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; empty. Kbdank71 18:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian statutory rapists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category contains biographical articles on living people guilty of committing criminal offences. All offenders were given sentences of 5 years or less in all cases. As the category is used primarily to hold articles on non-notable criminals, I propose its deletion. Longhair\^talk 23:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom and more. I have never heard the term "statutory rape" used in an Australian context; I suspect the creators have watched a little too much SVU. There are real BLP issues involved in including these types of offenders in a category including the word "rape" and with a parent category, Category:Australian rapists. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Category:Australian rapists and solve the BLP problems by removing those who weren't convicted of rape or proposing AfDs for non-notable people in it. If they were convicted of rape and the article is not deleted, I don't see a BLP problem as long as the category is defined as people of Australian nationality who were convicted of rape. People who serve their time don't necessarily lose the status of being a person who committed a certain type of crime, which may be unfortunate, but that's how society tends to work what with its "criminal records" and all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - As far as I can tell, the category was originally split from Australian rapists to avoid the problem of bundling these offences together. Merging would restore that problem. By definition, the vast majority of likely members of this category, would be non-notable. All existing category members have been listed at AfD - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridget Mary Nolan (2nd nomination).
• Do not merge Considering what happened in the US a few months ago between an 18-yo and his under-18 girlfriend, with him ending up with 10 years in jail... not all statutory rapists actually forced sexual intercourse upon an unwilling partner, so the definition of "rape" is overly flexible, and statutory rape should remain separate. 70.51.10.100 (talk) 04:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Cases like that would not seem to meet WP:N and the only category being discussed here is the Australian one where the term "statutory" rape is not commonly used. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Articlify for those who haven't looked, all these are female schoolteachers of questionable notability. A group article is probably the best approach- and the most realistic chance of keeping the material. All are now up for AfD. Johnbod (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod];] Oppose merger with Rape. The conclusion must however depend on the outcome of the AFD, where I have suggested merging to Austrialian Statutory Rape, which is essentially what Johnbod suggests. However the content must be trimmed of excessive detail. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as all articles which presumably used to be in this category have now been deleted via AfD. Aside from the WP:BLP implications, I don't see much potential for this category to grow again in the future. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:36, 7 July 2008 (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: rename. Kbdank71 18:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lesbian periodicals to Category:Lesbian magazines

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The parent and all siblings use "magazines" rather than "periodicals." Otto4711 (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Lesbian magazines is a redirect. Otto4711 (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2008 (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. Kbdank71 18:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Christian musical groups ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: poorly defined, and unneeded category --T-rex 18:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify and delete - interesting enough topic for an article, which can cite reliable sources as to why the groups are "former" Christians. Otto4711 (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and upmerge to Category:Christian musical groups. Former XXX is not generally a suitable basis for a category, and here it's not clear what is 'former' - are they defunct Christian musical groups, or formerly Christian or no longer musical? (A US president is classified under 'US Presidents', not former ones.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 09:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with above comments. Are they defunct, or existing but secular in genre, or apostates? Listifying would also need classification of subjects. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - poorly defined. --Kleinzach 23:10, 1 July 2008 (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: rename. Kbdank71 18:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Jim Steinman productions to Category:Songs produced by Jim Steinman

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the standard format of Category:Songs by producer. Bencherlite^Talk 16:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and delete - I believe this structure to be overcategorization. In most cases songs are not defined by who produced them. A list of songs in the producer's article is sufficient. Otto4711 (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - if that is our standard format, I agree we should use it. But the point is that Steinman's productions are defined by him - a song produced by Steinman will often have more in common with other Steinman songs than with other works by the same singer. -- Beardo (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2008 (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: keep. Kbdank71 18:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Democratic socialists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Democratic socialism is not an ideology, its a term which is used in widely different ways. The cat is superflous to Category:Socialists and Category:Social democrats. Soman (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: A closely-related article, List of democratic socialist parties and organizations, has been proposed for deletion at WP:AFD. Cgingold (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep If I didn't know better I'd say you were campaigning to get democratic socialism erased from wikipedia entirely. It is an ideology, just because it's closely based on another similar ideology doesn't mean it isn't. Speedy because the orgnal AFD on this article was snowball keep less than an hour after the nom--Serviam (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-empirical and inherently OR. I cannot think of a single socialist party (including those former Communist ruling parties that styled themselves as socialist -- i.e. the SED in East Germany) that someone could not include in this list as thay all purported to be both 'democratic' and 'socialist'. The category is worthless. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep No reason whatsoever to merge to Category:Socialits. Democratic socialists have a distinct history and is as worthy of a subcategory as the other subcats of Category:Socialists Deletion would destroy information value in WP. Hmains (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Democratic socialism is both a major current of socialism, as well as distinct from social democracy. This is a worthy subcategory of Category:Socialists, I see no reason to eliminate it. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 05:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There are fine distinctions here. WE need to avoid imposing the agenda of one country (where the two may be the same) on another where they are not. Were the rulers of the German Democratic Republic Social Democrats or Democratic Socialsts or both or neither? USSR claimed to be socialist, but was not democratic. The British Labour party is certainly engaged in Democratic Socialism (or would claim so), but the Social Democratic Party merged with the Liberals, so that (I think) the Labour party would disclaim being social democrats and admit to democratic socialism. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There have been numerous people in history who have opposed both social democracy and communism in the name of democratic socialism (for example, Acharya Narendra Deva). This category should include such people. Q·L·1968 ☿ 18:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - For adherents of Democratic socialism this is a critically important distinction from other socialists who don't put a premium on democracy. Cgingold (talk) 03:00, 3 July 2008 (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: keep. Kbdank71 18:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Democratic socialism ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The entry sentence at the category page is a pure OR projection. In reality, there is no uniform 'democratic socialist' ideology, and it is not a term that is clearly distinct from social democracy. I suggest a merge into Category:Socialism. Soman (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: A closely-related article, List of democratic socialist parties and organizations, has been proposed for deletion at WP:AFD. Cgingold (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is an ideology. People who follow this ideology should have a category.--Serviam (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think "Social Democracy" (e.g. Labour Party in Britain, Social Democratic Party of Germany etc.) is a variety of "Democratic Socialism". I tend to "keep". --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-empirical and inherently OR. I cannot think of a single socialist party (including those former Communist ruling parties that styled themselves as socialist -- i.e. the SED in East Germany) that someone could not include in this list as thay all purported to be both 'democratic' and 'socialist'. The category is worthless. As an aside, the British Labour Party has never purported to be a Social Democratic party. Its claimed to be a socialist party and is a member of the Socialist International. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep No reason whatsoever to merge to Category:Socialists. Democratic socialists has a distinct history and is as worthy of a subcategory as the other subcats of Category:Socialists Deletion would destroy information value in WP. Hmains (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

useful work could be accomplished by subdividing the 173 articles directly in Category:socialism into appropriate subcats. No useful work at all in doing deletion nominations and arguments. Hmains (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as a documented political ideology and as long as others are kept in cat page form Mayumashu (talk) 03:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Democratic socialism is both a major current of socialism, as well as distinct from social democracy. This is a worthy subcategory of Category:Socialism, I see no reason to eliminate it. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 05:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - see comments in preceding section. Certainly Oppose merger with Category:Socialists, for which they are a legitmate subcategory. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it is true that the term is vague and contentious, but no more so than "socialism". BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The emphasis on democracy in Democratic socialism is a critically important distinction from other forms of socialism. Cgingold (talk) 03:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this points to an evident pov problematic. If we are to categorize some socialists as 'democratic socialists', then do we thereby imply that other socialists are not democrats? --Soman (talk) 08:47, 3 July 2008 (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: rename. Kbdank71 18:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Buffalo, NY restaurants to Category:Restaurants in Buffalo, New York

Nominator's rationale: Rename to expand state abbreviation and to fit with the standard formula at Category:Restaurants by city Bencherlite^Talk 11:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. but Question Are any notable? We cannot encourage articles on every restaurant in every town. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. If there are several, then the category is part of a series. The question is how many articles should be deleted as spam or failing WP:CORP. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:22, 5 July 2008 (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. Wizardman 18:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unsuccessful Maryland political candidates ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - Given the reality that losing elections is an altogether common occurence, I don't believe this serves a valid or useful purpose as a category. It might possibly make sense to listify this, but I'll leave that judgement for others. ((Creator has not edited since March 2007.) Cgingold (talk) 11:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There seems to be no attempt (other than this and 2 more specific cats for Louisiana) to categorise Category:American political candidates by state; and no other category begins "Category:Unsuccessful" (except Category:Unsuccessful requests for adminship). There is Category:Future election candidates to which some of the Maryland people could be sent, to join Mugabe (briefly). I would say that failure to be elected is not generally defining except at Presidential level. Governor, possibly. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - impermissibly POV. A candidate who was "unsuccessful" at winning a political office was still "successful" in securing the nomination of his or her party. Otto4711 (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge / delete. Merge to Category:Maryland politicians. Politicians who are "unsuccessful" are still politicians. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly merge any that aren't already in Category:Maryland politicians. Cgingold (talk) 04:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• From beyond the Atlantic, I would suggest that losing candidates become NN (unless notable for other reasons). There is a tendency for them to get articles while standing for office. After the election, something has to be done with these articles. This may be an appropriate category for them, but should the articles not be deleted when the candidate loses an election? No vote. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability doesn't expire. Otto4711 (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - POV. --Kleinzach 23:02, 1 July 2008 (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: rename (noted that I disagree with Vegas on the main article thing, but I'm just closing, so...). Kbdank71 18:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Medium capacity system to Category:Medium-capacity rail transport system

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Context is rail transport. Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• rename to match main article and contents of category Hmains (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a typical category causing overcategorization. The article fails to give a precise definition of the term, making categorization a subjective matter. According to the article all such systems must inherently be a subtype of rapid transit, and there is a good categorization system for that, based on a by county system.

The article is clear enough. There is no 'typical category causing over-categorization'. Hmains (talk) 03:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. I think this is over categorization, but there is a main article, so... Vegaswikian (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2008 (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; empty. Kbdank71 18:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Newton Bromswold, England ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Newton Bromswold is a very small village - a single notable person was born there in the seventeenth century and I doubt if this more than 2 or 3 entries will ever appear here. I have taken the liberty to empty this category. Saga City (talk) 08:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - From your description it sounds like this is not a viable category. But aside from WP:BLP issues or articles that are indisputably miscategorized, it's always best to leave the contents in place so your fellow editors can judge things for themselves. Cgingold (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Previous content, from Saga City's edits, was this one article. Sounds too small a potential category to be viable, so upmerge to Category:People from Northamptonshire just in case it isn't empty at time of closure. Bencherlite^Talk 09:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/upmerge - per above. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/upmerge. I really think that there should be a rule that there must be 5 legit article page links available to populate it to justify creating a cat page, but at as this isn t the rule, a proper rule of thumb for people by place should be having official designation of town or larger (with a few exceptions that receive due discussion) Mayumashu (talk) 03:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/upmerge - per above. --Kleinzach 23:01, 1 July 2008 (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. Kbdank71 18:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National operas ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is not clearly defined. Is it for operatic works (e.g the Polish 'national opera' The Haunted Manor)? Or opera companies (people)? Or opera houses (buildings)? What is the definition of 'national'? If it is for companies or houses, is it for those that have 'national' in their name (rather than 'State' etc.)? Is it for national in contrast to international institutions (e.g. English National Opera rather than the Royal Opera)? Rather than answer these complicated questions wouldn't it be easier to delete it? We already have the viable and clearly defined Category:Opera houses, Category:Opera companies, Category:Opera organizations etc. and their subcategories. Kleinzach 01:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It is in fact completely clear that the category is intended for "national opera companies", but what exactly that means today, when nearly all companies receive state funding, often dispensed from central government, is indeed rather unclear for some countries, and a delete is probably better than a rename. The distinction between Category:Opera houses and Category:Opera companies is not in fact all that clear - mostly they seem to be the same articles in both cats. Johnbod (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• If this is intended to be Category:National Opera Companies, it should be renamed accordingly, but I would raise considerable doubt as to its merit. In England, both English National Opera and the Royal Opera ought to qualify, the latter being the more prestigious, but I too suspect that delete is the better option. However I hqave not investigated the content in detail. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Category:National Opera Companies. I thought this would be a welcome addition to the Category:National institutions where there are similar categories with probably similar problems, but still of interest, such as: Category:National academies, Category:National libraries, Category:National museums, and Category:National theatres, but nothing in music. Hmains (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Category:National institutions is a random bag of 19 cats including Category:National censuses, Category:National councils of churches, Category:National identification numbers, Category:National Olympic committees, Category:National Treasures and Category:National trusts etc (in addition to those listed above). Maybe some real thought needs to go into deciding what its for and what should go in it. Otherwise it's catcruft. --Kleinzach 03:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as Category:National opera companies (generic lowercase) per Hmains. Her Pegship (tis herself) 02:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:National opera companies. The current name is ambiguous and that is confusing. Rename to make the intent clear and update the introduction, as I have done, and we should have a usable category. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can someone can come up with an iron-clad criteria for Category:National opera companies which does not require verification in each individual article or engender misleading and inaccurate information? The only one that could possibly work is if the opera company actually has the word "National" in their official title, but even then it's problematic in terms of any real similarity between the category members. The Welsh, and English "National Operas" receive some degree of public funding indirectly from central government, but they're basically on their own in terms of whether they sink or swim as companies. In the UK the government allocates a certain amount of money to the Arts Councils which are not under direct government control. The ACs decide where to put the money, and their remit is everything from museums to community theatre. They give out the money as grants which the various arts organizations have to formally apply for, often on a yearly basis. Meanwhile, Scottish Opera considers itself "national" (presumably of Scotland, not the UK), even though it doesn't have the word in their title. In the US, the Washington Opera was renamed to Washington National Opera by Congress as a gesture a few years ago simply because it's in the US capital city. But its structure hasn't changed nor its funding from the Federal government (via the National Endowment for the Arts) which is minimal and no more than San Francisco Opera, Houston Grand Opera, or any of the others US companies. Likewise, many so-called "National Operas" are actually "International Operas", with the majority of the major singers in their productions not even citizens of that country. Many European opera companies have "State" or "Royal" in their titles, but often that's a holdover from another era, and currently has nothing to do with the status of being entirely nationally funded or controlled. Take a look at Deutsche Oper Berlin and Berlin State Opera, for example. In fact Germany has at least 8 opera companies with "State" in their title, e.g. Staatsoper Stuttgart, Staatsoper Hannover, Staatstheater am Gärtnerplatz. In the UK, the Royal Opera's name has nothing to do with it being a "national opera". It's a "distinction" granted by the reigning monarch for excellence. It's like granting the Royal Warrant to a store. Read some of the articles linked here, and you'll see the inherent problems in assigning members to the category and the misleading information that this category would engender. What's the point of it? Voceditenore (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Such category will give rise to unnecessary disputes. Its membership cannot be well defined in many cases. I fail to see the usefulness of having such a category. Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per comments by Voceditenore and Michael Bednarek.Nrswanson (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom and comments by Voceditenore and Michael Bednarek.--Folantin (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2008 (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.