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. Minus the improperly categorized material for the shows he's created, the remaining material doesn't warrant an eponymous category. Properly linked through the lead article and the template. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only 2 legitimate articles included in this cat. No objection to recreating later if new content emerges. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:43, 15 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:Delete. Surprisingly, there doesn't appear to be enough material that would appropriately be categorized under Trump to warrant a category per WP:EPONYMOUS. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep I'm surprised you didn't search for more content, which I easily found. We may also consider whether creating Category:Trump buildings and Category:Trump businesses would be a good idea, since there are a lot of them - I didn't add all of Donald's buildings to his category, pending this discussion, but added several businesses. To make it more general, the buildings and businesses categories could be focused on buildings/businesses started by anyone in the trump family - or should we just focus it on ones started by the Donald who has been rather prolific. Also, we have articles on Trump's wives and children, all of which are in Category:Trump family but which could also reasonably go in this category as well.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obi, re the last part of your comment: I don't think we want to start categorizing one person under another person as (for one thing) that could lead to circular categorization in some cases. DexDor (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
we frequently do so however - many eponymous cats contain wive's/husbands/children. I don't see why this is a problem.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? do you have any examples? Family member's articles (someexamples) can be in a category for the family, but they are not usually/ever in the category for the "head" (or most notable person) of the family. DexDor (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have a different impression: Category:Abraham_Lincoln; Category:J._R._R._Tolkien. I don't think there's any hard and fast rule. We don't always have a "family" category, and even if we do, I don't see why they couldn't be dual-categorized if direct family.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whatever the cat looked like when nominated, it is well (and accurately) categorized now. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough content for an eponymous category, and additional subcats could be created for all of his buildings and properties. Just the Trump International Hotel and Tower, Trump Tower and Trump Plaza articles alone have more than a dozen articles not categorized yet to The Donald and Template:Trump has even more. Alansohn (talk) 04:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It may be there are other catregories - for this children, businesses, and buildings that need to be merged in. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:36, 15 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:Delete. Category contains nothing but a container category for redirects. Serves no purpose. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 23:36, 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:Delete. Single-item category for a canceled series, unlikely to expand. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 23:33, 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.
Merge per nom - no need for a different category for a single division. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2014 (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:Keep both. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 05:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This proposal might get some pushback but here is my rationale:
a) I'm unsure of the distinction of a group of people as being "Eastern Romance" especially because there is no "Central Romance", "Northern Romance", "Southern Romance" or "Western Romance" grouping.
b) When you look at the two categories being merged, they seem to consist almost entirely of Romania-related people, history and topics.
I'll accept if other editors can argue that "Eastern Romance people" is a valid designation, I just am unconvinced that it is a commonly used distinction. LizRead!Talk! 17:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed to proposed merging, neutral towards category usefulness. Most of the topics are related to Romania and Romanians the same way a hypothetical "Eastern Slavs" category would be related to Russia and Russians. The few topics for which the merger would work should probably be moved in an appropriate subcat anyway. Anonimu (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is Romania and Romanian are but one subset of these categories which cover a much longer span of time than the relatively recent Romania. They are not one and the same as can be seen by reading the category contents and reading their parent categories. Hmains (talk) 04:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Eastern Romance languages makes it clear that this is not merely about Roumanian, but a group of languages of which Roumanian is by far the largest. The history category similarly considers the (southern) Vlachs as well as the Romanians. I am also not conmvinced of the usefulness of the category, but plain deletion should not be an option. It would be necessary first to create a separate subcategory(ies) for the non-Romanian subjects and move them to that subcat; and purge the Romanian articles into Romanian categories. This would leave a container category(ies), whose usefulness we could then consider in a future CFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:51, 15 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:Keep, with no prejudice against nominating it with all the other categories from the other states. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 05:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Does anyone have any evidence either way on whether it the state which a model comes from is a WP:DEFINING attribute of their modelling career? If it is, then a split seems justified; if not, then the category is being divided on an irrelevant attribute. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
note Can you nominate the rest? There are several other states, might as well discuss all at once.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete all states While there are enough models to merit considering a split by state, I don't see any strong intersection with modeling and which state a person hails from.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These are really case by case, I think the whole by-state things needs a deeper look frankly. Agronomists and Aviators could probably be killed, I don't see a strong connection there; same thing with film directors. criminals, radio personalities and sportspeople is different, as these people do things that are normally closely associated with the state they are from (e.g. committing a famous crime, or hosting a radio show, or being a sports-star). It's really a balance. I don't think we should have {arbitrary job + state}, nor do I think we should have no by-state categories. It's case by case.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OC#LOCATION is clear that size is the appropriate reason to split by state and this category is certainly big enough. The agronomist lobby is probably too small to fight back, the aviators have their heads in the clouds, and the criminals are in prison or dead, but there will be strong pushback from actors and sportspeople, despite the fact that there is no unique Florida way to act or play a sport, and the overwhelming majority of Category:Sportspeople from Florida ply their craft in another state. Coming up with some overall rule seems far better than battling over every single one of these categories and leaving a hodgepodge in the parent Category:People from Florida by occupation where some occupations are split by state and others aren't, with no apparent logic to divide the cases. Alansohn (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now as part of a series. Nobody has offered any argument (let alone evidence) that the state of origin is a defining characteristic of American models, and unless there is such a link, then breaking them up by state impedes navigation. However, these categories are part of a series under Category:American female models by state and Category:American models, and I can see no reason to delete these categories while keeping the others. We should either keep them all, or delete them all. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Renominate Whole Group per BHG's suggestion. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Categories are supposed to be a navigation aid, but those with several hundred (even 1000s of) members are less sueful for this. The question is how to split. In the case of modelling, how useful is state of origin, as opposed to the state where they are working? Both are within the "from" description. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The overlap of occupation and state is non-defining in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 23 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.
Category:Singles certified octuple platinum by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry of Norway[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.
The result of the discussion was:DELETE. The only keep is procedural rather than content based. -Splash - tk 22:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the singles in the category. If this category is deleted then it may be appropriate to change some templates to avoid the "impressive" set of category redlinks at Candle_in_the_Wind_1997#External_links. DexDor (talk) 06:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kill it before it spreads - the number of times a single was designated platinum or whatever is not defining. Do whatever is necessary to get rid of this and the similar redlink categories. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now as part of the series of more than 100 subcats of Category:Singles by certification. No rationale has been offered for deleting this category while keeping other similar ones. I can see a good prima facie case for getting rid of the lot, but not for simply picking off one at random. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've learnt from experience that a large nomination tends to descend into arguments about whether the net should be cast even wider and/or arguments about whether some categories should be considered separately. If this CFD results in deletion then I intend to nominate a further batch - possibly the whole of Category:Singles by certification. DexDor (talk) 21:59, 28 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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 10. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
