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. Journalism is not a profession for which a person's city of birthdefines their journalism in any significant way. A person who was notable as a local journalist might certainly be defined by a specific city, but that would be the city in which they had their career as a journalist, not necessarily the place where they were born (which isn't always, or even particularly often, the same place) — and a journalist who was notable as a national figure, such as a network news anchor, wouldn't be defined by any specific city at all. (And since the purely local figures are significantly less likely to pass WP:JOURNALIST or to have Wikipedia articles at all, the number of journalists who wouldn't belong anywhere in this scheme vastly outnumber the ones who would be defined by an individual city in any substantive way.)
Further, there's no comprehensive scheme on Wikipedia of subdividing journalists by individual city where they may have resided; with a couple of isolated random exceptions in the US which maybe shouldn't exist either, journalists are normally subcatted by city only in the rare instances (London, Washington DC, etc.) where the city is a national capital division in its own right, and thereby leaves no state or province available for the person to be categorized in. For those reasons, these constitute an WP:OCLOCATION violation — the city isn't a defining characteristic of the journalism, the by-province categories are not large enough to require diffusion on size grounds, and there isn't a comprehensive overall scheme of doing this.
And finally, as journalists frequently move from one city to another as they build their careers, this would lead to extreme category bloat if we permitted it to exist as a comprehensive scheme — just off the top of my head, I can already think of one person (Diana Swain) who would have to be in two of the categories I've listed here, and while I'm racking my brains to remember who I'm actually thinking of, there is at least one person who would have to go in all four. And that's with just four categories existing in this set; imagine if we had a category for every major city in Canada and the United States.
Accordingly, each of these four should be deleted, with the contents upmerged back to the appropriate "Journalists from Province" + "People from City" pair — the intersection of journalists with city falls afoul of several principles of WP:OCAT, including both LOCATION and DEFINING. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. I agree entirely with the rationale of the nom. Oculi (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. By the way, for the same reasons I think that "Journalists from Province" should be nominated for upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These categories are part of a larger parent category tree. For example, Category:People from Quebec by occupation. Whether these categories should be deleted or not should be decided in the context of the larger categories they are part of. LizRead!Talk! 19:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The rule for Canadian occupational categories is the same as it is for American ones: occupations are allowed to be further subcatted by individual province (writers, musicians, etc.) where a single by-country category is large enough or the individual province has a high degree of correlation to the occupation. All of those categories are allowed to exist. That does not have any bearing, however, on the question of whether an occupation-by-province subcategory requires further subcatting by individual city — it's city categories, not province ones, that I've raised for discussion here. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The categories are quite well enough populated to merit them being kept, but Rename or mergeCategory:Journalists from Quebec etc (by province). A single Canadian category would be inconveniently large. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't argue that they violated SMALLCAT, nor did I propose upmerging them to a single catchall category for all of Canada. They violate OCLOCATION, which allows this kind of intersection by location only in two situations of which these satisfy neither, and the upmerge is to province categories. Bearcat (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2015 (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. MER-C 13:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No evidence that this is a recognised or meaningful classification. The term has very few ghits and appears to be a neologism. The only WP reference to "redsploitation" was written by an anonymous IP editor with a tendency to OR and is based on one non-notable source. The classification of these articles as "redsploitation" seems to be based entirely on the opinions of a single editor and has no supporting evidence. Andyjsmith (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is — see WP:NEO. We can't categorize films (or any other topic) on neologisms; we have to categorize on WP:DEFINING characteristics that are already generally accepted in a broad range of reliable sources. (Just as an example, we don't create a new category for every individual "my own unique genre!" label that a musician or band invents for their own music — we stick to the generally used genre labels that independent sources apply to them.) The problem is that if enough reliable sources haven't already called a film "redsploitation" to properly support its inclusion in such a category, then your own decision that it qualifies is original research (and it's still original research if you're relying on one source applying a neologism that no other source has used yet, so the fact that all of these films are named in the Vice article doesn't negate the problem.) Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. No prejudice against recreation in the future if the term gains currency as a more widespread usage in a broader array of sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I'm more open to this category than the other editors but it really needs a Redsploitation article to explain the inclusion criteria. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I, as the creator of this Category, understand the arguments given.Before proceeding I have to say that in Exploitation films there is a section about Redsploitation, @RevelationDirect:--Hienafant (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointer. Given that the short definition doesn't provide a clear inclusion criteria, I changed my vote to a firm delete. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2015 (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.
