Nominator's rationale:Delete. Villages in Transylvania, just like villages all over the world, are not divided by "religion". Even if the population of those villages is 99% or 100% Unitarian, the villages themselves will not be "Unitarian". Furthermore, those "villages" are actually communes. Dahn16:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete - contained a bunch of stub articles for the various roasts which I've merged and redirect to the main article. No need for the category. Otto471116:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps
Nominator's rationale:Delete - unnecessary eponymous category for a TV show. Category not needed for the small amount of material. Otto471116:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete all - each of these categories consists of some combination of the following subcats: albums; members; songs; (and in several cases no subcats) along with the artist's category and in some instances a discography article. Per precedent this is overcategorization. The only exception is LCD Soundsystem which has James Murphy (electronic musician) in it. Murphy is LCD Soundsystem and the two articles are interlinked through text so the category isn't needed just for his article. Otto471114:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename all. The terms for former pupils of individual British schools can be deeply confusing and this in turn makes the categories on pages confusing - see the previous CFD Old Citizens which renamed it to Old Citizens (City of London School). Another category where the name of the Old Pupil doesn't immediately reflect the school name so clarity is provided is Christ's Hospital Old Blues. These categories are amongst the most confusing and should have the names modified to include reference to the school's name for consistency. Timrollpickering13:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete - this seems like overcategorization on the basis of opinion or advocacy. Inclusion criteria, based on the definition of Esperantist in the article, seems rather arbitrary. Otto471113:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added the compositions cat as a sub-cat, thus expanding the category contents greatly. If kept should be renamed per nom. Not sure about keep/delete yet. Johnbod13:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.
Nominator's rationale: I created this category, gave it an inappropriate name (capital P) and didn't realise there was an equivalent page Category:Indian philosophy because it was not in the philosophy by region category. I.e. I messed up. Anarchia10:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
Nominator's rationale: I think this category is a bad idea. This category was created due to a dispute between two editors over the proper usage of the word "documentary." One editor's opinion was that certain films should be called "reality films" and one editor provided sources that referred to them as documentaries).[1] No sources have ever been provided that refer to any of the films in this category as "reality films", with the possible exception of The Real Cancun -- which was called "the world's first reality feature film" by it's distributor, New Line Cinema: It's fun and sexy, unscripted and uncensored. It's The Real Cancun, the world's first reality feature film. Produced by the creators of "The Real World" and "Road Rules," this film brings together 16 people for eight days in a beachfront Mexican villa for the ultimate Spring Break vacation.[2] I don't think the film's marketing department counts as a reliable source. The encyclopedia entry for The Real Cancun refers to it as a documentary, as does the Internet Movie Database[3], Metacritic[4], Rotten Tomatoes[5], Box Office Mojo[6], and All Movie Guide[7]. Joel Stein of TIME magazine said "Like reality TV, a reality film is supercheap"[8], but he never directly called The Real Cancun a "reality film." Tom Ryan of The Age wrote an article[9] and used the phrase "Reality film" as the title of his article -- not as an all-encompassing category of all the films he mentioned. Even if we accept New Line's Cinema claim that The Real Cancun is a "reality feature film", that's still not quite "reality film" and this category would only have 1 article in it. Please see Talk:Reality_film#Comment by Pixelface for my long comment on the topic. Pixelface10:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too few reliable sources label films as reality films. I think established categories (such as Category:Films based on television series and Category:Comedy films) verifiably describe movies like Jackass without resorting to our original editorial judgment. (Note: it would be almost as dubious to label some of these movies "documentaries," as partisans on the opposite side might wish, but that's a debate for individual articles; this category has no use at all.) Cool HandLuke12:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Aside from being quite broad (the category may well include every character in every comedy), it is difficult to actually prove that a character is a parody of someone else (real or fictional) without delving into original research. The only possible exceptions are cases like Saddam Hussein (South Park) and when the character's creator explicitly states: "X is a parody of Y". Thus, I think that the inclusion criteria for this category are not objective enough. Black Falcon(Talk)00:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}