Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 10

< March 9	March 11 >

March 10

Category:Wikipedians who were cryogenically frozen

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. The category was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#C3. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical category, also is empty.. rogerd 23:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is really disheartening to see such a waste of time. --Ezeu 23:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Waste of time. His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Valentinian ^(talk) 01:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least it's optimistic. David Kernow 02:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Until there are legitimate entries for the category, it's just a bad joke. --Allen 02:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In very poor taste. Raul654 03:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not know of any cases where people have been successfully brought back to life after being cryogenically frozen. Even if it were to happen, it will be decades, if not centuries, before it does. --TML1988 04:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Double speedy delete as nonsense, and as empty. Alai 06:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete taking up space.--Alhutch 07:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense category, as well as empty. Ambuj Sax e na (talk 15:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Amcbride and TML1988. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 18:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody --Khoikhoi 04:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Its presence devalues the "Deceased Wikipedians" parent category. Rockpocket 23:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:RNC Chairmen to Category:Republican National Committee chairmen

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 14:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category should be renamed to remove the abbreviation. --tomf688^{talk} 23:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Rename per nom. --Ezeu 01:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename as per nom. David Kernow 02:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename as per nom --rogerd 13:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename...but what's the rush? ;) --Khoikhoi 04:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't meet the critera for speedy renaming, but rename nonetheless. - EurekaLott 06:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:User OS/Mac OS X

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 14:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty dupe of Category:Mac OS X users. Omniplex 22:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per nom. --Ezeu 01:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's list all of the Mac OS X users in the world. Nah!, on the other hand...Delete per nom --rogerd 01:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Greek golfers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 14:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was created to contain the article about Jack Nicklaus's caddie, who was Greek. He was already in category:Caddies and I don't think caddies should be classified as golfers unless they had a notable golf career of their own (which is almost never the case). I start most of Wikipedia's new articles about golfers but have no plans to write any about Greek golfers as I am not aware of any notable Greek golfers. Delete. Osomec 22:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as per nom, unless quickly populated with notable Greek golf players (rather than caddies who also play/ed golf). David Kernow 22:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I must admit I wasn't sure about this when I did created it. With the effort to make sure that everybody in sports gets a nationality/sport category, I would support changing this to Category:Greek caddies and giving the other guys in category:Caddies similar caddies. That's certainly OK with me.--Mike Selinker 22:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Leave him in category:Caddies. Rockpocket 23:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't subdivide the tiny caddies category. Scranchuse 14:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Stub template categories

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete all. Syrthiss 14:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These were all recently orphaned by the deletion of Category:Stub templates, here, and ought to be deleted themselves for essentially the same reasons. (Duplication of other listings, and non-standardising and complication of the code for stub templates.) Alai 21:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Osomec 22:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Valentinian ^(talk) 00:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
del. dont need 'em. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - just more clutter. Grutness...wha? 18:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question This means simply that the template won't be filed in a category, right? The template itself would still exist and would still sort articles into, say Category:Film stubs? Her Pegship 22:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - the templates would work the same way they always do, putting articles in stub categories. but the templates themselves wouldnt be in a special category for templates. why should they be? theyre all listed along with a lot more information already. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then Delete per nom. Her Pegship 20:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Constantine Dynasty to Category:Flavian dynasty

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as suggested in discussion. Syrthiss 14:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Present name is an invention; please rename to WP capitalization and the usual name of the dynasty of C. Flavius Constantinus Septentrionalis 21:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this particular rename, as the Flavian dynasty is something entirely different. The category probably should be renamed to something else, though, as the current name isn't very meaningful (or correctly capitalized). —Kirill Lok s hin 23:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Constantinian dynasty. As KL notes the Flavians are something else entirely. - choster 19:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Constantinian dynasty. As KL notes the Flavians are something else entirely. --Panairjdde 14:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Ghost Whisperer episodes

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Syrthiss 14:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A user requested deletion on my talk page on the grounds that the episode list should be filed directly in Category:Lists of television series episodes — however, one episode has already been written up and all of the others so far are redlinks on the episode list, indicating that an intention seems to exist to write up the others as well, and if that happens there has to be somewhere to file them. (I personally think articles about individual episodes of a TV series are generally unnecessary, but I know there's an ongoing Wikicontroversy about that.) I created the category, but only because Pilot (Ghost Whisperer) was previously filed in all the TV series categories, where it doesn't belong — I have very little interest in the topic otherwise. No vote from me; procedural nom since deletion has been requested by another user. Bearcat 19:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has to go somewhere, and that's where.--Mike Selinker 05:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Minor league hockey teams

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as suggested, now that it has some subcats. Syrthiss 14:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As ice hockey teams appear to be listed directly within their leagues, this category is empty and superfluous. Besides, we need to specify field hockey or ice hockey. choster 18:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally keep if someone populates it with the relevant subcategories before the end of this process. Otherwise Delete. Osomec 22:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to category:Minor league ice hockey teams (as suggested), and then let's populate it with the team subcategories (not individual teams) of AHL, WHL, OHL, etc.--Mike Selinker 01:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There are almost none such categories. All it would lead to are a large number of categories containing one article and one subcategory, which is actually less useful than simply organizing by league. - choster 15:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, after significant discussions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey, there are Category:American Hockey League teams, Category:Southern Professional Hockey League teams, Category:United Hockey League teams, and the like. I would not be surprised if this happened in the WHA and OHL as well. It seems reasonable to unite those under a minor league team category.--Mike Selinker 17:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename category:Minor league ice hockey teams. Now contains three subcategories, two of which weren't in Category:ice hockey teams at all, so something has been gained. Scranchuse 14:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:NWFA to Category:National Women's Football Association

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 14:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please expand the abbreviation. Scranchuse 15:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Rename as above. Scranchuse 15:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nominator. Osomec 22:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom --Khoikhoi 04:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Rings of Saturn

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 14:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category since articles of separate rings have merged. Please delete. --Donar Reiskoffer 08:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Osomec 22:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ezeu 01:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 04:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:National Geographic's 50 Most Important Political Leaders of All Time to Category:National Geographic's 50 Most Important Political Leaders in History

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 14:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wouldn't mind seeing this category deleted as it is based on a non-authoritative list from a 2004 almanac, but if deletion fails, at least let us use the proper (ie. official) name for this list. Ezeu 03:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a link to the article itself? -- Andrew Parodi 08:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a tabular summary of the original list. http://www.filibustercartoons.com/charts_othr_50leaders.php Bellczar 22:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, no one is categorized under Category:National Geographic's 50 Most Important Political Leaders in History. I support the change since "in History" is clearer than "of All Time", but we have to change the category in all relevant articles since we cannot simply move the category.--Jusjih 08:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fixed number of entries, so should be implemented as list. Noisy | Talk 15:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Opinion not fact. Scranchuse 15:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful and thought-provoking tabulation by a respected and politically unbiased organization. Bellczar 22:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NG is indeed respected, but this list is not why. Publications of every sort are constantly publishing these kinds of lists, and only a very few are significant and longstanding enough to have attained notability (e.g. the Fortune 500). Incidentally, political bias is not necessarily a reason to delete a list, but I don't agree in the slightest that the NGS is "unbiased." -choster 23:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as per choster Osomec 00:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic. --Valentinian ^(talk) 01:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a primary, secondary, tertiary, .... characteristics of a person. Pavel Vozenilek 14:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per choster --Khoikhoi 04:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category: Irish Solicitor-Generals to Category:Solicitors-General for Ireland

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 14:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct plural form; for prefered over of according to Solicitor-General for Ireland. JonHarder 03:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename in accordance with proposal above. Gustavus 10:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above. --Ezeu 01:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom --rogerd 21:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom --Khoikhoi 04:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Culture and sport in the European Union to Category:Cultural policies of the European Union

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated. Syrthiss 14:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this contained what its name implies it should that would amount to tens of thousands of articles rather than seven. It is actually for articles about the European Union's activities in these fields, which don't amount to much. The two articles about sport could perhaps be moved into a separate category, though sport is treated as a branch of culture within the overall categorisation system. category:European sport already exists. Rename Category:Cultural policies of the European Union Choalbaton 03:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Comment : Based on the category's current content, how about rename to Category:Cultural policies and initiatives of the European Union...? Too unwieldy? Regards, David Kernow 16:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match the main article, which is Cultural policies of the European Union, ie as per nominator. Osomec 22:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. Scranchuse 14:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:WNT

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 14:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is bad in so many ways: it is abbreviated; it exists mainly to contain an article which needs cleanup and possibly shouldn't exist; it cuts across other categories for sports teams; it is U.S. centric because the term is U.S. centric. Just delete it please. Choalbaton 02:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per nom. — Dale Arnett 09:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or at least rename to something like Category:Women's National Teams. David Kernow 14:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There's already a Category:Women's national football (soccer) teams. "WNT" is an occasionally used abbreviation for the United States women's national soccer team. I say "occasionally" because I'm an American, and I rarely see it used outside of the United States Soccer Federation site. — Dale Arnett 01:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, delete and relist population under Category:Women's national football (soccer) teams – although this doesn't appear necessary. Thanks, David Kernow 02:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Choalbaton --light darkness^(talk) 14:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Choalbaton Scranchuse 15:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm a major fan of women's soccer and basketball, and I've never heard this term before. I certainly haven't heard it applied to the US women's national basketball team. While I certainly believe that the US women's national soccer team could deserve its own category, this isn't it.--Mike Selinker 01:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per choalbaton --Khoikhoi 04:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Color/Colour commentators categories

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename both. Syrthiss 14:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category was apparently set up in contrast to category:Color commentators to reflect a Canadian/American spelling difference. The term colo(u)r commentator may well not be used outside North America, but it seems sensible to define this more precisely. Rename Choalbaton 01:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Rename per Choalbaton. Maybe the U.S. category should be renamed too? Scranchuse 15:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RENAME BOTH to avoid appearing to favor Americans 132.205.45.110 20:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and install soft redirect. Flip a coin to choose which to keep. (Although WP tends to use colour as a disambiguator.) Septentrionalis 21:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both as per 132.205.45.110 Osomec 22:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both, despite redundancy for clarity Mayumashu 01:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both per mayumashu --Khoikhoi 04:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't put purple under Category:Colors for Americans and under Category:Colours for Canadians, and we don't have Category:Purple colour in Canada. Gene Nygaard 18:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If Category:Purple colour in X categories existed they should be named in local English. Osomec 22:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The American category is now tagged. Osomec 22:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both It is usual to divide by nationality. Scranchuse 14:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Braxton clan to Category:Braxton family

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename per nom. Syrthiss 14:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is for people related to the singer Toni Braxton. The term clan, while technically applicable, carries connotations which do not apply and IMHO is ostentatious; I see no reason why this category shouldn't match its counterparts in Category:American families. -choster 00:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom. David Kernow 14:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. Osomec 22:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:1066 and Norman conquest of England to Category:Norman conquest of England

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename --Latinus 23:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC) The title seems a little awkward, and it is also somewhat misleading as to the contents of the category. The Battle of Hastings was fought in 1066, but the full conquest took rather longer and the category properly covers the full breadth of the topic, eg the Revolt of the Earls, which took place in 1075. Rename Hawkestone 00:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Rename as per nom. David Kernow 14:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. Scranchuse 15:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename after 1066 and All That. Septentrionalis 21:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nomination. Durova 22:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom --Khoikhoi 04:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Entertainer of South Korea to Category:South Korean people by occupation

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 13:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is in poor English and "entertainers" doesn't seem to be a conventional category. If it is upmerged the articles can then by moved to the relevant categories, eg actors or singers. Merge Nathcer 23:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I think we can delete straight away as all articles in this category are already listed under Category:South Korean actors or Category:Korean musicians.- choster 01:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per choster Scranchuse 15:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entertainers is vague, and the category is needless since it is covered by other categories. --Ezeu 01:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous comments. Vegaswikian 00:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.