we get more articles, we can revisit -- we don't create cats based on what we might have in the future. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep five articles is enough for a category. —Microchip08 (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's more to keeping a category than the number of articles it has. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This category is useful. What if I would like to see all the elections in 2000, this is the best place I can get them. --Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. People are voting to keep, but no one is saying why this category is useful. "Being able to see all the elections from 2000" doesn't explain why it's useful, it just restates the definition of the category. Why would you want to see all the elections from 2000? I'd understand "Politics in 2000", which is a broader scope and could include elections, but not elections specifically. Or if elections didn't take place on regular schedules, and something happened that made a lot of them happen in 2000, that would be noteworthy. If someone can explain why this category is useful (other than "it groups all the year 2000 elections"), then I'd withdraw the request. Otherwise it's no different from having a category like "People who have moved more than 50 miles from their birthplace": we could certainly find more than three of those, and the category would help us find them, but it wouldn't be useful. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - it is useful because, as I and Reception have said, it helps people find elections that took place in the 2000s. People who are interested in politics tend to be particularly interested in a particular timeframe and/or particular part of the world. That's the point of all chronologically-based categories. For example, a young person interested in politics is likely to be very interested in Barack Obama, but not in Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman or Dwight D. Eisenhower, who all died years before the reader was born. Jim Michael (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (Comment as well) The category is useful in the same way as "Disasters in the 2000s" and "Musical groups disestablished in the 2000s". To each his or her own interests...I personally care not at all about musical groups who threw in the towel, but elections: see I already found out by looking, that the category holds five different countries and seven different years. The 12 year old I home-school likes Simple Wikipedia, so I shall deem this useful by having her access the category and read each article tomorrow. She does not get enough Social Studies exposure anyway. Fylbecatulous talk 20:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 20:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.