Comment - the various discussions which have touched on this category (under the original name "MST3K movies") the notion has been floated that this category is warranted because unlike other similar categories (like RiffTrax and the other categories nominated yesterday) many of the films riffed by MST3K would not be notable were it not for their having been riffed. No real opinion on the validity of that argument. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nomination. If your only way of justifying a category is that it is being a defining feature of the film then all categories of this nature should be taken down. Just because someone took the time to ad "This film was later featured on MST3K" to each article about a movie does not mean that it's a defining attribute. It's arguable that the films define MST3K and not the other way around. This category is only useful to people who watch MST3K and doesn't tell you anything about the actual film other then it is probably of poor quality and easy to make fun of -- which would be adequately illustrated with the category "B-Films" which already exists and many of these films are already a part of. DixieDellamorto (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my rationale for the deletion for Rifftrax films category - unlike there, most films that fall into this category would only be notable and on WP because of their use by MST3K. I would suggest a rename, since the present name suggests that MST3K *made* the films (there's technically only one MST3K film and that's MST3K The Movie), maybe "Films featured on MST3K" or "MST3K-Featured Films". --MASEM (t) 10:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These films existed long before MST3K and they all had some level of appreciation before MST3K. The only people who think a film is more notable because of an appearance on MST3K is someone who watched the show or a fan of the show. The general public won't know what Manos Hands of Fate is -- there are A LOT of people who don't even know what MST3K is. (I know it's hard to believe) This Category is irrelevant to anyone who isn't a MST3K fan and doesn't contribute anything to these films and it's existence doesn't ad anything to the articles it's attached to.
Sorry, I don't see how "Localities" is equivalent to "Cities and towns". To me, a "locality" is just any place - certainly including villages, which are not towns or cities and hence are not included in this category. So renaming the category in this way wouldn't make sense - you would have to rearrange the existing categories somehow.--Kotniski (talk) 07:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there was ever a consensus to "dump" all these things together - just that when they are all dumped together, the category should be called "populated places..." rather than "settlements...". Here they are not all dumped together, so neither "settlements" or "populated places" or "localities" is the right term - at least, not for this category as presently consutrcted.--Kotniski (talk) 10:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My original idea in creating these (and I'm considering expanding it to all of Romania's counties) was for cities and towns not to appear directly in the county category, but in a "geography" subcategory. (If you look at a city in another county, say Jibou, you'll see it appears directly in Category:Sălaj County.) "Localities" are cities, towns, communes and villages. (We don't really need to worry about villages, since we use redirects rather than separate articles for Romanian villages, except for a handful waiting to be merged.) Each county has dozens of communes but perhaps 5-15 cities and towns, so I figured it made sense to leave the latter in the more general "localities" category while keeping "communes" as a subcategory. Remember, at present most cities and town are in an even more general category, so this is an improvement in specificity.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Trivial categorization. There's no reason to categorize pages by what type of barnstar a user has received. See also: nomination directly below. — ξxplicit19:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I only created the category because other barnstars have done the same. I was following what I assumed was established convention. —Bill Price (nyb) 22:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category has been moved, and had its scope changed, so many times that its original purpose has been lost. Spaceflights don't necessarily have to be "scheduled" to be in the future, and there is no sense in having a category for the cross-section that are, excluding the rest. Since there is a consensus against using it for its original purpose - categorising all future spaceflights - I can see no reason to keep it on. GW…09:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy with either deletion or renaming, but to be honest this category has also been virtually useless due to disrepair since its associated template was deleted. --GW…21:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge. There are no articles on regional enforcement agencies and I suspect that the new category was created by mistake. Pichpich (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Pichpich (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete - breaking down writers this much cuts too fine. Writers produce in multiple forms within genres and categorizing by each kind of writing will lead to category clutter. Sketch writers, sitcom writers, drama series writers, made-for-television movie writers, dramedy writers, infomercial writers, clip show writers, talk show writers, awards show writers, etc. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 09:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know a former comedy sketch writer -- and I suppose I used to be one, myself -- and I agree this opens the door to a range of comedy writer by show type categories. To be honest, I kind of assumed a sitcom writer category existed. I see it does not. Certainly leaning towards delete.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete - absent the performers who per WP:OC are incorrectly categorized there are three articles and a template. Not enough material to necessitate a category. Everything is linked through the template and the main article. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and prior precedent; this is overcategorisation, since each of these writers may have written many other things over the course of their lives. (Look at Chevy Chase for example, who is in this category, but his article doesn't even mention that he wrote for the Muppets.) Robofish (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Signatories of the health and social care concordat
Nominator's rationale:Delete - for organizations that at some point signed onto "a voluntary agreement between organisations that regulate, audit, inspect or review elements of health and healthcare in England." Does not appear to rise to the level of significance that would warrant categorization. Signatory status is reversible, further indicating the non-definingness of being a party to this document. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a defining characteristic. I don't think we normally categorise organisations and institutions by what agreements they've signed up to. Robofish (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - of thirteen subcats that include the word "Lazio" some use "Lazio" while others use "the Lazio". The lead category is Category:Lazio and the lead article is Lazio, which consistently reads "Lazio" and not "the Lazio". Discussion should be broadened to make everything uniform rather than renaming a single subcat in isolation. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A Google book search for "Goth film" does reveal what seem to me to be WP:RS. I think a main article could be written. But until such time as it is, I'm concerned that the category may be WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Leaning towards delete but open to recreating the category if a good main article can be written. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Completely random inclusion criteria of statehood lasting for "generally less than ten years." Some of these are states, others are micronations, some are simply occupations. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I accept it is an "entirely arbitrary classification", though not that it is POV. but it seems clearly a defining characteristic, and a useful tree, which is indeed large and has been around since 2005. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looking at the escapees structure, it appears that the people so categorized are those who escaped after being the subject of a specific custodial process (arrested for a crime, etc.). This category appears to be for people who attempted to flee a locale (mostly East Berlin) without being subject to a specific custodial process. Categorizing them as "escapees" or under the more general "escape" header (especially since most of them didn't make it out of the locale but died in the attempt) doesn't fit in with our categorization system. The same information can be presented as a list of people who were killed trying to get past the Berlin Wall, a reasonable sub-article of Berlin Wall. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
