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: Has just subcategory entries or has just one entry and we don't categorize sports athletes as being from Foo just because they play for a sports team there. The same goes for coaches of those teams. As for individual entries, baseball coaches are all baseball players. They were the latter first. Is it necessary to twice categorize a person for that profession....William, is the complaint department really on the indoof? 22:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as part of well-established Category:American baseball coaches by state. The Alabama category now has seven entries added in the last 5 minutes. There are so many articles on baseball players and coaches that it just a matter of populating each category. Every state will easily have enough entries to justify itself.--TM 23:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whatever the result of the CFD, when its finished most of the entries above are going to be emptied of the subcategorization is done. You say this is well established- All the entries above were done in the last year and mostly by an editor who can't understand that playing college athletics somewhere doesn't make a person from that place....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are 40 such categories, which to me means it is well-established. It's not clear to me why you've only nominated some of them and not others. It is just a matter of populating the categories. There are hundreds of articles on baseball coaches that are without a state-based category.--TM 23:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just added 14 entries to the Maine category. As I wrote above, there are more than a sufficient number of uncategorized baseball coaches to make each and every state viable.--TM 23:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (creator of scheme): there are lots of American baseball people by state and lots of American baseball coaches. I think this intersection makes a logical way of breaking them up and making them navigable plus there are comparable schemes for other sports (basketball, [gridiron] football, etc.) Agree with the above that the partial nomination is confusing: what is your end game here? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is consistent with what we do with other sports and almost all baseball coaches carry a strong geographic identity. Many are home town, region, state etc. favorites; celebrities, noteworthy. Trackinfo (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are huge numbers of articles about sports people categorised as being from Foo, on the basis that they play for a team there.Rathfelder (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2018 (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: There's no need for this category layer between (the better known terms) vertebrates etc and fauna. See related CFD. DexDor(talk) 20:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Oculi (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. This is one of a number of categories introduced by Caftaric which affect most of the wikiprojects making up WP:TOL, in all cases that I know of without any discussion or attempt to reach consensus. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:02, 27 March 2018 (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.
Category:Major League Soccer 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 pick is non-defining of a career. TM 18:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete soccer only - this is non-notable and over-categorisation. GiantSnowman 12:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why is being drafted in a certain round considered defining for only one league? What makes it more defining for potential NHL players when it is not for MLS, NBA, NFL, MLB? Is it defining by Wikipedia's standards, i.e. "a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define" or just a notable characteristic?--TM 16:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has commented so far that being a first round pick in the MLS is not-notable. I have seen comments that being a first-round pick in the NHL is a defining characteristic. There are hundreds of reliable secondary and third party resources which persistently confirm such. Flibirigit (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those leagues might be notable as well, however, drafts in MLB for example are often not considered a big deal because the draft itself is often ignored by sources in baseball, that isn't the case of the NHL. One shoe doesn't fit all situations. -DJSasso (talk) 11:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose NHL category per many previous discussions. Being drafted in the first round is something that is mentioned very frequently in sources about hockey players which thus means it is defining since sources continually mention it. Not sure why OP keeps nominating it, especially considering the last time was only a couple months ago. -DJSasso (talk) 11:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as being chosen first overall in the NHL entry draft, doesn't always lead to an NHL career, let alone a successful one. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what the discussion about, the question is, whether being a first round pick is something defining of a person. In other words is it something notable that differentiates a person from another person. Even if you don't make the NHL being a first round pick differentiates you from other people, in fact it is probably even more defining of those who don't make the NHL as they will be talked about as failed first round picks. -DJSasso (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is definitely not what is defining. There are an unlimited number of differences between every single individual. For the purposes of categorization, we need to determine if being a first round pick is one of the essential features of a career. "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having". A player has no control over their draft status and being drafted in the second round is no more important than first. That is why it is not defining--TM 17:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having control or being more important or not has nothing to do with it. It is whether or not sources consistently mention it (as you so helpfully quoted). And they most definitely do consistently mention first round picks are first round picks, something they don't do for second round picks. -DJSasso (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just surveyed the pages of the top 10 picks in the 1996 NHL Entry Draft. Only two mention their draft status in the lead paragraph.--TM 18:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not every category has to be mentioned in the lead. Again, the line as you yourself mentioned, is whether or not sources consistently mention it. They do, plain and simple. Besides which, judging whether a category should exist based on the quality of articles in it is a bit ridiculous, you are stretching now. -DJSasso (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"If the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining;" Clearly, the many editors that edited these articles do not find draft status appropriate for mentioning in the lead outside of first overall picks, which already exists.--TM 18:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You know except almost all those articles had single sentence leads that clearly haven't be written to their potential. Being a first round draft pick is something you would mention in the lead of an article that was "complete". The fact they aren't there at this point is more a comment on the state of those articles than on the category itself otherwise almost every category on those pages could be considered non-defining. -DJSasso (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2018 (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: Created for a single article; subjectivity suspect —swpbTgo beyond 15:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete or add Death to the category. Grutness...wha? 00:47, 27 March 2018 (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: Created for a single article; no chance of reasonable population —swpbTgo beyond 15:51, 26 March 2018 (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:split (non-admin closure). @Swpb and Dimadick: It would be great if one of you could perform the split and let me know when you are done. In any case I'll list this at WP:CFDWM. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ambiguous (executives of tech companies, or CTOs?) and arbitrary (what defines a tech company?) —swpbTgo beyond 15:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Split per nom Ambiguous current title. "Tech"? Dimadick (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2018 (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. A nomination to merge might have had a different outcome.--BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a valid occupation or coherent category. The title secretary general can have wildly different meanings depending on the context. Zanhe (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless and poorly-named category grouping together people just because of a title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, it may be transformed to a container category for secretaries-general of the United Nations, NATO and OPEC. In these cases the title secretary general does not have wildly different meanings. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have a wildly different meaning, but it's still just a title. Secretary-general, general secretary, chief executive, permanent secretary, chairman, etc, etc, all mean pretty much the same thing when applied to the head of a public organisation. There's no point grouping individuals together just because their organisation happens to have chosen one title over another. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That may be a reason for merging somewhere, but not for deleting. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2018 (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.
Support per nom. -Zanhe (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2018 (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.
