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:relist at June 18, as the Japanese category had not been tagged. – FayenaticLondon 19:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is only one Australian geisha at this time. Don't believe this category is necessary or helpful. Cannolis (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A category of one serves no purpose, I would keep if it was just a matter of populating the category, but there is only one Australian geisha, and there is most likely not to be another. Once depopulated we do not need Category:Japanese geishas since all will be Japanese, and all can be in Category:Geishas --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - It is precisely because non-Japanese Geishas are so unusual -- make that exceptional -- that this category is not only legitimate but downright necessary. Cgingold (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From my understanding, categories are meant to group like pages together and serve as a navigational tool between said pages. If there is but one page in a given category, doesn't that nullify the stated purpose of a category? Cannolis (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above, a category of one serves no purpose, and this category is highly unlikely to become more populated in the near future. Even the main Category:Geishas category is sparsely populated, with just seven Japanese names, so there is no obvious need to sub-categorize by nationality. --DAJF (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete It's been a long time since that name popped up on my radar... anyway, we obviously don't need a category for the one non-Japanese geisha, especially since she's also in the parent category as well. Mangoe (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was actually another one recently, a Hungarian lady working under the geimei of Ibu at a resort IIRC. --Pitke (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Extreme case for a unique entity category. --Pitke (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it might need to be renamed to non-ethnic Japanese geisha instead. To include all instances where non-Japanese have become geisha/maiko; -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete About as relevant as a category such as "Australian-born operators of dodgy tourist accommodation in Wanaka". Unlikely to ever contain other members, already covered by category Geishas, more likely to be a "look at me" element. Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the above. This excessive subcategorization impedes, rather than aids, navigation. Neutralitytalk 16:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge both this and the Japanese Geishas category to a generalized Geishas one. With 8 articles no sub-division is justified. If later on we have more articles on Geishas we can revisit the issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and the Japanese category back to Geishas. The whole tree contains just 8 articles. Fiona Graham is actually already in the parent, so that a plain delete will do for the nom cat. Her nationality is indicated by other categories in her article, so thsat the intersection is not needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 5 June 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.
Category:Armenian people of Oceanian 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: No need for another subcategory. Empty. Hovhannes Karapetyan 18:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
We can't delete it as it's part of an established tree but this example highlights (again) that categorizing by descent is largely meaningless. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to re-creation if it can be populated. I cannot believe that this will ever be a significantly populated category. I see no objection to Category:American people of Haitian descent, as I expect there is a significant number of people who might qualify, if they are notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 5 June 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.
Oppose – almost 4 times as many people identify as transhumanists (41), rather than as merely interested in the underlying philosophy (11). I'm a transhumanist, and I'd like to be identified as one. Plus, we have a couple userboxes dedicated to this category. Please keep this category title. Thank you. The Transhumanist 05:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as Wikipedians categories aren't meant to be a social network or as a self-identifier but rather they serve as a collaboration network per topic of interest. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:49, 22 June 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:merge. MER-C 12:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article in every of these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and upmerge all the other subcategories of the first target (such as by country and by continent), as they only have a couple of articles each at most. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That'll be for a next nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 6 June 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:no consensus. – FayenaticLondon 19:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article in every of these categories. No upmerge to millennia establishment categories needed because the articles are happily in an establishment by millennium and continent (or country) already, e.g. in Category:2nd-millennium BC establishments in Asia. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
States and territorities is a bit of a tricky nomination. This discussion was closed as keeping the States and territories category within the century. So the current nomination contradicts that former keep closure, but it does not contradict the former rationale to keep it within the century: this new nomination does keep it within the century after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:46, 2 June 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:merge/delete as specified. MER-C 12:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF and per WP:OVERLAPCAT with Category:House of Habsburg and Category:House of Habsburg-Lorraine. For female members of the House of Habsburg (i.e. Austrian princesses), Bohemian princess and Hungarian princess and Tuscan princess and Archduchess of Austria were just formal titles hardly worth mentioning. This is a follow-up nomination after the deletion of the corresponding male categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:28, 31 May 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.
