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 per WP:SMALLCAT. This concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or few-article categories. The proposal is to merge all to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, so in this case we keep subcategories for: Patras (171,000 people), Aigio (26,000 people) and Kalavryta (6,000 people). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – emptied Category:People from Kleitoria by reverting Antondimak. Only has any people because Antondimak has been moving people there from other places during the nomination. WP:COP-PLACE of birth is rarely notable. One was a prominent Athens politician, but that was removed and replaced by place of birth. Some are merely rough translations and stubs (one a single sentence stub containing a place of birth). At least one of them was actually born during the Ottoman Empire in a village that was destroyed and replaced by a Greek-named village in a nearby location, so not even arguably correct. William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop lying. Most of these articles were in the category for half a year now, and weren't added during the nomination. The others were recently added by me, as I indicated above ("now has 5 articles"), and it's proof that these categories do actually grow quite fast. You also emptied Category:People from Boeotia, which was populated mostly by articles from the recently upmerged categories. If you have a problem with "People from" categories and the way articles are added in them in general, please bring it up in an actual discussion, and don't remove targeted articles to achieve a desired result in a nomination.
Now, about the specifics: The article you mention is indeed a stub, and you can see how it can be expanded by translating from the Greek Wikipedia. I don't see how this is relevant. I also don't know where you found that story about the Ottoman Empire or if you made it up, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Mazeika is an old name for Kleitoria. Both names are Greek. --Antondimak (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you hope we wouldn't click on the links? The last one was a random edit, not about Kleitoria and unrelated to what you were writing. As I said the majority of articles, 3 of them, were there since August. --Antondimak (talk) 07:08, 14 February 2021 (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 those with fewer than 30 articles in it. I have upmerged the contents of the deleted ones to the appropriate parent categories (usually "FOOian football biography stubs" and "CONTINENT women's football biography stubs"). Good Ol’factory(talk)23:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging these by continent or region (e.g. North Africa, Caribbean). I suspect that much of this arises from the particopants in a women's football tournament. However, women's football is unlikely to be a professional sporty in many of these countries, so that I would question whether many of the stubs should exist at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a blanket upmerge. Please be more careful. I just picked two at random (Cypriot and Kosovan) and found counts of 30 and 49; accordingly, I've added all of the counts above so that others may be revealed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Most for Now Merge all the categories with less than 5 articles with no objection to recreating them later if they cross that threshold. Keep the well populated ones. - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2021 (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:United States Army Air Service pilots of World War I
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: Not all of the people in this category actually were pilots. We should change it to "personnel" to be more inclusive with the members of the category. Lettlerhello • contribs15:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I had to look at who was in Category:American World War I pilots. Pilots are a special category in air forces. I see no objection to creating the target as an additional parent, but I suspect that few non-flying personnel will prove to be WP notable. USAAS was formed in May 1918, 6 months from the end of the war. This means that there were a considerable number of pre-USAAS pilots; US navy pilots; and pilots serving as volunteers in non-US forces, especially before USA joined the war. The subject category is well populated. I regard merging well=populated categories, save in cases of duplication as destructive. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2021 (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.
I will agree that some of these categories should be deleted, however I ask that you and other users please stop using misleading false equivalencies in your arguments. See Ancestral home (China) and Chinese kin for an overview on how Chinese ancestral identity is incorporated in a way that makes it distinct from western conceptions of place and origin. Additionally, Hong Kong was a separate country (British Overseas Territories) for many years, and today retains a separate passport, another reason why this analogy is not apt. (I've brought up this notion with this user in the past, and he appears to continue to ignore this evidence). Also, the issue of certain articles not citing a source that the person belongs in the category is an issue with the article itself and not one for CFD (applies to the other HK descent discussion as well).--Prisencolin (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hong Kong people of Fujianese descent now exists as a standalone article. It's just a stub but unless it's deleted through the deletion process I don't see how the associated category can't exist per WP:EGRS as well as WP:NOTDUPE: "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African-American musicians, should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category can be created, but that it must at least be possible to create one."--Prisencolin (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KeepCategory:Hong Kong people of Fujianese descent(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), still investigating the rest. I have just gone through and added reliable sources for each one of the articles in the category, removing a few (including an article about a criminal gang...). I will at some point in the near future create an article along the lines of Fujianese people in Hong Kong which will contain sources justifying the category's existence. I recommend closing this discussion and re-listing them all individually in order to have a cleaner discussion.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all — we don't categorize by descent from cities. Nothing notable. These are not cultural categories. If these were Min Chinese speakers in Hong Kong, that would be another thing altogether. William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnic identity is not intrinsically tied to linguistic ability Thomas Guldin, a scholar of the subject writes ""language difference do not make inviolate ethnic boundaries; as in the USA and elsewhere, ethnic groups can persist without retaining their linguistic idiosyncrasies)"[1] He further cites authors like Anthony P. Cohen (1969)[2] By this logic we should delete Category:American people of Italian descent as most of the later generations retain little to no knowledge of the language. And the fact is that this group of people are Min-speaking. (e.g. Raymond Lam: " his first languages are Cantonese and Hokkien,").--Prisencolin (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all "descent" categories are meaningless (see:User:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories for a bunch of reasons why). Moreover, these are not even ethnicities; and linguistic issues are not ethnicities either otherwise we have proven that ethnicities are non-existent (do Category:Americans of Jewish descent only include Yiddish speakers or are Ladino speakers mixed in, and when perchance the person can no longer speak Yiddish (or whatever) other than the few words adopted into English they are no longer of Jewish descent?). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)`[reply]
@Marcocapelle: I messaged you about mass nominating these kinds of categories, and I now think it applies to this one too. These categories vary greatly in their suitability for the encyclopedia. I suggest delist each one other than "Hong Kong people of Fujianese descent" from this nomination and nominate separately. There are only six so it shouldn't clog the general forum too much.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to start subsections in the discussion, for every nominated category separately. There are only six, so subsections will work out fine. The word "trivial" originates from WP:TRIVIALCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The burden is on the nominator to prove why the topics should be bundled together. Otherwise you are misleading others into assuming they are fundamentally the same, and you should know for the fact that the two users who have already cast a vote will vote for deletion no matter what. WP:IDL admonishes against labeling something is "trivial" in a discussion. On a random aside I put up WP:TRIVIAL for RFD as I wasn't sure where it would point me.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Non-defining and trivial intersection applies to all six. Splitting a discussion in multiples or creating subsections is just a practicality, there is no burden to prove anything. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If a group nomination has categories that are not similar in a single nomination, the CFD process normally takes care of itself with a "no consensus" result. That then puts the burden of future smaller nomininations on the original submitter. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All People moving from one section of China to another is not defining, even if the destination is a special administrative region and even if the origin areas area arguable ethnicities. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose wholesale deletion -- Substantially all HKers are of Chinese descent; the majority are Cantonese, being from the province of which HK was once part. Many of them migrated from China during the colonial period, because they were opposed to communism or had fallen foul of PRC. Having said that, China is not wholly homogeneous. Some of what are referred to as Chinese "dialects" are in fact mutually-incomprehensible languages. This is a complicated question which most of us (me included) are not qualified to address. Descent categories are often undesirable for people who are well assimilated in the destination country, but that does not mean that they should not exist at all. Analogies with US or UK are not necessarily helpful, as it all depends on the degree of assimilation. The US population is highly mobile; the UK one somewhat less so. Other Europeans are foreigners within UK and their children even if born in UK may still have some links to their parental homeland. If they do a descent category may be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Splitting categories of people by descent into regional descent would be a bad idea, whatever the country. We routinely delete/up.erge such regional descent categories for Italy. Hong Kong/China does not justify an exception. Place Clichy (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The various Italian subgroups were put up for deletion twice (the first time was actually a blanket CFD for every American diaspora category (including the parent “American ppl of Italian descent]] and kept both times. It seems it has been put up for CFD once again...—Prisencolin (talk) 04:33, 15 February 2021 (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:People convicted of carrying a concealed weapon
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 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 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:People associated with the International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation
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.
Repurpose and purge -- I had to look this up, as there is no link to the main article International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation. This was a League of Nations sponsored committee operating 1922-39, but not formally wound up until 1946 when replaced by UNESCO. It appears to have been a body for fostering scientific cooperation, but with individual members rather than national ones (as with UNESCO). The OCASSOC guideline exists because the inclusion criterion is subjective. However this was a highly prestigious committee, apparently with individual members (not national delegates). That membership is sufficiently significant to merit a category but this needs to be much better defined in scope than the present name. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2021 (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.
"LEAGUE" is just a stylized version. Even if it is the official stylized version, it should not be used in the title per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks (1."Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one"; 2. "In the article about a trademark, it is conventional to give the normal English spelling in the lead section, followed by a note, such as "(stylized as ...)" (or "(stylised as ...)" depending on the article's variety of English), with the stylized version (which may include simple stylization, like capitalization changes, decorative characters, or superscripting, but not colorization, attempts to emulate font choices, or other elaborate effects), then resume using an alternative that follows the usual rules of spelling and punctuation, for the remainder of the article. In other articles that mention the subject, use only the normal English spelling, not the stylization."). For example, Time magazine's official name is "TIME", but Wikipedia uses "Time" as its title. --Neo-Jay (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2021 (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.
Galician Literature Day is an annual festival celebrating Galician culture since 1963. Each year a different deceased Galician-language writer is picked and public readings are made of their work. This category contains those deceased authors and, if these headliners were living writers, this would clearly be a performance category. Since English Wikipedia doesn't have a ton of articles on Galician-language writers, this category significantly overlaps with Category:Galician-language writers. The category contents are already listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:18, 7 February 2021 (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.
Zvane Črnja Award is a Croatian literary award established in 2007 that is given out each year at the Pula Days of Essays festival. The vast majority of winners don't have an article on English Wikipedia yet and the few that do just mention this award in passing and it doesn't seem defining. We have a Catch-22 where, when the award is defining enough for a category, the winners aren't notable enough for an article and, when they're notable enough for an article, the category is no longer defining. The category contents are already listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:18, 7 February 2021 (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.
Delete suffers the usual problems of categories based on works "about" subjects; how much "about" the subject is the objective requirement for inclusion and what reliable sources tell us its at least that much. Also suffers from WP:SMALLCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carlossuarez46 . These ‘songs about’ categories and specifically this one contain entries which patently fail WP:CATDEF which reads, ‘characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sourcescommonly and consistently define in prose,…’ and WP:CATV which states, ‘Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories…
Now to the 3 entries we have in the category at present.
Tomten och haren fails to mention elves, so should not be in the nominated category.
Elveskud finally mentions elves in the summary (not the lead, where one would expect it if it was a defining attribute) in the English translation of the lyrics, where we find the song is still not about elves, but is about Sir Olof and how he faces temptation, which in itself maybe a parable.
Because supporters of ‘songs about’ categories will add any old rubbish without any concern for WP guidelines the problems of maintenance of the category far outweigh any benefits for the reader, as patently shown by the addition of a song and a poem as pointed out above --Richhoncho (talk) 13:36, 10 February 2021 (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 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 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.
