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. Wizardman 17:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The category currently contains 3 templates - all of which are in the merge target. DexDor (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2013 (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. Wizardman 17:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Single-entry category with no chance of expansion. The series might be notable but the individual characters will never support individual articles. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This clearly doesn't need its own category. As Jerry Pepsi said, it only contains one article and the likelihood of anything else ever being added seems incredibly small. --Jpcase (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2013 (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 rename per C2C creator's assent.Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. This should conform with similar category names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2013 (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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 19:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. The main article for this band was deleted six years ago as non-notable. A category for a non-notable band is not needed. Tassedethe (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2013 (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:Song recordings produced by Tom Denney[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale: The first reason for nomination is that every member of the category is a redirect. The second reason is that WP has song articles and not articles about recordings of songs, this is not consistent with adding production credits to redirects. Richhoncho (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's nothing wrong with having redirects in a category, nor is there adding categories to redirects. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 21:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best, the redirects' targets are the albums from which they came in which there already is Category:Albums produced by Tom Denney, which is more defining than this collection of non-notable songs. There is also little to no info within the articles about the songs themselves beyond the track listing, and it seems rather pointless to create redirects for every song of every album Denney produced and then categorize it as such just for the sake of doing so. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:21, 2 December 2013 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Overly promotional. WP is not here to be Rooster Teeth's corporate website. The level of coverage here is way over the top for a minor production company. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - going just by numbers there's enough content currently to justify a category. Skimming through some of the articles they look to me like they're barely scraping the bottom of the notability barrel and many of these articles should probably be merged or deleted, but that should happen first so we have a better idea of what the real contents of a potential category would be. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So it's policy to keep categories of any old crap, so long as there's lots of it? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's policy to use categories to group articles based on defining characteristics and one of the defining characteristics of media is the production company that created it. See Category:Films by studio and Category:Television series by studio, for example. There is also an extensive system for categorizing production companies by name. I'm not overly familiar with web series categorization so maybe there are some categorization differences of which I'm not aware but this appears to be a tightly focused category for the studio and within reason. Again, a cursory examination of the articles indicates to me that the material should be culled and if/when that happens we can take another look at the category. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep for now. It serves as a convenient container for us to see what Rooster's teeth has been up to in terms of creation of potentially non-notable articles. i suggest those with a need to purge take a look at the articles in this section and merge/AFD accordingly; if there isn't much of note after that's all done, we could delete the category, but for now it seems merited.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – don't blame the category for its contents (some of which look fine to me – eg Red vs. Blue, although I would prefer a tighter category name such as "XXX created by Rooster Teeth"). Oculi (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with what was said above; it might be worth deleting this category, but only if most of the articles that it contains are deleted first. And there's nothing promotional about having a category centered around a production studio. This is just a useful way to help readers that are interested in the topic find articles that are associated with it. --Jpcase (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2013 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Small category unlikely to expand. The sole article is already in the target and the sub-category can live there quite happily as well. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
upmerge per the reasons given in the nomination. Nothing more to say. Hmains (talk) 03:45, 2 December 2013 (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.
