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. Tiptoetytalk 21:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete The category is a mixture of two unrelated topics and exists primarily to promote a single company. Stepheng3 (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this category meaningfully groups anything has been provided. Alansohn (talk) 04:24, 5 December 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. Tiptoetytalk 21:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete The encyclopedia is better served by the existing categories Category:Behavioural sciences and Category:Social sciences. The category contains a single page, which should be downmerged to the existing categories. If kept, the capitalization should be normalized. Stepheng3 (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete such dual cats (especially for two broad subjects) are rarely ever useful. Icewedge (talk) 07:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is another reminder of why it could help to require at least one reasonable parent category be included whenever a brand new category is being created -- hopefully the creator would have discovered the redundancy. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}}Cgingold (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, the article is not in need of any additional categories -- quite the opposite, it's cat list needs to be pruned. I'm really not sure why the editor who wrote the article also felt the need to create yet another category expressly for that one article. (Having looked at his talk page, I note that he's still learning how things are done on Wikipedia.) Cgingold (talk) 12:04, 5 December 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. Tiptoetytalk 21:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Appears to be some sort of template category for userboxes, but you couldn't tell from the name. Seems useless, but at minimum needs some sort of rename so people can actually figure out what this is supposed to be for. VegaDark (talk) 21:57, 4 December 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge, unnecessary subcategory; unless I'm missing something, anything that would properly go in any category is a topic of/in that category. Postdlf (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. 'Topics in...' is basically what subcategories are for. Icewedge (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are, in fact, a few very large categories where a grouping-subcat like this really helps with navigation. But this doesn't strike me as one of those cases, so merging probably makes sense. The larger problem I see is the division between Category:UFOs and Category:Ufology, which needs a thorough overhaul. Cgingold (talk) 12:59, 9 December 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. Tiptoetytalk 21:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Consists of a list and one other entry; too narrow to be useful. Upmerge into Category:The Longest Journey. Pagrashtak 19:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Back when the category was started, there were more characters with separate articles and no general list of them, so now the cat is basically redundant to the latter. --Koveras☭ 11:46, 5 December 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. Tiptoetytalk 21:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete The scope of this category is limited with only two articles being related to it. It was also resolved through a previous discussion on caste cats vs caste lists in WP:IN not to create caste-based categories. The creator of this category, meanwhile, has been using it for propaganda by adding other Brahmin communities as Niyogi, Nambudiri, Chitpavan to Category:Bhumihars though these communities are not constituents of the Bhumihar community RavichandarMy coffee shop 16:59, 4 December 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. Tiptoetytalk 21:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete - per the results of The CFD for the Dallas ISD, all of the same reasons apply to this category so it should be deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - people who went to school in or near Houston seems of very marginal interest. Occuli (talk) 20:41, 4 December 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:Deleted: CSD G10: Attack Page - Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 11:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Why would we have a category listing people who ostensibly belong to a category that is referenced as a derogatory term coined by a controversial person whose own article doesn't mention it? We don't have a category that uses other derogatory terms for someone of partial African ancestry, this shouldn't stay either. This is perpetuating bigotry. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a category which is in itself a racial slur? This should be nuked into oblivion as quickly as possible. As inappropriate a category as I've ever seen. Rossrs (talk) 09:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Appropriate for an article? Yes. Appropriate for a category? No way. momoricksmake my day 10:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Delete Hell no this kind of garbage is not needed. I think if anyone reads my history of postings here you will see this is one of my harshest commsnts here. This does not belong in the project in anyway. --CrohnieGalTalk 10:38, 4 December 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:speedy deleted by Gb as recreation of previously deleted content. VegaDark (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This was previously deleted at 2006 OCT 18 CfD. I only bring it here because of the time lapse since the previous discussion. "Idol" is inherently subjective and POV; inclusionary crtieria are bound to be controversial. (Pre-emptive statement (wink): yes, we could resolve the inclusionary criteria problem through sources that refer to specific people as "teen idols". But that's why we need the material in a list rather than a category, so we can provide citations since inclusion is not self-evident on its face in this case.) As it says (rather awkwardly) in teen idol: "Teen idols refers to someone idolized by teens; a teen idol is often young but in many cases no longer teenaged." Great! That narrows it down for us! Anyway, in my view this is quite similar to the categories like Category:Gay icons, Category:Femmes fatales, and Category:Sex symbols, all of which have been deleted numerous times under various name variations. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation, otherwise delete as far too vague and subjective for categorization purposes. Otto4711 (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vague and indefinable. Some actors (Frank Sinatra is a great example) were teen idols at some point in their career but it would be absurd to categorize them this way forever and ever. Stetsonharry (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation or delete per above. The concept merits an article, but as explained in the comments above, it is not a proper classification by which to categorize articles. Postdlf (talk) 20:46, 4 December 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. I did consider the suggestion to upmerge, but some of the articles I checked are already listed in appropriate subcategories of the recommended merge target. So a merge would create a mess and might not really be needed except for a handful of articles, but there were none of these in my quick check. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete This category is a lot ambiguous and there is no real criteria that would differentiate a B movie actor from every other movie actor that can be followed correctly. The article B movie notes that even John Wayne and Jack Nicholson were in what could be considered B movies. This category seems redundant. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Categorizing actors by the genre of film they've been in is overcategorization. See the related action film actors CFD. Additionally, the definition of "B movie" has been so diluted that I am hard=pressed to think of a single actor who has not appeared in at least one film that could be so categorized. Otto4711 (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the nominator will add the rest of the sub-categories of Category:B-movie actors as well as the parent to this nomination as they should all be deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gaaah! Exceedingly bad—subjective, POV, often not defining, potentially too large to be of much use, etc., etc. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for every reason cited above. LiteraryMaven (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the studio system all actors played in B movies, and if an actor played solely in B movies it is unclear he or she would be notable enough for wiki. Stetsonharry (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all upwards into Category:American film actors etc (unless someone has checked that this is not necessary for all articles in all the categories). Occuli (talk) 20:45, 4 December 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.
