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 current category name is highly ambiguous. Is this Italian people of British background or British people of Italian background? Both can be meant from the current name. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 06:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:British actors; there is nothing to indication that Italian Brits act differently than their non-Italian peers. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion that this and other such categories are flatly disallowed because they are so-called "trivial intersections" ignores the fact that CAT:EGRS is a guideline -- not a "rule" -- and as such is supposed to reflect a concensus among editors. Clearly, there is no such concensus -- and as a matter of fact, there never has been. There has only been an enforced illusion of "concensus", with the guideline being applied as a straightjacket to smother dissent. Cgingold (talk) 07:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. The nomination is based on WP:OC#TRIVIAL rather than WP:CATGRS, so most of the above is a straw man. If you want to keep the category, we need some evidence that having Italian ancestry is a defining factor for any British actor who possesses that trait. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. A really silly and trivial intersection of nationality, ancestry and occupation. Resolute 18:56, 12 September 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: Per WP:OC#TRIVIAL, this is an irrelevant intersection: "avoid categorizing topics by characteristics that are unrelated or wholly peripheral to the topic's notability". These actors are notable for the acting skills, which are unrelated to their ancestry.
There is a long-standing consensus to categorise people by ethnic origin, so I propose merging these categories to the more general "people of Hungarian descent" categories.
Upmerge per JPL. Fooian actors and actors of booian descent will be adequate without the triple intersection. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - Regardless of all the deletions that have taken place over the years because the relevant guideline has been applied and enforced as though it is a binding rule -- yes, there is a difference -- the fact of the matter is that there has never been an actual concensus of Wikipedia editors supporting the deletion of all ethnicity-related categories that don't comport with the strictures of that guideline. Cgingold (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question. So what exactly is your substantive rationale for keeping these categories? The fact that you disagree with the consensus in a slew of previous CFDs is probably the weakest "keep" argument I have seen. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The insistence that this and other such categories are disallowed because they don't comport with the "rules" ignores the fact that CAT:EGRS is a guideline -- not a "rule" -- and as such is supposed to reflect a concensus among editors. Clearly, there is no such concensus -- and as a matter of fact, there never has been. There has only been an enforced illusion of "concensus", with the guideline being applied as a straightjacket to smother dissent. Cgingold (talk) 06:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. So, still no substantive argument for keeping the categories. The nomination is based on WP:OC#TRIVIAL rather than WP:CATGRS, so most of the above is a straw man. If you want to keep the category, we need some evidence that having Hugarian ancestry is a defining factor for any of the actors who possesses that trait. For example, how exactly is the set of "Canadian actors of Hungarian descent" distinguished as actors from the Canadian actors of other ancestries? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think one big problem is although we claim "we categorize by ethnicity, not race", when it affects casting decisions, this is usually a race issue. Dean Cain is clearly of Japanese descent, but I have seen people argue the only reason he was ever able to be cast as Clark Kent/Superman in Lois and Clark was "because he looks white". Too much of American acting history is made up of Jewish actors playing roles as WASPs, and Syrian actors playing roles as Native Americans, to make a convincing argument for truth in ethnicity in casting. African-Americans are a slightly different story, but as best as I can tell Jane White being African-American did not affect her career. I have yet to see anyone claim that Kim Carter (played by Lucy Arnaz) was meant to be Hispanic, but Lucy Arnaz clearly is Hispanic. So the conection between ethnicity and role is fairly weak. On the other hand, the connection between gender and role is very high. Even when people play aliens, they are still cast according to gender.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all per User:JackPackLambert's comments Mayumashu (talk) 18:50, 12 September 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: Pursuant to the CFD on Category:People who married their first cousins, which is cruising for a pretty clear delete, once that's gone this parent will be a WP:OC#SMALL violation that serves only to contain two articles which are already interlinked in body text anyway, and thus don't need to be OCATted together. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to all parent categories. The articles listed have no other category and should not be left uncategorized. Dimadick (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to category:Marriage. Do not upmerge to Category:Incest. Incest in many places does not cover cousin marriage, and as the term incest is used in abortion debates where they say an exceptions should exist for "cases of rape and incenst", people are not talking about cousin marriage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Abortion debates? How is that relevant to the category, if the term "incest" covers sexual activity between family members? Resulting in procreation is not a requirement. If there is some confusion with inbreeding in public discourse, this can be covered by adding clarifications to the text of the category.Dimadick (talk) 07:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incest is sexual relations of people who are too closely related to be married. By definition people marrying their cousins are not involved in incest, because they are marrying, and as long as you are legally married to a person you can not engage in incest with them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 14 September 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:Delete. Dana boomer (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Seems to essentially be unrelated subjects with a shared naming feature. This would be no different than "U.S. policies that incorporate the surname of a U.S. president", which is an American example of a similar tendency. Good Ol’factory(talk) 17:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment Before, not after, this category is deleted, proponents need to make sure that each of the articles will still be tied to a category relating to the Chinese government or other entity involved with creating the policy. Otherwise, at least one article will have no Chinese category connection at all. Hmains (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why not after? What difference does it make what order it is done? Doing it beforehand would not be the normal thing to do, since it would create inherent redundancies prior to deletion without the guarantee that deletion was going to happen. To me, it seems like a post-deletion clean-up task that I would undertake immediately after the category is deleted. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:09, 12 September 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:No consensus. I'm note sure if there is any consensus here. One issue is the upmerge of the by year categories to by decade. I believe that these are generated by the template, so that upmerge could be messy. Then we have all of the changes to the nomination. This close does not prevent a new nomination in this area if justified. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Recent consensus is that we should categorise things by the contemporary country not the present one. This one is about a period in Syrian history, before Syria was defined. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Revised reasons for more a more limited merger below. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ottoman Syria was not the Syria of today, but was a larger area with changing boundaries. The Ottoman Empire is precise enough, we do not have enough things involved her to justify a more fine splitting.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ottoman Syria is a valid categorization. And like Utah Territory (with categories), it is different in area from the current ones. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response from nom -- shows a boundary for Ottoman Syria. I now accept that some categorisation for Ottoman Syria might be appropriate, provided we can have a robust definition of its extent, which that map would provide. I made this nom, partly because there is so little content; parly becasue we had merged Israel categories to Ottoman Empire (which may now need to be changed to an Ottoman Syria target); and partly due to the first response I got to a nom on years in Syria categories (here: I initially intended to nominate these for merger to Ottoman Empire, then found there were Ottoman Syria categories, and initially changed the nom to provide an Ottoman Empire target as an alternative. I wonder whether we need a hybrid outcome, where:
establishments (and disestablishments) are upmerged to an Ottoman Empire level and by century.
events (battles, massacres, etc) are upmerged to Ottoman Syria and by decade. Ottoman Syria would cover (approximately) the present Israel/Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. This probably measn that there will be more to be merged in.
categorisation for the exact year for an article is directly by a years in Asia category.
My object is to eliminate a mass of category trees that will never be adequately populated, where there is a hierarchy of several categories, even parallel twigs, leading to a single article. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Partial withdrawal -- In the light of the comments above, I am withdrawing the proposal to merge "Ottoman Syria" into "Ottoman Empire" as misconceived. I have accordingly amended the proposal merely to merge annual categories into decades. The exception is the one disestablishment category, which relates to a provincial reorganisation. This is currently the only such category before 1900, so that I am still proposing a double upmerger for that one. The 1880s nom may also be problematic, as after the reorganisation in the 1860s, Ottoman Syria was no longer a single polity. However, I am merely proposing the merging of a year to a decade, so that the issue hardly arises. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support (revised proposal) dual upmerging to decades (or centuries) in Ottoman Syria, and also being placed into Years of Ottoman Empire (should the year category exist), -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (from nom) -- We have just merged year categories into decades, becasue there were too few. The appropriate year categories is "YYYY in Asia". Peterkingiron (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Decades seeme to be appropriate for Ottoman Syria, so have 18XXs in Ottoman Syria (decade) and 18XX in the Ottoman Empire (year) for the Ottoman Empire in the 18th, 19th & 20th centuries (create year category if necessary). The Ottoman Empire as a whole justifies “by-year” categories for these centuries. Hugo999 (talk) 23:47, 10 September 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 I am actually not 100% sure on parsing these. It would seem to me that these are "male actors" who are expatriates. We do not sub-divide expatriates in general by gender, but we clearly have Category:American expatriate actresses, and so we divide actors by gender, even in expatriate categories. Thus the male is modifying actor not expatriate. Of course, maybe these are "expatriate actors", somewhat like "film actors". However in film actors, film is clearly modifying actor. Here expatriate is more a description of the person, while they should actual have acted outside the US (and in the subcats should have acted in France or Canada, an American actor who spends their career working in Hollywood and then retires to Canada would not fit), so this is a close call. We do have Category:British expatriate male actors in the United States. I guess we could rename that, but these all should clearly go together, and I think putting male between expatriate and actor is the best form, but since I did create these categories earlier today, I can't really claim the correct form is clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I am not convinced by the category as a whole (i.e. Category:Expatriate actors in Canada would be sufficient, in my opinion), but as pointed out by the nominator, these are "male actors" who expatriates, not the other way around. Nymf (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as proposed. I think that is as good as we're gonna get it, given the number of terms involved. I wouldn't worry about "expatriate actors" for the simple reason that we're not singling out stage actors, which is the only genre where that particular term would become meaningful. US actors do move to London and Brits to New York for that purpose. But it has no real meaning for film or television actors, because production companies film wherever they choose (more often than not where they get the best deal from a local, state, or national government). So we're really talking about place of residence, as with expat categories in general. Cgingold (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I do support sub-dividing these cats by country of origin. That said, I think I would be inclined to favor combined male & female categories for all expat actors, rather than dividing by gender. For example, Category:American expatriate actors and actresses in France. Cgingold (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is pretty easy to argue there are expatriate actors involved in film and televion, especially 70 years ago. Especially when you have an actor who is Canadian who appears in American televion. The fact that the French category has 12 females and 2 males suggests that there may be significant gender issues involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess "clumsy" is in the eye of the beholder, BHG. I think "male actors and actresses" would be undeniably clumsy. But "actors and actresses" is simple and elegant -- whereas "actors" as a standalone term is *unquestionably* highly ambiguous. Cgingold (talk) 10:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make that change, then do a group nomination for Category:Actors and its hundreds of ungendered subcats. Current usage consistently has "X actors" as an ungendered category, and whatever terminology is used should be adopted consistently. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these are "current" categories or otherwise non-defining. Let's see some Yank or Brit goes to New Zealand to play hobbit for a few years. An ex-pat for a few years - perhaps longer than Mr. Snowden of leaky fame has been or will be - but actors and other artists travel where the sets are so why is it defining? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:52, 6 September 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:Reverse merge. As the nominator, I'm closing this one early because its obvious where the discussion is heading. Gabbe (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. The content of the categories are identical, but the directors name is abbreviated in the first category. Gabbe (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment May I suggest merging them the other way around? JP Siili is the name that the director is mostly using, especially nowadays. Widr (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Either which is fine by me, by the way, as long as they're merged. Gabbe (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or reverse merge, preferably the latter, but a cat-redirect should be retained. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge since JP Siili is the title of his biographical article. We general try to match category names to article names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 3 September 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:Actors from Hamilton, South Lanarkshire[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:merge as nominated. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge to both parents, per Wikipedia:OCAT#Intersection_by_location. Actors may be defined by the culture in which they work, or by the area in which they perform. However, the culture of Hamilton, South Lanarkshire is not radically different from that of Scotland as a whole, and it also doesn't have any huge theatrical tradition. The notable actors from Hamilton are defined by being from Hamilton, and by being actors; but not by being "actors from Hamilton". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - On the whole, I really don't see much purpose in categorizing actors by the city they come from. As a rule, it is quite meaningless, though there may possibly be a few exceptions. Cgingold (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Lots and lots of these type of categories that needs cleaning. Nymf (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. I'd favour a blanket consensus to crapcan any and all "Actors from individual city" categories at all, since it's in no way a defining characteristic of the actor, but obviously that's beyond the scope of this nomination alone. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. The more I think about that idea, the more I like it. It makes sense to break down occupations by nationality (or by state in federal nations) ... but with the exception of geographically-tied occupations (such as politics), I see no purpose in doing so for most occupations. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I distinctly recall deleting a whole bunch of "occupation by city" categories that had been created by one overly-enthusiastic editor (about 5 years ago, I think). Cgingold (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
for what it is worth in the US, most states if they have an actor by city sub-cat only have one for at most 2 cities. Also, when the city is a place like Detroit, this creates a situation of tempting people to categorize everyone from the suburbs of Detroit in it. Lastly, there is the issue that some cities (New York most obviously, but also Chicago, Toronto, London, and to a lesser extent St. Louis) have people come there to act. Do we want to put Madonna in Category:Actresses from New York City, when she was raised in the northern suburbs of Detroit and born even further north in Michigan?John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There could be a case for keeping actors-by-big-city categories, on the grounds that actors who live in a city form a cultural group. I'm not sure that I would buy that argument, but it needs to be considered. However, there is no such case to be made for Hamilton. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:46, 4 September 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: Too little content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. Not enough content to warrant an exception here. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do not have enough to justify the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 3 September 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:New South Wales Country rugby league team[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 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: Apart from the eponymous article (which should be upmerged to here and here) the articles in this category are articles about schools that have received this award (or been a candidate!). Award recipients categories are generally considered to be overcategorization (see WP:OC#AWARD) and that should apply especially to schools as they can (in the UK, and probably even more so in the US) receive a large number of awards - "Schools rated 'Outstanding' by Ofsted in 2013", "Schools awarded Eco-Schools Green Flag" etc. Most/all of the articles in this category do mention that the school has received the award (in some cases it's about the only information in the article), but is having received an award like this (possibly many years ago) really a permanent WP:DEFINING characteristic of the school ? There are better ways to categorize schools (e.g. by type and by location). This category could be listified (ideally with years) to the California Distinguished School article. DexDor (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Institution award categories are even worse than people award cats. Institutions by their nature can last longer and receive more awards, since they can start out as top notch, while few people receive notable awards before the age of 15.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:45, 3 September 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:Canadian Junior Football League players[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:no consensus to delete. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The articles in this category (or at least all those I've checked) are about people who (presumably) were in a team in the league, but that's not what the person is notable for - these people are notable because of what they've done later in their life (as an adult professional player). Most professional players probably played in junior league. Many of the articles in the category don't even mention the junior league (or a junior team). DexDor (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Actually, it's more of a rarity that a Canadian Football League player comes from the Canadian Junior Football League because most non-import players have played Canadian Interuniversity Sport football instead. Since the CIS is where the overwhelming majority of Canadian players come from, it obviously does not have it's own similar broad category. Because former CJFL players are so few and far between, their own team-by-team categories do not exist, whereas every university that has a CIS program has a team category (for example, Category:McMaster Marauders football players). By keeping this category, users can more easily browse which professional players have played in this league, since there is no other easy method of doing so. Additionally, every article in this category has the CJFL team that the player previously played for already listed in his infobox. I hope this helps, thanks. Cmm3 (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided although I'm leaning towards Delete unless someone can point out 5 of the 16 in this category that are notable as WP:NCOLLATH for being in the junior league. If someone can do that, I would be more inclined to Keep and rename as "foo ... players" doesn't seem to be an appropriate title. Maybe Category:Canadian Junior Football League hall of fame inductees or some such. Technical 13 (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Even in UK where football (soccer) is the no.1 sport, we do not allow categories for junior players, because they are not playing in the 1st team of a fully professional club. Canadian Junior Football League claims that mainy players have gone on to be professionals: so what? All professional players are likely to have played at a lower level as children or youth. I am not clear which kind of football is under discussion here, but whichever, the outcome should be the same. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This would be Canadian (gridiron) football under discussion. On the North American side, we have trended toward categorizing players by the teams they have played for, even at higher non-professional levels. In the case of North American football especially, the college team is almost more defining of a player than his pro team is. (e.g.: watch an introduction of a player before a big NFL game. Even if the guy is a 15-year pro whose been on four NFL teams, they always list his college team, but rarely past pro teams). The question is whether the CJFL would qualify as a parallel. Personally, I think this fits the well defined category structure for North American football/sports and that coming out of this league to form a CFL career is notable and defining. Therefore, Keep. Resolute 17:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason we have different criteria for different sports is that they're, well, different. Certainly the partisans of European soccer would be dismayed if we applied the same notability criteria to leagues below the national top flight as is commonly the case with North American sports leagues, and minor league teams and players are widely considered significantly less noteworthy. Ravenswing 01:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Resolute and CMM3. this is not a soccer category. CIS(CIAU) football is not CJFL, and American players did not play junior Canadian football. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 05:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a Canadian Junior Football League player is a WP:DEFINING characteristic. Dolovis (talk) 15:48, 7 September 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:Kontinental Hockey League first round draft picks[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: Being a first round draft pick is not a permanent WP:DEFINING characteristic. Most/all of the articles that are in the category don't even mention it. DexDor (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This was likely created as a parallel to Category:National Hockey League first round draft picks. In the case of the NHL, I would argue that being a first rounder is definitely defining of a player. They are routinely spoken of as being "(former) first round picks", and the expectations are higher - so much so that players picked in the first round are pretty much the only ones who are ever considered "busts". The question here is whether the same expectation exists in the KHL. I can't say for certain, though I lean mildly to the delete side given how the KHL draft used to be viewed as a bit of a joke - at least in North America. Resolute 17:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a first round draft pick of the KHL is clearly a “defining characteristic”. The KHL is commonly considered to be the strongest ice hockey league in Eurasia, and the second-best in the world behind only the NHL. Being selected in the first round of the KHL draft objectively identifies the player as a world-class top-prospect. First held in 2009, the KHL junior draft is now an established institution, and it is clearly appropriate to mention being a first round KHL draft pick in the lead portion of an article. The fact is also often used by media sources when referring to the drafted players, albeit more so in Europe than in the North American press. Dolovis (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed on "being selected in the first round of the KHL draft objectively identifies the player as a world-class top-prospect". First, a "world class top prospect" would also rank high in the NHL draft, and a large number weren't even selected anywhere in the NHL draft, let alone high up. But more importantly, the KHL draft article indicates it is open only to unaffiliated players. Kids under contract to an MHL or VHL team are not eligible, which immediately lends question as to the calibre of the talent at this draft, since one presumes KHL teams will by trying to lock higher-end Russian talent in to their junior and development systems. Resolute 22:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the fact that the KHL draft is overwhelmingly limited to players from former Soviet-bloc territories unquestionably disqualifies that statement. One might subjectively argue that it establishes a standard for players being top regional prospects, however, and I would still !vote keep if one found a reliable citation for such a claim. Resolute 22:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Resolute is correct in his assessment of the situation. Being drafted by the KHL has been considered a bit of a joke in the hockey community as some teams have boycotted the draft and not drafted. Players that are top players in the world don't get drafted because teams in the league know they will never play in Russia. Players that are already signed to teams in other pro leagues aren't eligible to be drafted. The list goes on and on. No one in the hockey world would remotely think that being drafted by the KHL was defining of a player. Just have to look at the 2013 KHL Junior Draft and see that the Top 3 consensus prospects in the world that would have been eligible to be drafted weren't even drafted anywhere in the draft nevermind the first round. Heck there were only 3 Canadians period drafted in the entire draft. Seems to me that drafting almost no players from arguably the biggest hockey nation on the planet would indicate Dolovis's assessment that you are a "world-class top prospect" if you are drafted in the first round of the KHL draft is a bit suspect. -DJSasso (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The issue is not whether you or I think that the KHL draft is a joke or not, or whether or not a KHL draft pick will play in the NHL or not (neither NHL or KHL teams will generally waste a pick on a player who they don't think will travel from Russia to North America, or vise versa). The issue is whether or not being a first round pick in the KHL draft is a WP:DEFINING characteristic. It clearly is, as once a player has been selected as a KHL first round pick, he will always be identified as a KHL first round pick, and may be referred to as such whenever he is mentioned. Dolovis (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And, of course, you have sources that support that final statement? Resolute 14:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is very much the issue, something that isn't notable, barely gets mentioned in news articles would mean that it isn't a defining characteristic. That is the whole point of the matter, just because he was picked in the first round doesn't mean he will always be identified as such. He will always have been picked in that round but that doesn't mean people will always identify him as a first round KHL pick. -DJSasso (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Dolovis' argument is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS one. It is not enough to merely assert that being a first round draft pick in the KHL is important; he must demonstrate it. It is not enough to merely assert that those players are routinely identified as "KHL first round picks;" he must demonstrate it. Has this been done? Ravenswing 04:34, 11 September 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.
