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 C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per JPL to match main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2012 (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:American people of Armenian-Turkish descent[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:Renaming because Armenian-Turkish = Turks of Armenia. But Turkish-Armenian = Armenians of Turkey(this form is true). Look please: Armenians in Turkey -- Esc2003 (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:American people of Armenian descent. It is not justified to try to subdivide this category by place of origin. Beyond this Turkish means "Turkey", and in general in the sense of somehow connected to the post-1923 nation of Turkey. This should porperly not include Ottoman Armenians who came to the US, Armenians in the US whose ancestors came from the Ottoman Empire to the US, Armenians in the US whose ancestors ended up in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon or Egypt after the Armenian Genocide and so forth. It is too fine a categorization to be needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mr. Obama's ancestry is not Anglo-Kenyan. If his father was from Kenya and his father's father was was from England, he would be Anglo-Kenya. However since his Kenyan ancestry is on his father's side and his English ancestry is on his mothers side, he has no Anglo-Kenyan ancestry. Likewise, if we have a person whose mother (whose ancestors were either Cree or Scottish if you go far enough back) came from Canada to the US and whose father came from France to the US they do not count as Category:American people of French-Canadian descent.
Proof of the uselessness of these sorts of categories. If one is 1/2 Kenyan and 1/2 English, one would suppose Anglo-Kenyan was appropriate, but alas these are messier than it seems. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per JPL -- The Armenians are a people scattered across a number of countries that were formerly part of the Ottoman Empire, not just the country now bearing the name. It is thus an ethnicity, not a nationality. To be Armenian is to be Christian. Turkish is another ethnicity, overwhelmingly of Muslims. I see no reason to split the Armenians according to whether the emigrated from what is now Armenia, Turkey, or Syria. The target may need to be provided with a headnote explaining its scope. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The current nation-state of Armenia was in the Russian Empire for 80 years, and other Armenians have long lived in Iran, so not all historical origins of Armenians are in the Ottoman Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge to Category:American people of Turkish descent. This cannot be used for people who emigrated to the United States in 1895 or 1915, as many of these people did, and were clearly not Turkish. As a nationality identifier Turkish refers to nationals of Turkey, a country formed in 1923, and many of these people or their ancestors were in the US significantly before that date. We should not merge this category to the Turkish category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2012 (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:Delete per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS: Articles directly related to the subject are already links in the The Everly Brothers. The two brothers don't have individual articles so there's no "members" cat. Such things as books and templates are just additional navigation tools, not something that requires an eponymous cat to be created (otherwise, every band should have its own category). StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)}}[reply]
Keep as it has 3 subcats (it was also kept in an earlier cfd). Oculi (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Precendent is to delete these unless there are 3 subcats of artices (typically albums, songs and members). Images, files, templates, books in a eponymous category do not benefit readers. We might as well make it a rule that all bands with articles should have an eponymous category and change WP:OC#Eponymous. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-populated structure that organizes the associated categories and articles for navigation purposes. Alansohn (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2012 (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.
