Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Category 4

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category 4

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We are told specifically not to build dabs from partial title matches because the reader is better served by search results. Nothing is known as only 'Category 4' so there is nothing to disambiguate Legacypac (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See policy WP:NAMELIST where I'm referring to "Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion or reference."' If you follow that policy we have empty dabs here. Legacypac (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It can be used as a reference, as explained by Elf, below. Category 4 is a classification, a valid way of naming articles - for example Category:Disability sport classifications where many of the article titles are just the classifications - it's just that the longer titles used in the disambiguation page are more precise. Peter James (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hard to imagine anyone is going to be looking for information on this basis, and there must be an enormous number of topics it could apply to. JMWt (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checking Category 1 Category 2 Category 3] Category 5 Category One Category Two Category Three Category Four Category Five Legacypac. Category 5 is a legit DAB. The others have the same problems as 4. Legacypac (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep links suggest this has been used for Category 4 hurricanes, and is ambiguous (the Category 4 cable article starts with "Category 4 (Cat 4) is ...". Peter James (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the Cat 4 cable article to say "Catrgory 4 cable..." To match how the other Cat X cable articles start out. Not understanding what you mean about links for hurricanes. Legacypac (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If I go to the search page and search for "category 4", all I get are links to templates and to lists of hurricanes or to specific hurricanes (not to the article that describes category 4 hurricanes, even) and finally to track gauges. Doesn't mention cables at all. I've been in the computer world for a long time, and the number of times that someone has said, "you need category 4" (or sometimes category 4 connector or category 4 ethernet or category 4 wire or various others) makes me certain that others will want to search on that. That's *my* first thought when I hear "category 4". Currently, "category 4 connector" gives me nothing useful, "category 4 ethernet" brings up the Ethernet page at the top of the list, which doesn't discuss categories. "category 4 hurricane" does take me to the correct spot, but "category 4 storm" is not helpful at all, asks whether i really mean "category 4 story". So, if we get rid of this, it makes searches less helpful, not better serving users, and there's no one "category 4 xxx" to which we could redirect and then have a DAB statement at the top that lists all other possible cat 4s. I think that these DABs make Wikipedia better. And I'd guess that people are likely to put in just "category 4", not the whole phrase. I'd vote for adding things to all these Category x dab pages to make them even longer lists, not for getting rid of this. Elf | Talk 17:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – these are not "partial title matches". When referring to different contexts, "Category #" is often used standalone. sst✈^(conjugate) 08:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As LegacyPac notes, the Category 5 dab page includes two items specifically named "Category 5", one being an album i think, and is fully "proper" as a dab page. There probably do exist things named exactly "Category 1" or "Category One", and 2 and 3 and 4, which haven't yet been found. These all are useful, good. And handling alternate spellings and very common usages of the imperfect match type is a service. --do ncr am 09:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, especially per SSTflyer. The dab page provides context to various things often referred to simply as "Category 4". clpo13_(talk) 19:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.