- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete, without prejudice to re-creating the category if references are found in reliable sources to support the list. There is no consensus about whether that would be sufficient to justify such a category, but there is a consensus that the category should not exist without sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. No explanation anywhere on Wikipedia of what these 16 cities are, or what the title '16 cities of Spiš' signifies. No mention of these cities in the article Spiš. No mention of '16 cities of Spis' on Google. There are not 16 cities in the category. Category is apparently invented. Smerus (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
"Provincia XXIV oppidorum terrae Scepusiensis(in 1412, thirteen of the towns were pawned to Poland and kept a special status)". It's also mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szepes, and those are the clues you need to find out what's going on here. These are towns that are still in Poland today, (and not Slovakia), because of this. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Szepes County provides the justification for this category. My only concern is the number since originally 13 out of 24 towns were pawned by the Hungarian Crown to Poland. Perhaps we need to rename but can some one with appropriate knowledge suggest what the category should be called? Since it is now part of Poland, it should presumably have its Polish, rather than its Hungarian (or Slovakian) name. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. Unfortunately, whilst Szepes County does indeed list 13 of these towns (and it would have been helpful to mention this in the category text), it does not give the names of the 'other 3 previously pawned towns' which make up the 16. I see also from the same article that some (unspecified) of the same towns can be permutated to the 'Union of 11 Szepesi towns', or the 'Province/Union of 13 Szepesi towns', for which (fortunately) no categories exist. But as it is clear that nowhere in Wikipedia are these 16 towns named (still less with any cited reference), the category '16 Cities of Spiš' is unencyclopaedic. Unless WP specifies somewhere - anywher e- exctly what these 16 towns are, the category seems to be WP:OR. --Smerus (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete This would seem to be something that an aritcle could be written on, but it makes no sense to categorize modern places by events that happened to them 100s of years ago. We generally do not categorize places by political subdivisons they were in, although we do categorize them by the place they were in when established, but that is because those are clear x date in y place categories. As it is we do not even categorize these places as having ever been in Hungary or Czechoslovakia, we just categorize them as currently being in Slovakia. The one exception is places that no longer exist, but since these places do, it makes no sense as a category. An article that lists all of them and explains what being pawned meant to them would be a much better corse of action. Also of the three articles I have checked only one even mentions that it fits this definition. We should not put articles in categories not supported by the text.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as there is nowhere in the category or articles that explains why this is WP:DEFINING, sourced or unsourced. While this information could be turned into an article or list, if a source can be found, this is not a useful category. Andrewaskew (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Just because 13 are listed and known doesn't mean that the category is invalid. Two, we aren't categorizing the towns by this category, we're applying the category to the towns. It's like arguing we can't add '8 thousander' to certain mountain peaks. Three, the fact that they are listed in a treaty, and they were sold to Poland, makes them notable as a collective group. Four, the grouping isn't arbitrary either. Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.