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.
For the record, Category:2016 parliamentary aspirants (Ghana) has just two articles in it — of whom one is an incumbent member of parliament who's running for reelection. But that's a class of people who are not categorized as "candidates"; candidate categories are meant for people who are being catted as such because they haven't already served as MPs, while MPs are already in MP categories anyway so candidate categories would just be redundant. So Haruna Iddrisu has to be removed from the category — but that leaves it as a one-entry WP:SMALLCAT. And because candidates are not inherently notable just for being candidates, but get articles only if they already had preexisting notability for other reasons independent of their candidacies, the likelihood of the 2016-specific category being able to contain enough people to escape SMALLCAT is small at best. Meanwhile, the parent Category:Parliamentary aspirants (Ghana) has no entries besides that one subcategory — it may be justifiable if there are some other entries that can be added to it, but is also a SMALLCAT in its current form. Accordingly: deleteCategory:2016 parliamentary aspirants (Ghana) rather than renaming. If some other people can be found to populate Category:Parliamentary aspirants (Ghana) besides just upmerging Zanetor Agyeman-Rawlings, then rename it to Category:Ghanaian political candidates per Oculi — but it also needs to be deleted as a SMALLCAT if it exists solely for her. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since candidates for office at this level are not default notable we should avoid the category. I know in the US members of state legislatures are default notable, and so I have created articles on people such as Raul Labrador that could clearly pass muster when they were just candidates for congress. I am guessing the regions of Ghana have legislative bodies, and I would suspect that their members are default notable (although since we have so far to go in creating articles on even all of the MPs of Ghana currently serving, this would not seem a worthwhile use of energy), so there may be a notable cadre of people who are candidates for the Parliament of Ghana who are notable. However until we have several articles on such, I do not think having a category is justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The convention is that candidates are not notable until elected. This is a difficult one to enforce in the run up to an election, as every candidate wants their biography in WP. Certainly after the election, the category (if kept) should be emptied by all candidates who were not notable for other reasons having their articles deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2016 (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. Overcategorization by ___location. The individual state that a talk radio host happens to be from is not a defining characteristic in and of itself, this isn't part of a consensual subcategorization scheme as no other comparable category exists for any other state in the US (or province in Canada), and the number of articles here is not large enough to provide any substantive diffusion of the parent. Accordingly, the category does nothing to aid user navigation. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge with just less than 600 articles, I do not think that the by state split is neccesary. I would argue that in general talk radio hosts are heavily defined by the state they work in. There are a few nationally syndicated onces such as Rush Limbaugh who have careers that transcend multiple states. However the American radio market is heavily dominated by local stations with local content. This leads to lots of locally based talk radio. Knowing the business at the level I do, I would actually think if we do feel just under 600 is too high for one category we should create Category:American sports-talk radio hosts, Category:American news-talk radio hosts and possibly a few others.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:00, 14 September 2016 (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.
Alternative suggestion: Merge 1st six to Category:Dukes in British peerage with a single holder or something to that effect. The convention is that we do not have an article on a peerage which was only held by one person, instead we have a redirect to the bio-article on the one holder. I am far from convinced of the merits of categories like Category:Earls of Leicester, as the list article on the peerage is a better navigation aid. One possible answer might be to put the bio-articles directly in Category:Dukes in the Peerage of England, etc. However this would be an exception that would need to be explained in the headnote to discourage the addition of bio-articles on 2nd and subsequent holders of a title. The merger of separate creations to a general category on the title is in theory categorisation by shared name, which is normally not allowed, but is probably a good option since the target would be an appropriate search term, while title + creation date is not. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom per SMALLCAT; the alternative by Peterkingiron seemed attractive at first, but the one-holderness of a dukedom or earldom (some which get recreated over and over) isn't defining for the title nor the estates. Kind of like aircrashes with sole survivors, and similar. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2016 (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.
Support generally but we can drop "debuts", since all 1939 series will have ended that year, as TV production ceased on the Declaration of war for WWII. Furthermore, I am dubious whether any 1930s TV programme was notable: TVs were a rare luxury and no means of recording it existed, so that the medium was completely ephemeral. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll grant that I'm not entirely convinced of notability here either — of the six articles contained here, all six of them are referenced entirely to the BBC's own self-published historical television listings on its own website, with no evidence of reliable source coverage about the shows otherwise. They might be salvageable if somebody with deep database access to old British newspaper coverage can find some quality referencing, but they probably are deletion bait if their current state of referencing is really the best we can actually do. But as long as the articles do exist, the category is still needed for them — since they won't Google very easily and my deep database access is Canadian rather than British I can't do the WP:BEFORE work myself, but I don't want to initiate AFDs on them without somebody looking into whether the referencing can be improved first, so even if they are eventually deleted the articles are definitely going to outlast this discussion in the interim.
As for "debuts", I don't see that the temporary suspension of television broadcasting because of WWII is enough of a reason for this to deviate from the standing convention of Category:British television programme debuts by year, when it would permanently remain the only category that ever does so — especially considering that we already have a separate Category:1939 television series endings category, so retaining the word "debut" isn't actually distorting or misrepresenting anything since the ending is covered off by another category. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2016 (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.
Comment the 1939 category is similarly named, ought that be added to the nom? or is 1939 right and 1938 ought not be changed. I think consistency here won't be too much trouble, either programme or series. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC) nevermind, see it above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2016 (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: Non-WP:DEFINING category. Since virtually any television series in any language can be dubbed into any other language, it is not appropriate to categorize shows on every possible combination of original language and "dubbed version" language -- we categorize television shows on their defining characteristics, not on every individual tidbit of additional information that might exist. Bearcat (talk) 05:07, 11 September 2016 (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.
