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: upmerge. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 ( talk) 07:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose upmerging the following categories to Category:Video games based on television series
  • Category:Video games based on BKN shows‎
  • Category:Video games based on Disney Channel shows
  • Category:Video games based on Fox Kids programs
  • Category:Video games based on Kids' WB programs
  • Category:Video games based on MTV programs
  • Category:Video games based on PBS Kids shows

Nominator's rationale: Overly specific categories. Trivialist ( talk) 23:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Support, this concerns a trivial intersection. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:01, 28 April 2019 (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) DannyS712 ( talk) 07:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Video games based on WarnerMedia properties ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Overly specific to categorized video games together based on their source material being owned by the same company. Trivialist ( talk) 23:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Support, this concerns a trivial intersection. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:03, 28 April 2019 (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) DannyS712 ( talk) 07:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Video games based on Comcast properties ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Overly specific to categorized video games together based on their source material being owned by the same company. Trivialist ( talk) 23:44, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Support, this concerns a trivial intersection. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:03, 28 April 2019 (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: upmerge. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 ( talk) 07:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose upmerging the following to Category:Video games based on films
  • Category:Video games based on films by studio
  • Category:Video games based on Amblin Entertainment films‎
  • Category:Video games based on Carolco Pictures films‎
  • Category:Video games based on Columbia Pictures films‎
  • Category:Video games based on Disney animated films‎
  • Category:Video games based on DreamWorks Animation films‎
  • Category:Video games based on Legendary Pictures films‎
  • Category:Video games based on Lucasfilm films‎
  • Category:Video games based on New Line Cinema films‎
  • Category:Video games based on Nickelodeon Movies films
  • Category:Video games based on Paramount Pictures films‎
  • Category:Video games based on Pixar films‎
  • Category:Video games based on Sony Pictures Animation films
  • Category:Video games based on Time Warner films‎
  • Category:Video games based on Universal Pictures films‎
  • Category:Video games based on Viacom films‎
  • Category:Video games based on Village Roadshow Pictures films
  • Category:Video games based on Walden Media films‎
  • Category:Video games based on Warner Bros. Pictures films‎

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessarily specific. Propose upmerging this and all subcategories to Category:Video games based on films. Trivialist ( talk) 23:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Support, this concerns a trivial intersection. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:03, 28 April 2019 (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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Iodites ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: It currently only has one member, and both Iodite and Iodous acid state that iodites are very unstable, disproportionate rapidly, and have never been isolated, so I highly doubt that the category will be gaining any more members anytime soon. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 22:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Full upmerge - I am not convinced that the one article is adequately categorised. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:05, 21 April 2019 (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: keep. – Fayenatic London 08:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Quite useless category that likely violates WP:BLPCAT. Unlike Category:Conspiracy theories regarding Barack Obama, this is not documented well enough in my opinion. Declined G10. wumbolo ^^^ 21:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Oppose – I removed this category from Vaccine hesitancy and Climate change denial as neither of them mention Trump. Since the other conspiracy theory articles do contain reliably sourced information about Trump supporting them, this category does not violate BLPCAT, and is in fact quite useful. – bradv 🍁 22:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I am not sure if 'promoted' is the right word, ping User:Volunteer Marek? Are there reliable sources using this wording? I'll also note we don't have any other category like this (as in, CT promoted by an individual). -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Support Donald Trump is a minor politician, head of state of a backwater country. How are his views Defining for these articles? Dimadick ( talk) 07:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Trump was the #1 promoter of the Obama birther conspiracy theory. He is also the originator and #1 promoter of several other conspiracy theories, such as that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower, or that 3 million voters fraudulently voted in the 2016 US presidential election. POTUS is still leader of the free world; when POTUS promotes conspiracy theories, it matters. Trump is known for peddling conspiracy theories (unlike most other Presidents, maybe unlike any other President before him), and several conspiracy theories are known for being peddled by Trump (which also may be unique to Trump–can you think of a conspiracy theory known for being peddled by another President?). It's a defining characteristic, both ways. Leviv  ich 16:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Oppose I think that "promoted" is the correct word since the remaining articles in the category contain reliably sourced information about Trump publically expressing support or advocating for them. As for defining characteristics, Trump is the highest-ranking political official of the largest economic, cultural, military power in the world and the remaining theories in the category are known for their association with Trump. -- TheAlderaanian ( talk) 21:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• I also removed Suicide of Vince Foster since it was not defining in respect to the category, but Trump's support is defining for the rest of the theories in that they he is not only known for his association with the theories but the theories are known for his association with him (especially Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories).-- TheAlderaanian ( talk) 18:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• The lead of that Obama article consists of 4 long paragraphs of text, but doesn't mention Trump at all. His name probably could be worked into the lead, but that it currently isn't (let alone in the lead sentence/para) strongly suggests it's non-defining. DexDor ^(talk) 05:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Oppose per Levivich. I removed this category from John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories.
• Support deletion - while the fact that Trump supports these conspiracy theories may say something about Trump himself, it is not a defining fact for the theories themselves. A contrario, conspiracy theories about Obama, or about the JFK assassination, are clearly defined as such. Place Clichy ( talk) 16:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Purge, not all articles are defining with respect to Donald Trump. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. In the sample of articles in the category I looked at (e.g. Britain First) none belonged in this category (per WP:NONDEF etc) and all were in much more appropriate categories. DexDor ^(talk) 18:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC) Also, this doesn't form part of a wider "Conspiracy theories promoted by .. " category structure and is subjective (what if Trump says "Some people say X"? - is that promoting X?). DexDor ^(talk) 06:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

No objection to listifying (either a new article or in an existing article as appropriate) - assuming the info is cited. DexDor ^(talk) 05:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Oppose – per above, largely Levivich. Those consipiracies which Trump is not known to promote should be removed from the article. Inter&anthro ( talk) 18:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Perhaps listification is a better option here? That would at least mandate the inclusion of sources for each theory. DonIago ( talk) 21:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply

  That would fail WP:LISTN. Most of the conspiracy theories that Trump has supported are actually just falsehoods or lies. See e.g. this article from CNN. It lists a couple of false statements made by Trump that just happen to involve accusations of conspiracy, and a few that may very well be 100% true or are misrepresenting what Trump said (the NJ illegal immigrants did in fact "[cry] in joy" during 9/11 according to Haaretz; Trump has repeatedly said that he has "full faith and support" in intelligence agencies so he can't possibly believe that Russia did not interfere in the 2016 election [1]; that Trump may have said that climate change does not happen has nothing to do with a conspiracy theory; that Trump says it was not his voice on Access Holywood also can't possibly be interpreted as a conspiracy theory, it is not a conspiracy theory to believe there's a link between vaccines and autism, the conspiracy is done by biology or what (?); etc.) All in all, this article would fail WP:LISTN, but I could definitely see LISTN satisfied by e.g. "List of Trump-Russia conspiracy theories" which were promoted by very many Democrats and the MSM (the latter is admitting it). wumbolo ^^^ 18:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply

  By its very definition a conspiracy theories are false statements that just happen to involve accusations of conspiracy, and most of the articles on that represent actual false claims or claims without documented evidence that Donald Trump has been verified to have made. For instance, although Haaretz does mention 5 Muslims who did "[cry] in joy" this does not indicate the "thousands and thousands of people" Donald Trump claims to have been celebrating on the streets of New Jersey, which has not been recorded. [2]. Moreover, although Donald Trump admitted that Russia did interfere in the election as shown by [3] (which was written after the CNN article), the same article demonstrates that he continues to make unsubstantiated remarks that "there could be other people also." The Access Hollywood tape could certainly be interpreted as a conspiracy theory if Trump suggested that his opponents worked together to doctor the tape. It is also a conspiracy theory to assume that there is a link between vaccines and autism since it implicitly implies that evidence has been covered up by the government and/or the pharmaceutical industry for years. With that in mind, this grouping is notable enough and well documented enough to pass WP:LISTN.-- TheAlderaanian ( talk) 22:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC) reply

  Then this is a redundancy to False statements by Donald Trump. wumbolo ^^^ 19:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply

  Not necessarily, because the article False statements of Donald Trump is focused on his rhetorical style, and the article was only named that way after assurances were made that it was not meant to be a specific list of his statements. I should also note that WP:NPOV's position on conspiracy theories, which is described on this website not as a false statement but as an "explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable," only directly bars mentioning conspiracy theories in cases where it would "unduly legitimize them" and as long as they are placed "in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world." The simple act of having a page listing theories held by an extreme minority that fall into those criteria and that have been promoted or even originated by Donald Trump fulfills both requirements. It also doesn't comment on their veracity, only that Donald Trump said them and that it is a minority view (which would also cover WP:WEIGHT)-- TheAlderaanian ( talk) 00:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I support DonIago's idea about listification. That would prevent users from abusing a category. -- TheAlderaanian ( talk) 15:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Oppose: I can see why this category had a WP:NONDEF problem at the time of this listing. The pruning of loosely associated articles out of this category since then, though, has improved the category. Currently, a number of articles remaining in this category are primarily — "definingly"? — associated with the same individual, per sources. The text "Includes a list of conspiracy theories..." should be removed or rewritten to reflect the narrower focus of the category. Matt Fitzpatrick ( talk) 23:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC) reply

  This is plain false. Trump has never promoted QAnon. wumbolo ^^^ 14:29, 10 June 2019 (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 with criminal convictions to convicted of crimes (option A). —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 09:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Proposed standardizing the convention for naming categories about people "convicted of crimes" or "with criminal convictions". Personally, I don't have a preference, but the format should be standard.

Option A - rename categories currently using "with criminal convictions", to be using "convicted of crimes"

1. Category:Religious leaders with criminal convictions
2. Category:Members of the clergy with criminal convictions
3. Category:Clergy with criminal convictions by religion

Group B - rename categories using "convicted of crimes", to be using to "with criminal convictions"

1. Category:Politicians convicted of crimes
2. Category:American labor union officials convicted of crimes
3. Category:American government officials convicted of crimes

I am currently tagging the categories. -- DannyS712 ( talk) 18:44, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

All tagged. Pinging Piotrus, who wanted to have this CfR. -- DannyS712 ( talk) 19:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Support - slight preference for A. Agree it should be consistent. Oculi ( talk) 19:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Support as the half-nom, slight preference for A as well. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Support I prefer A here, as it avoids asking the question "convicted by who?". Dimadick ( talk) 07:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Support A - "convicted of crimes", more natural and apparently preferred by most category creators. - Zanhe ( talk) 08:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Support -- Prefer A. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Support option A, and support the need for consistency. Place Clichy ( talk) 16:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Support A need for consistency - and less changes are needed when A is done considering that both category names are practically the same. Juxlos ( talk) 09:38, 2 May 2019 (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 all. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 ( talk) 05:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Historical documents to Category:Documents
• Propose renaming Category:1st-century historical documents to Category:1st-century documents
• Propose renaming Category:2nd-century historical documents to Category:2nd-century documents
• Propose renaming Category:3rd-century historical documents to Category:3rd-century documents
• Propose renaming Category:4th-century historical documents to Category:4th-century documents
• Propose renaming Category:5th-century historical documents to Category:5th-century documents
• Propose renaming Category:6th-century historical documents to Category:6th-century documents
• Propose renaming Category:7th-century historical documents to Category:7th-century documents
• Propose renaming Category:8th-century historical documents to Category:8th-century documents
• Propose renaming Category:9th-century historical documents to Category:9th-century documents
• Propose renaming Category:10th-century historical documents to Category:10th-century documents
• Propose renaming Category:11th-century historical documents to Category:11th-century documents
• Propose renaming Category:12th-century historical documents to Category:12th-century documents
• Propose renaming Category:13th-century historical documents to Category:13th-century documents
• Propose renaming Category:14th-century historical documents to Category:14th-century documents
• Propose renaming Category:15th-century historical documents to Category:15th-century documents
• Propose renaming Category:16th-century historical documents to Category:16th-century documents
• Propose renaming Category:17th-century historical documents to Category:17th-century documents
• Propose renaming Category:18th-century historical documents to Category:18th-century documents
• Propose renaming Category:19th-century historical documents to Category:19th-century documents
• Propose renaming Category:20th-century historical documents to Category:20th-century documents
• Propose renaming Category:21st-century historical documents to Category:21st-century documents
• Propose renaming Category:Historical documents by country to Category:Documents by country
• Propose renaming Category:Bangladeshi historical documents to Category:Bangladeshi documents
• Propose renaming Category:Croatian historical documents to Category:Croatian documents
• Propose renaming Category:Indian historical documents to Category:Indian documents
• Propose renaming Category:Mexican historical documents to Category:Mexican documents
• Propose renaming Category:Pakistani historical documents to Category:Pakistani documents
• Propose renaming Category:Serbian historical documents to Category:Serbian documents
• Propose renaming Category:South Korean historical documents to Category:South Korean documents
• Propose renaming Category:United States historical documents to Category:United States documents

Nominator's rationale: merge/rename, adding "historical" to documents means little, because in the end all documents will become historical. Also this format does not match with the decade and year categories, e.g. Category:1750s documents and Category:1755 documents are without "historical". Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Support. The usage of the word 'historical' in other categories also bears a review for similar reasons. Ex. Category:Historical objects. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Support Pointless distinction. Dimadick ( talk) 07:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Support makes sense. - Zanhe ( talk) 08:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Support as an unnecessary distinction. Place Clichy ( talk) 16:31, 23 April 2019 (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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 ( talk) 07:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Animation festivals to Category:Animation events and Category:Animation organizations

Nominator's rationale: Category which exists only as an unnecessary intermediate step between Category:Animation film festivals and the parents. Animation is inherently a film and television phenomenon, so "animation festivals" and "animation film festivals" are the same thing by definition -- and no, the existence of animation conventions doesn't prove me wrong, because they already have a separate category for Category:Animation conventions and aren't being filed here. All of which means the film festivals subcategory can be naturally contained directly in the parents, without needing a redundantly synonymous intermediate category to sit between them. Bearcat ( talk) 16:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:10, 28 April 2019 (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 and merge ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Aeni and manhwa by source ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose merging Category:Aeni based on video games ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Works based on video games and Category:Animated web series

Nominator's rationale: Two categories containing two articles, both of which are animated web series. "Manhwa" is therefore redundant and " aeni" is just a redirect to Korean animation so at the very least they should be renamed, but for two articles I'm not sure it's worth it. Better to upmerge IMO. PC78 ( talk) 12:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Support - overkill. Oculi ( talk) 15:56, 20 April 2019 (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: reverse merge ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Ghanaian anti-corruption activists to Category:Anti-corruption activists in Ghana

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category Trialpears ( talk) 10:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Merge but the other way. The parent is Category:Ghanaian activists, subcat of Category:Ghanaian people. (They both contain the same 3 articles.) Oculi ( talk) 23:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Reverse merge per @Oculi. Place Clichy ( talk) 16:31, 23 April 2019 (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) DannyS712 ( talk) 05:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Films with viral marketing campaigns ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: I don't really see how a viral marketing campaign is a defining characteristic of a film. All films have advertising in one form or another; what makes viral marketing of particular interest? DonIago ( talk) 05:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

My reasoning was that unlike other forms of marketing, viral marketing involves the participation of the audience. In addition, it also often provides unique context for the story for the film rather than a static presentatiom to the public. For instance, The Blair Witch Project contained a greater amount of plot than the final film, and as a result viewing the marketing campaign altered the audience's perception of the film by causing to view certain details limking to the VR in a different light. In addition, viral marekting campaigns can attract the attention of the media as occurred in 1999 with TBWP and in 2008 with Cloverfield. If this still does not meet the necessity for [WP:DEFCAT|defining characteristic]] I understand the need for its removal. User:TheAlderaanian ( talk) 20 April 2019 —Preceding undated comment added 06:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

I have no strong opinion on if the category should exist, though it seems common as grass to me, so not obviously useful. However, you shouldn't add it to articles like Alien: Covenant which doesn't mention viral marketing, or even marketing. Dito is adding Category:Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump to John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories a bad idea, since the article doesn't mention Trump (the Cruz-thing in False statements by Donald Trump is not enough, IMO). Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Would it be improved by renaming it something like "Films with ARG Viral Marketing"? TheAlderaanian ( talk) 16:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Or "Films promoted through alternate reality games?"-- TheAlderaanian ( talk) 19:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete as non-defining. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per Lugnuts. Bondegezou ( talk) 19:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment I just wanted to say that even though this page will probably be deleted, and justifiably so, that this has been a learning experience for me. Thank you all for being constructive in your criticism. I will take all of this into account in the future. -- TheAlderaanian ( talk) 22:17, 21 April 2019 (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) 07:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:WikiProject Kilkenny ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WikiProject Kilkenny was userfied in April 2011 to User:Mrchris/WikiProject Kilkenny per this MFD which I started, and the title WP:WikiProject Kilkenny was redirected to WP:WikiProject Ireland. I dunno how the category and the banner Template:WikiProject Kilkenny survived so long after the project was terminated, but it is absurd to have a project banner and associated category structure for a non-project. (The banner is is under discussion at WP:TFD 2019 April 20).

Please note that I have not nominated the subcat Category:WikiProject Kilkenny articles and its subcats. AFAICS, those categories are populated solely by Template:WikiProject Kilkenny and will be emptied if that banner is deleted. They can then be speedily deleted per WP:C1. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Support per nom. Place Clichy ( talk) 16:31, 23 April 2019 (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: listify/delete. Since a list has already been created, it can just be deleted. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 ( talk) 05:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Songwriters Hall of Fame inductees

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD ( WP:NONDEFINING)

According to the Songwriters Hall of Fame article, "the Hall does not have a permanent place and the awards are not televised" but the 461 inductees are sure prominent. I looked at maybe 50 articles and ones like Woody Guthrie and W. C. Handy mention the award in passing, others like Jerry Garcia and David Bowie don't mention the award at all, and none mentioned it the lede. This award did not seem defining but the heavilly overlapping and more prominent Grammy Hall of Fame seemed more like a career capstone. The contents of the category are already listified here in a separate list article. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Background In the past, we've deleted similar songwriter hall of fame category here. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Bondegezou ( talk) 19:07, 21 April 2019 (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.