< November 7 November 9 >

November 8

Category:Ksysenka

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 (article was also deleted). Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ksysenka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Misused Category namespace. Please let it die fast and painlessly. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ksysenka. Netrat (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Categories can have single entries if appropriate, though I'm not saying that this one is appropriate. An AfD result can have a bearing on the CfD decision but not vice-versa. Therefore I think AfD should be completed first and, if the article is deleted, then by all means delete the category immediately. ---BlackJack | talk page 15:24, 10 November 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: American people of Muslim descent

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: Discussion closed; use Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 5#Category:American people of Muslim descent instead. Apparently this discussion was created by mistake while a previous discussion was still going on. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American people of Muslim descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Commenter’s Rationale: Unique Category Namespace. This category should not only remain, but also be cultivated not just for Islam, but all faiths.. . For example, there is a huge distinction between Americans of Muslim descent and American Muslims. Current event case in point - Barak Obama, of Islamic/Muslim descent, but not Muslim. As opposed to Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali - an American Muslim. There are many people who can fit into the former category and I believe it’s an interesting piece of information that may explain future choices these individuals make based on their favorable, unfavorable or neutral experience with that faith. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.91.209 (talk • contribs)

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:Seduction theorists

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 the discussion, this closure doesn't proscribe re-creation under a different, less ambiguous name. While Alansohn is correct that a rename would be an ideal solution, here there's no consensus for what the new name would be, and sometimes it's simpler to just start from scratch. Given the problems outlined with this category, I think that approach would be more appropriate to closing this as "no consensus" and letting the name stand. I can assist in identifying the articles that were in the category, if necessary. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Seduction theorists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - seduction theory does not have anything to do with picking up women. Thus, the inclusion criteria for this category are entirely subjective as they have no basis in fact and the category (populated with an odd combination of philosophers and barely if not flat out non-notable sleazes excuse me, pick-up artists) is misleading. Otto4711 (talk) 21:39, 8 November 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:1971-72 South African cricket season

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:1971-72 South African cricket season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Empty and redundant category. All of its former articles were recently deleted due to lack of verifiable sources. I cannot see that WP:CRIC will ever want to repopulate it as its parent category is designed to hold all articles about South African domestic cricket. BlackJack | talk page 19:06, 8 November 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:Films with open endings leaving the audience to draw their own conclusions

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Films with open endings leaving the audience to draw their own conclusions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - perhaps the most perfect example of a category requiring original research that I've seen. Otto4711 (talk) 18:23, 8 November 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:Rick Astley

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. Consensus can and does change. The previous discussion was closed as no consensus. The keep logic was membership in a category that is a collection point for categories that would not otherwise have a parent category. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Rick Astley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous singer category. Holds only his albums, songs, and Rickrolling. Too narrow. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument that the contents of a subcat are somehow directly categorized in the parents is a bit tiresome. The argument that deleting this eponymous parent will prevent anyone interested in Rick Astley songs or albums from finding them in nonsensical since anyone interested in them is probably going to start at Rick Astley. The notion that an episode of a TV series should be categorized under a real-life person because the person is referred to or even somewhat featured runs counter to any number of CFD decisions. Otto4711 (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't care in the least bit about what you find "tiresome", nor does anyone else. The focus needs to be on addressing the fundamental issue, which is user navigation using categories. While the TV episode was a joke you obviously didn't get, the absence of a parent category is a direct obstruction to navigation for anyone using the category system for to get to his song or album categories from the other. Deleting the parent not only provides no way to organize the non-song articles that are specifically relevant to him, but it places a direct roadblock to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're going to tell jokes, could you try to make them, you know, funny? Could you also indicate which articles related to Rick Astley that aren't either songs or albums are not easily accessible through Astley's article? There are currently a whopping total of two such articles, his discography article and the rickrolling article, both of which are prominently linked in his main article. Otto4711 (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In all cases like this where there are two closely related sub-categories, but not enough contents to warrant having a super-category, the sub-cats should be linked to one another horizontally (using ((CatRel))). This should be standard practice, imo. Cgingold (talk) 11:20, 9 November 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:Novels by Eric M. Norcross

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Novels by Eric M. Norcross (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category for an author without his own article, whose sole listing is up for deletion at AFD. CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid personal attack. It is not the site that sucks you have to first know the policy that exist in Wikipedia. It is the policy that sucks :P. --SkyWalker (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP is not a bureaucracy: the sole listing in the category is well on its way to deletion, and always was. But even in the extraordinarily unlikely event of a 'Keep' outcome, the category ought to be deleted because it would have only one (1) possible entry. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one said it is a bureaucracy but these pages are forums for discussion and there is no inevitability about the outcome of any discussion until it is closed. Kindly bear that in mind. ---BlackJack | talk page 17:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether you have explicitly stated that Wikipedia is a bureaucracy matters not, as you've certainly implied it as such by your elevation of bureaucratic process over common sense and an inevitable conclusion. Kindly keep that in mind. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would expect anyone using this forum to have the common sense to realise that it is a discussion process and is not designed to rubberstamp an "inevitable conclusion" . No one can know that an article "is on its way to deletion and always was", per your rather arrogant assumption. The correct and fair way to deal with this category is to await the outcome of the AfD discussion per Johnbod's request below. If your habitual response to even a mild disagreement is to invoke terms like "bureaucracy" and "common sense", then I suggest that you read WP:CIVIL. ---BlackJack | talk page 15:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong. There are many precedents that these are one of the types of categories where one entry is enough, on the "part of wider scheme" exception. Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit me to doubt the factuality--or applicability--of that declaration. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. The closer will know I'm right. Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 10 November 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:Racially motivated violence against African Americans

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: keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Racially motivated violence against African Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category as defined is essentially a catch-all with ambiguous criteria. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:54, 8 November 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:People who died on their birthdays

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 delete per G4, previously discussed and deleted. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People who died on their birthdays (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is a superfluous category that defines over-categorization. This has no meaning or application beyond coincidence. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:51, 8 November 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:Vehicle activated signs

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. All articles have other categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Vehicle activated signs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete! There's only one page in vehicle activated signs, which is the article "vehicle activated signs". Doesn't really make sense to me. Mononomic (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. Now, I'm new to category deletion, how does one do this? Do we need an admin or to post it somewhere else? Thanks. Mononomic (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With certain exceptions (and this is not one) CFD discussions are kept open for at least 5 days, at which point they can be "closed" (usually by an admin). So feel free to get yourself a snack, take a nap, watch a video, or play a round of golf. And check back from time to time to see if there's a comment that you might want to respond to. Btw, you really should add the world "Delete" in bold letters to your nomination. (Just don't keep repeating it elsewhere, that tends to annoy people! :) Cgingold (talk) 15:36, 8 November 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:Disused railway stations on the Wirral

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: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Disused railway stations on the Wirral to Category:Disused railway stations in Wirral
Nominator's rationale: Wirral refers to the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral, not the Wirral Peninsula, (part of the Wirral is in Cheshire, but the stations in that area are in Category:Disused railway stations in Cheshire) so the name is misleading —Snigbrook 01:34, 8 November 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.
More