Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Residents of Birmingham, England

The following discussion comes from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. This is an archive of the discussion only; please do not edit this page. -Kbdank71 17:05, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Residents of Birmingham, England

The consensus was to delete. RedWolf 17:29, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

This was listed for deletion once before. It was deleted (5 to 1). Here is a copy of the previous discussion:

I think this should be deleted for three reasons:

1. It makes no indication of what the person's relationship is to the city, whether they were born there, or lived there for two weeks etc.
2. If we are going to have this, then surely we should have one for every city, and what happens if a person lived in a number of cities.
3. There is already a list of people from Birmingham at the main Birmingham article, so this isn't needed. G-Man 19:27, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Agree. Delete – Quadell ^{(talk) (quiz)}[[]] 20:06, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm wary of any categorization of people below the country level, because people move around too much these days and are not often going to be notable enough for an encyclopedia entry just because of what they've done in a particular city. A category such as Category:People of Birmingham, England could be viable only for people whose notability is inherently tied to that location, but not otherwise, and mere residency is far too ephemeral to provide a sensible basis for classification. Postdlf 00:59, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --Conti|✉ 22:06, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Half of them are dead, so they are hardly residents! Who is going to keep track of this on a day-by-day basis? Noisy | Talk 13:38, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. 1) so? 2) if we decide to have one for every city, which doesn't have to happen as a result of keepinig this, then people would be categorized under multiple cities. Again, so? 3) Categories are not lists. anthony (see warning) 13:07, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. If we tagged every person's article with the list of cities they've lived in, the list for some would be longer than their article, and if we only tag the article if they currently live there, it'll be a maintaince nightmare and/or horribly inaccurate. --ssd 04:30, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It now contains quite a lot of articles (it was not recreated by the same account that originally created it). I think this is a bad idea. We could start listing every single person by every single town in which they ever lived, but is having lived in Birmingham one of the four of five most important things about most people who once lived there? (Even the town in which I was born is not all that important to me!) Other, more significant, cities (see, for instance, Category:London) do not have such a category. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:43, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Bad idea for a category - too ephemeral, encourages articles of non-notables, etc. -Willmcw 01:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)