Category:Somali-born male long-distance runners[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: The notion of a person who was born in Somalia and is a male long-distance runner is already sufficiently accounted for at Category:Somalian male long-distance runners. I don't think being a Somali-born male long-distance runner who is not currently a Somalian citizen is a key enough characteristic to warrant its own categorisation scheme, and I would extend that to any combination of place of birth and athletics event. SFB 22:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the whole point is that these are not Somalian. (Or delete.) Oculi (talk) 12:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wouldn't expect to find Mo Farah in Category:Somalian male long-distance runners since he has never competed for Somalia. There are plenty of national descent and expatriate categories that do the job of these ones. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge, we surely do not need separate "born" categories. I'm sympathizing with delete because these people were no longer Somalian while they were notable. However many biographies are put in a "from" category just based on the place of birth of the subject so a merge could be okay for consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as discussed above merely having been born there doesn't mean you competed for that country. We don't need "born" categories as many people are only notable for their achievements after emigrating from somewhere. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:59, 18 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: Category had been used to list people who appeared on a specific show called Polaris Primetime or had a Youtube channel associated with Polaris. This goes against WP:PERFCAT and it is not used for employees of the company, which would fit Category:Maker Studios people. Many of the folks listed do not have any mention of Polaris in their biography, although some have listed Maker Studios. Note there is also a related category Category:Polaris channels. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also not mentioned is the problem of disambiguation. I saw the category name and assumed it was people connected with the nuclear weapons programme. Grutness...wha? 21:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've scrubbed all the entries in the category and moved them either to Maker Studios people or deleted. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Usual procedure is to wait until the discussion's finished before doing that. If there's a swng towards keep you'd just have to add them back (see the third paragraph of the lede of WP:CFD!) Grutness...wha? 21:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, just the ones that got moved to Maker Studios people would move back as the others don't have any mention. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added back the Maker Studios people that had a mention of Polaris on their page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I thought Polaris was a class of submarine. If kept, it needs a disambiguator. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 11 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: Dual upmerge to Category:Ethnic Armenian people. This is an overcategorization which includes an ethnicity and sub-national (city) entity. TM 17:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. Personally, I don't support Ethnic group in City categories in general, but I am especially opposed to biographies of members of an ethnic group from a city because it is likely to be included even when the city and their ethnicity are irrelevant to notability.--TM 13:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a well-populated intersection. Even if ethnic group by city categories are discouraged, in this case there it an adequate population to keep. It should be stressed that Armenians as an ethnic group in Turkey are not expatriates from the Republic of Armenia, but people who were subjects of the Ottoman and Byzantine Empires, long before the present republic was even thought of. Due to the Ottoman millet system, such religious groups were in practice endogamous, so that they have become ethnicities or something close to that. I think they retain their own language. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are literally thousands of categories that could be adequately populated but that does not mean it is defining.--TM 18:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, at least to Category:Ethnic Armenian people. I'm lukewarm about merging to Category:People from Istanbul since the category concerns for the larger part people who were only born in Istanbul or Constantinople but were notable elsewhere. In particular there are quite a few emigrants in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 11 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.
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: Name is misleading. Rathfelder (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Questions. How is the current title misleading? What does "technical" mean in this context and is "technical" standard the defining characteristic here? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The articles are all about health technology, mostly computerised record systems, not about standards of health or medical treatment. Rathfelder (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They are about medical equipment. Not about the health of human beings. Rathfelder (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm merely concerned about using non-common terminology. Neither of the two articles mentions that it is about "technical" standards. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 30 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: An inherently obsolete category - some of these standards appear to have been "emerging" for the last 10 years. All the articles seem to be about Wireless networking standards, but that is by no means the only arena in which standards emerge. Rathfelder (talk) 15:07, 8 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:delete per WP:NONDEF and WP:OR, items in these categories are not defined by the concept of simplification, the category content just reflects a personal view of what belongs to simplification. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not useful categories.Rathfelder (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Simplify the category tree by deleting these categories. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 12 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.
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.
Dubious -- In England and Wales, Iron Age ends soon after AD 43. In Scotland, there was no permanent Roman conquest, so that the Iron Age continues much later. In Ireland the equivalent of the Dark Ages is "Early Christian". However, I am not clear what the accepted practice is in Scotland, where Christianity was a slightly later arrival. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal is not to retain this category, exactly because it is not clear indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:48, 18 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: There is a very large amount of overlap between this and Category:Video game levels. The majority of notable game locations are also most likely going to be levels, aside from the rare article about a notable fictional world. Sometimes it is hard to figure out what's a level but not a location. It's easier to just merge one into the other and avoid the hassle, I think. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This seems pretty reasonable. --Izno (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what I was proposing.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The second category was neither listed nor tagged. I have done that now. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:47, 17 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.
