< May 18	May 20 >

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: soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM; the category can be restored upon request at WP:REFUND. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Television series by Sande Stewart Television (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: No parent article Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 19:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 27 May 2022 (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: soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM; the category can be restored upon request at WP:REFUND. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Northlane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The albums subcategory should be sufficient container for all of this band's related articles for now. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 19:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:08, 27 May 2022 (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: rename to Category:Asian-American drag queens. There is no consensus for a merger at this time. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American drag queens of Asian descent to Category:Asian-American drag queens

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with Category:African-American drag queens (?) --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:American drag queens per WP:OCEGRS, trivial intersection with ethnicity. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. This merger is not only consistent, but makes more sense, and is necessary considering the number of entries currently in this category, meaning it is notable enough to include. In this regard, I have to disagree with Marcocapelle. --Historyday01 (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The number of entries is irrelevant for WP:OCEGRS. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 19:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support the proposed rename and don't merge. New title is more concise, natural, and consistent. WP:OCEGRS says "it must at least be reasonable to create" an article on the intersection. There's a reasonable case for Asian-American drag queens, citing coverage in Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, Global Encyclopedia of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) History, KNKX, and a chapter in Geisha of a Different Kind Race and Sexuality in Gaysian America. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:41, 25 May 2022 (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. ✗plicit 13:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Songs about wealth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unclear, hard to verify. Is this songs for wealth? Against it? Critical of it? Songs about having money that aren't explicitly about wealth? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the same manner we have Category:Songs about poverty. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 22:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per "Money makes the world go 'round", a valid category. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck does an aphorism have to do with it being a valid category? Radical inclusionism is not a valid rationale for anything. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because the topic is so understandable, and the category's name communicates its criteria so well, that encyclopedic inclusion seems obvious. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overly broad categorisation which does not achieve the core purpose of categories, which is to link related entries together, not link articles by the most superficial of characteristics (for ex. The Man Who Broke the Bank at Monte Carlo (song) and Yosemite (song); which are clear examples of why this kind of category is simply untenable). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem overly broad at all, but quite concisely worded. "...Monte Carlo" fits the category well. "Yosemite" doesn't, so I've removed it, thanks for pointing it out. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment entirely misses the point that something being "about" something is a very loose relation and not one which is likely to achieve the aim of categorisation. Category:Songs against capitalism is a precise category and links things which are closely related in thematic content; so does for example Category:Lutheran hymns, which includes songs related not only by a superficial topic but by more significant aspects (such as style, theme, ...). Songs being "about wealth" is vague and uninteresting: are they songs celebrating a hedonistic lifestyle (Luxurious)? are they songs discussing people's upbringing and how they eventually become wealthy (C.R.E.A.M.)? are they songs about hypothetical wealth (If I Had $1000000)? are they about people who don't have wealth (Money's Too Tight (to Mention))? are they about people who do not wish to be fabulously wealthy (Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (song))? This shows that this kind of category of stuff "about X" is almost always too broad to be useful in achieving the purpose of categories, which again is about linking related entries together based on actual defining characteristics, not based on superficial similarities. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Answering your questions: Yes. Songs about wealth seems self-descriptive and a perfectly understandable legitimate category. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dismissing all the possible different meanings of wealth detailed above with "seems self-descriptive" is borderline a proof by assertion. No, it isn't "self-descriptive"; it's helplessly vague. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 19:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. there is an assumption that wealth=money and that is not so, it can mean "an abundance of valuable possessions or money." so now any song about a surfeit of anything from diseases to ladyfriends can be added. That fails WP:CATDEF. Has anybody checked what is included in the category? --Richhoncho (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, heavily purge. The first article that confirms that the lyrics are somehow about wealth is Billionaire (song). No objection to deletion, as I expect not much will qualify. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as vague. ― Qwerfjkl talk 19:17, 8 June 2022 (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: rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 19:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Anglican churches in British Columbia to Category:Anglican church buildings in British Columbia

Nominator's rationale: Categories for other provinces are named 'church buildings' vs 'churches' Richiepip (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - this would be a speedy (WP:C2C) per convention in Category:Anglican church buildings in Canada. Oculi (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support probably speedy per Oculi. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:15, 27 May 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Documentary television series available on YouTube, fee-free (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not WP:DEFINING, just a crufty metatag Le Deluge (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
shows youtube content as, from some users, a reliable source, in the same way as "song provided to youtube from content rights holder" 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 20 May 2022 (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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Racially motivated violence against french people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Non sequitur - French is an ethnicity not a race. Also there's only 1 page and it's unlikely many others would fit this category EvergreenFir (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with this one, so Delete. The article on the 1804 massacre in Haiti is already in Category:Racially motivated violence against white people. So, why is the "Racially motivated violence against french people" category needed, especially since, as the OP notes, French is an ethnicity, not a race? --Historyday01 (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Anti-Chinese violence is a subcategory of Category:Racially motivated violence, while I don't think most folks would talk about the "Chinese race". Along these lines, a category involving attacks against French ethnics might be reasonable, but I think that this topic is better covered as a part of Category:Racially motivated violence against white people than how it currently is. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Racism in France describes violent attacks against North Africans, East Asians, Jews, and Roma, some of whom were undoubtedly born in France. Do those incidents count as "racially motivated violence against French people"? The Haiti massacre fits better under Category:Racially motivated violence against white Europeans. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2022 (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: procedural close, the category has already been deleted (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:List of Tallest Dams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Needs to be renamed at the very least. We already have Category:Lists of tallest dams. If it was intended to be a list article, we already have List of tallest dams. Judging from the lone article that populates it, it's possible the scope was intended to be Category:Worlds tallest dams or Category:Tallest dams in India? Unless there is some clarification and compelling rationale from the category's creator, I recommend deletion. DB1729 (talk) 01:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sole article was Tehri Dam, now removed (by the creator of the category, which amounts to ((db-author))). Oculi (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2022 (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.

May 19

Category:Television series by Mark Goodson-Bill Todman Productions

Category:Television series by Sande Stewart Television

Category:Northlane

Category:American drag queens of Asian descent

Category:Fishing in Ukraine

Category:Songs about wealth

Category:Anglican churches in British Columbia

Category:Documentary television series available on YouTube, fee-free

Category:Racially motivated violence against french people

Category:List of Tallest Dams