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 allZzyzx11(Talk) 06:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete because all of the Alien- and Predator-related articles have been placed in new categories as determined by WikiProject Alien's categorization scheme, which uses the disambiguation phrase "franchise" to distinguish them from generic "alien" and "predator" categories. This is reflective of the recent CfD renamings of Category:Alien (franchise) and Category:Predator (franchise). These old categories are now obsolete and empty, and should be able to be deleted without any controversy. IllaZilla (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, the course of action is to bring things here for renaming before emptying the categories, but given the precedent, I support this renaming/deletion. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would've, but half of them were empty before I even got started. There's been so much shuffling around of the Alien and Predator categories over the last few months because of the trouble of coming up with a good disambiguating phrase that it was just one big mess with a lot of obsolete, unused cats. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nomination makes sense. --BelovedFreak 20:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 per consensus. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, this category hasn't even been properly tagged for CFD yet. And given that it specifies a particular sub-group of parents, I certainly don't think Speedy delete and salt are at all appropriate here. (I'm quite surprised, however, that Category:Fictional parents hasn't already been salted. Strange!) Cgingold (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough... however, this particular sub-group of fictional parents has also been previously deleted: see log. As for Category:Fictional parents, I've gone ahead and protected it against recreation -- it's been a while since the last deletion discussion, but judging from the page's history, recreation is quite likely to happen in the future. Black Falcon(Talk) 20:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sounds good, BF. I didn't see that you had already replied when I inserted a note pointing out that it hasn't been tagged for CFD yet. Cgingold (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops .. I hadn't noticed that. I've added the proper tag. Black Falcon(Talk) 01:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think we should slow down and have a serious discussion about this. I haven't made up my mind either way, but I do think there is a case to be made for keeping this -- and I would like to hear from the category's creator. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}}Cgingold (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am the creator of the category and I feel that a category for single parents is different to that of one for parents as single parents are in the minority, as we have categories for ethnic and LGBT characters, I believe on for single parents is appropriate as in the other cases as they count as minority representation, which can be useful for many people. For example, if someone was doing a report on how the media treats single parents, they could use this category as a guide. --Leo (talk) 07:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to point out that single parents while a minority are certainly not niche and make up a good part of our community.--Leo (talk) 07:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only reason I clicked on the category was because I was considering nominating it for deletion. Since we don't have Category:Single parents or Category:Fictional parents this doesn't seem like a useful X/Y cat. Shawisland (talk) 09:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the precedent of all of the other fictional parents categories being deleted. There is little if any encyclopedic relationship between, for instance, Deathstroke, Elphaba and Danny Tanner. Otto4711 (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not meaningful or defining. We don't even have such a cat for real people. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-encyclopedic trivia. KleenupKrew (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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:merge. Kbdank71 13:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. Kbdank71 13:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. According to its article, Yacht Rock is a "fictionalized online show following the lives and careers of certain soft rockers in the late 1970s and early 1980s." Somehow, someone has decided that yacht rock is a real music genre and created a category for yacht rock artists and albums. This parent category was then added into the category of rock music genres. I believe one or more other individual has already removed some other artists and albums that might have been added into these categories. When I arrived, there was only one artist left (Steely Dan) and seven albums (mostly by Toto). I've removed those eight articles from being categorised under a fictionalised music genre. I'm now nominating this category for deletion because there is no reason for it to exist. It's an online television show. Not a music genre. Unsurprisingly, there's no reliable sources cited as references in any of those articles or the main yacht rock article to assert that this is a real music genre. It's just another neologism and as such has no place being used as a real category for music. This nomination also encompasses the two subcategories Category:Yacht rock musical groups and Category:Yacht rock albums. Bardin (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 2 subcats are not tagged, and emptying categories pre-cfd is strictly proscribed as it is impossible to discuss an empty category. All 'real' music genres are invented by some means and an online show seems a perfectly valid means of introducing a new definition (the article makes a good case for the term). (The bands and musicians are not fictional.) Occuli (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've since realized that I should not have emptied those categories before nominating them. For that, I apologise. Still, it's no big secret as to what was in those categories (exactly 8 articles). As for the legitimacy of the music genre, I believe that multiple non-trivial mentions in other reliable publications independent of the tv show would be required to validate any claims that this is a real music genre. --Bardin (talk) 08:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No such thing -- refers to one show only. -- Semifreddo (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. Kbdank71 13:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A category for a genus consisting of a single species. Ptcamn (talk) 08:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete monotypic genera aren't good for cats. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category:Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego?[edit]
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. Kbdank71 13:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was another category at the time I nominated the article,[1] but it must have been removed by someone... Black Falcon(Talk) 19:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. Kbdank71 13:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous overcategorisation for a TV series: the articles are adequately interlinked via the main article. Black Falcon(Talk) 00:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
