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 for Now These currently break up the actual article and hinder navigation but no objection to recreating any if they exceed expectations and ever get up to 5+ articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:55, 2 January 2021 (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 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.
Delete There are plenty of films where the events take place within a short timespan, but I doubt this is defining to their narratives. Dimadick (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2021 (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: Not a good idea to base a category on a temporary state of affairs. Quite a lot of the people in the other subcategories of fugitives are no longer wanted. Rathfelder (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge Both categories are needed, so we know who is no longer wanted by the law, or merge if we must since we don't want this category to go to waste. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I added "/delete" because the top Category:Formerly wanted fugitives should plainly be deleted, the articles are already in one or two other subcategories of the proposed merge target. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2021 (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.
Delete, I hadn't realized there was already a consensus when I created the American, Chilean, and Italian categories - that's my bad. I had assumed since there is a Physicians in the United States Congress article, a category would have been worth making as well. I'm ok with deleting it. Kyjama (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while the seperate identities are both defining, this intersection of the two is not defining, such politicians are in no way a group, and at some times and places this has been a fairly high overlap. I would also point out that in the Pakistani case the category as written is an extremely narrow one, and in the highly unlikely case we keep it we should change it to Category:Pakistani Medical doctor-politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2021 (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.
Propose deletingCategory:Murdered Roman Catholic priests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. No notable WP:DEFINING link between the occupation and the manner of death. Not expected as a professional qualification. There may have been many years between the occupation and the death, making the link even weaker.
... who were killed for reasons other than religious motivation. Others listed under "Assassinated" and "Martyrs".
Note: Sources about the death of a person will often discuss both their occupation and their cause of death. This doesn't make this intersection any more notable than a combination with other aspects often discussed in such notices, such as their number of children.
See also: related rationale about suicides by occupation:
Delete per nom. There is significant overlap between these categories and their corresponding "martyrs" categories. I presume that those here not included in the martyrs ones were mere coincidence and not notably related. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That cannot possibly be true, as this section of the category tree is reserved to other than religious motivation, as already noted in the nomination. Please read more carefully. Removing this will assist editors who don't read the category tree, and add them blindly. William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:30, 8 January 2021 (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.
Propose deletingCategory:Murdered American scientists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. No notable WP:DEFINING link between the occupation and the manner of death. Not expected as a professional qualification. There may have been many years between the occupation and the death, making the link even weaker.
Note: Sources about the death of a person will often discuss both their occupation and their cause of death. This doesn't make this intersection any more notable than a combination with other aspects often discussed in such notices, such as their number of children.
See also: related rationale about suicides by occupation:
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, violation of WP:BLPCAT: the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. In fact almost none of the articles in this category makes this clear. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suppport I would add that this is true for most ethnicity categories. While it is often defining, I would be in favor of blowing it up and starting over.--User:Namiba16:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a well understood ethnic descriptor. I do not think misattributing ethnicity is likely to lead to a libel suit, the reason for the BLP policy. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when in practice categories are applied regularly in the face of no text indicating they apply and no article indication that the intersection is actually defining, the categories should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because these categories have been indiscriminately spread to too many articles that do not meet the criteria set in the WP:EGRS guideline. In fact, their mere existence (unfortunately) serves as invitation to even good-faith contributors to plaster them on too many articles based on a mere face test, rather than reliable sources and Wikipedia guidelines. Ethnicity is a topic worth a great ammount of nuance, which are much better treated in article body with all possible commentary and references, rather than a mere category inclusion that does not allow any nuance or mention of sources. The tool is broken and hard to fix, therefore the best way forward is probably to be very conservative in creating such categories, and deleting trivial intersections between ethnicity and occupation which do not meet WP:OCEGRS conditions. Place Clichy (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2021 (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 for Now While these places would have had more than five mayors, most would be non-notable. No objection to recreating any if they exceed expectations and get up to 5+ articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2021 (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.
@Paul 012: This nomination isn't opposing doing away with this nationality tree altogether since the well populated Indian, British, American and French subcategories are not nominated. The question here is really should we be creating nationality subcats in every instance. Usually we use the WP:SMALLCAT exception when the tree is generally well populated with just a few runts. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging all European scholars into one category. The Sri Lankans are likely to be Tamil and Hindu, so that they are different — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs)
Upmerge these are all below the normal size threshold. Also because these scholars will often study and publish on issues besides just sanskrit, the more broad parent categories plus the specific sanskrit scholars category tend to be a reasonable arrangement of the articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2021 (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 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 Both per nom as the layer does not aid navigation. (I had to read through the articles for a bit since I was unaware of this definition of "regency".) - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2021 (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.
Delete I think a shopping court has more outside walking space, and less quick access to the parking, than the average strip mall, but I am unconvinced that people use either term in ways that limit them to such specific distringuishing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2021 (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 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 Meridiano de Oro is a Venezuelan award given by the Dearmas Block that recognizes "excellence of professionals in the World of Spectacle" and the only article in this category, Daniela Alvarado, doesn't even mention the award. Doesn't get much clearer than that. I don't know if I can say the category is "listified" since there is only 1 article but it is now linked here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2021 (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 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.