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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The content of the nominated category does not merit navigation, as it only has one article and does not seem likely to expand exponentially. I'm also in favour of an upmerging of Category:Gas stations of Ukraine. SFB 18:37, 28 November 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.
Comment Typo in title. --CeeGee 20:47, 27 November 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:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. WP:SMALLCAT, contains only one page which is already in suitable categories. – FayenaticLondon 12:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While there is at present only one listing, there are other members of this group who have died as martyrs. Just needs more editing. Additionally, it is a category used for several other religious orders and societies. Daniel the Monk (talk) 14:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for Now with no objection to recreating later. The current category doesn't aid navigation.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:02, 28 November 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:no consensus. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content and the navbox will assist users in finding all of these easily. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SMALLCAT and that an existing navbox points to these articles anyway. --Lenticel(talk) 00:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 7 entries in the category, seems large enough? -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 08:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Content in category is highly related and is substantial enough to merit a category. I am not of the opinion that the existence of a decent navbox voids the utility of a category (what if people would like to navigate to this material from Category:Media franchises?). SFB 18:39, 28 November 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.
Category:American politicians of English 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.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Triple intersection (nationality + occupation + ethnic ancestry) of dubious value. We don't have a habit of routinely creating such intersections for every individual combination of those three traits that could possibly exist, but rather restrict them to the relatively few cases where that intersection actually qualifies as a defining characteristic in its own right. In the case of politicians, for example, the sibling categories that do exist within Category:American politicians by ethnic or national origin are ethnicities that mark the people as being members of minority groups (Asian, Hispanic, Jewish, African-American, etc.) This is also deprecated at WP:CATEGRS (see "Special subsections") — there is no significant difference in context between being an American politician of English vs. German vs. Swedish vs. Italian descent. And, for that matter, only two articles have ever actually been filed here out of the thousands that technically could have been, meaning it's not a category that most editors have actually found a real need for. Bearcat (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, agree with nominator that there is no significant difference to be expected between (American) politicians who descend from various European nationalities. (Note: I haven't checked if upmerging would be required instead of deleting.) Marcocapelle (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unmaintainable; and the nomination proves that all of these ethnic categories are so. Someone has blithely stated what WP has practiced for ages: only some ethnicities matter; others don't. We clearly say that English descent is immaterial, but "minority" groups are. Is it really defining that Latino politicians are elected in Latino majority districts, African-Americans from districts where they are majority, but English descent people aren't even if they are rare in the district they are elected from? BS! All of these ethnic & descent categories are divisive. It's all WP:ILIKEIT, because if the category is a negative one; people jump on anyone proposing ethnic categories for it, but if the category is a positive one, by all means... I guess NPOV is just lip service - because we can have Category:American criminals of Italian descent but watch how the snipers would come out if we had a Category:American criminals of African-American descent! And ultimately, they are basically useless for navigation because how much and how far your descent is remains hazy at best and almost racist at worst. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (alternatively) Upmerge -- Having an English descent is extremely common in America, certainly if one goes far enough back, so that I am doubtful of the merits of keeping this intersection. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having dealt with such categories, I have found they often make assumptions of descent with no proof.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:03, 5 December 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.
Category:American entertainers of English 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.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Triple intersection (nationality + occupation + ethnic ancestry) of dubious value. We don't have a habit of routinely creating such intersections for every individual combination of those three traits that could possibly exist, but rather restrict them to the relatively few cases where that intersection actually qualifies as a defining characteristic in its own right — which this isn't, as witness the fact that only one article has ever actually been filed in it. Bearcat (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support nomination, see above. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trivial intersection as English descent has nothing to do with the profession. SFB 18:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments on the nom above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge -- best solution for small intersections. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Americans of English descent category often makes assumptions with no proof. Beyond that, it often confuses facts with notability. We should categorize by acknowledged and recognized descent. Having one grandmother who had all English-immigrant grandparents and a grand father who most of his ancestors came from England to the colonies in the 1630s (although some came from the Netherlands and France and Wales and Scotland, and he had a Wampanoag ancestor), I can tell you there is a big difference in the two situations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:05, 5 December 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:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. For this category, you're going to have to go to the category itself and read through the description, as I can't do it justice. Does it have a functioning purpose? Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the value here, no — I get what the creator thought they were doing, believe it or not, but I don't see what substantive purpose it serves us within our category tree. Especially since eight years after category intersection — the reason given for this category's existence — was first proposed, it's still just a proposal which will most likely never actually see the light of day. (And even if it did, I still don't get what role this category would actually play in its actual implementation.) It ultimately seems to me far more like a weird and arcane WP:POINT violation, which I note à propos of nothing has only ever been applied to a non-representative sample of software-related categories, than anything else. Delete — if there's ever actually a real reason why it's actually needed, then we can pretty easily recreate it when we get to that bridge. Bearcat (talk) 07:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can see the function that this category would perform (preventing a search from continuing logically along a given tree), although I think a certain requirement for this function is that it has to be done at the level of a category relationship, rather than a being an attribute of the category as a whole. I would like to see WikiData host data on the semantic and logical relationship between a category's parent and child, i.e. the role that things like Template:Non-diffusing subcategory currently perform (poorly). Please note that I oppose deletion until the relevant idea of a non-transitive relationship is documented/transferred to Wikipedia:Category intersection (it appears to be missing currently). SFB 18:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unneeded and convoluted at best. Presumably, if catA is the daughter of catB, all A's are B's but some B's aren't A's; if not, the category tree is broken. That's another reason why when we put St Paul in a category that rolls up to Turkish people, something's wrong here - but alas, I tilt at windmills. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:50, 1 December 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.
