Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Category:Design

This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete ":". In all cases, please make sure to read and understand the deletion policy before editing this page.
 * If you are suggesting a page for deletion, add your initial rationale to the section "Deletion rationale".
 * If you want to discuss this suggestion, add comments to the section "Discussion".
 * If a consensus has been reached, an administrator will explain the final decision in the section "Admin resolution".

Initial discussion
Category:Design This is apparently for, um... Trek-related designs and... stuff. Um... yeah... anyway, support or oppose its existence here. --From Andoria with Love 19:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If it's going to have only 4 items... then... no. If a list of likely candidates was put onto this talk page, then maybe. -- Sulfur 22:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC) "Um" is exactly what I thought... ;) "Design" as the name of a category for "production art" (if that even is what it is supposed to be - I don't quite know) goes against every naming scheme we use. Unless we get a definition of what's actually supposed to be here, and then find a proper name for that, I wouldn't want to keep this one. -- Cid Highwind 23:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Like Sulfur, I would like to see a list of other potential members of this category before passing a final judgement on it, but as it stands now I oppose the category in its present form.--31dot 23:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC) I, for one, don't see a need for it, either. I sorta forgot to mention that earlier. :P So, yeah, opposed, unless it's better defined. --From Andoria with Love 07:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Opposed as well. -- Renegade54 08:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC) It would seem that this would encompass production material or references, but I'm really not sure if there are that many more to contribute. --Alan del Beccio 00:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Category_talk:Design"

Deletion rationale
Please reference the (above) discussion. In December 2007 it was first suggested that if this category only had 4 members, that it should be deleted. Well, it still only has four members, and (unless they've changed their minds) it had four votes of opposition.--31dot 02:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Delete - ill-defined and with few members. – Cleanse 07:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Admin resolution
Deleted per consensus, and little support expressed in a year.--31dot 18:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)