The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 16:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pollution in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This category strikes me as rather nonsensical, especially considering the explanation provided and the articles that have been placed in it. Notified creator with ((cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - vague inclusion criteria. Any story that has someone coughing because of smog could be included here. Otto4711 (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2007 (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 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 16:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Phytosanitary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - The purpose of this category is entirely unclear, as it is lacking explanatory info. Currently, it has no articles and a single sub-category (which is already well-parented). Notified creator with ((cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not seem like it will ever be a widely-used category. (For what it's worth, Wiktionary defines Phytosanitary as 'concerning the health of plants'.) Terraxos (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2007 (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 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 16:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wellbeing ministries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - There is, of course, no such thing as a "Wellbeing ministry". This term was devised by the category's creator strictly for this category, which was created for the sole purpose of holding that single article. (The article belongs in the relevant existing categories.) Notified creator with ((cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, seems that the category was created at the time the article was named Ministry of Public Health, Wellbeing and Sports, which the edit summaries for further movements say was a mistranslation. It's a bit of a tangled web, though, the ministry's web page in English translates it as "Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport" but looking through the page it's clear that by "Welfare" they mean "Well-being" not what we would normally refer to as "Welfare" when discussing politics in English - that is covered by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment (Netherlands). Think this needs a little more cleanup than just a deleted category, e.g. these links referring to "wellbeing". --Stormie (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and clean up per Stormie. Cgingold notified me, but I am not the category's creator: I merely had it speedily moved because it was mis-capitalised—its creator was Brz7 (talk · contribs). --RobertG ♬ talk 08:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2007 (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 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bhutto to Category:Bhutto family

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Better description, as all members of the category are from one family. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Unfortunate timing for this one (RIP). Grutness...wha? 22:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the article Bhutto family and the various family member artices link all of this material more than sufficiently. This is eponymous overcategorization by family name. Otto4711 (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. I've just added the parent cat, Category:Pakistani families, for which this is an obvious sub-category. Cgingold (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, per nom. This at least alleviates the current lengthy "See also" lists that are on some Bhutto family member's articles. Qwerty (talk) 15:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "See also Bhutto family" serves the same purpose without the unnecessary category. Otto4711 (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I give no opinion on whether it should be kept or not. But if it's kept, it should be renamed.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Otto. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reename per nom. --Soman (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2008 (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 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Football Freestylers to Category:Freestyle footballers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the article Freestyle football. – PeeJay 21:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Terraxos (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2008 (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 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Madonna books to Category:Books by Madonna

Nominator's rationale: Rename - to clarify that it is for books by Madonna rather than books about her and in line with Category:Books by author. Otto4711 (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, although this rather begs the question... Johnbod (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on, not even the children's books? ;-). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2008 (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 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was no consensus. There's definitely no consensus to delete, and no strong consensus on the rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Conspiracy theorists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: If this category isn't a BLP violation, then nothing is. Furthermore, it's difficult to see how it could be consistent with WP:NPOV. If someone has been called a conspiracy theorist in a reliable source, or this is a part of their public persona, it can be discussed in the article in a neutral and sourced manner. But, by putting someone in this category, we are declaring in the encyclopedic voice that they are conspiracy theorists, which violates Wikipedia policies on neutrality. *** Crotalus *** 18:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can only repeat my opinion from Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_23#Category:Conspiracy_theorists. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category clearly states inclusion criteria. Nominator is assuming that a 'conspiracy theorist' is a bad label; it looks to me like a factual label and one that listed people might be proud to identify with. They, after all, believe the conspiracy is true and want to convince others of its existence. Hmains (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category justifies a derogatory label by citing yet another Wikipedia category. This is not a reliable source as required by WP:BLP. Are you seriously going to tell me that, for instance, Rosie O'Donnell and Pat Robertson would not object to being described as "conspiracy theorists"? Can you seriously maintain that officially branding them as "conspiracy theorists" in a category — with no context — is consistent with WP:NPOV? It also violates WP:NOR by coming up with a novel synthesis that may not be justified in published sources. *** Crotalus *** 05:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename to Category:Proponents of conspiracy theories. The current title is clearly very problematic because the term is generally considered to be pejorative. The inclusion criteria need to be overhauled; in particular, they should state that the category is restricted to individuals whose articles establish that they are notably active as a proponent of one or more conspiracy theories (as defined here), whether through published writing or through public presentations on the subject (i.e. speaking tours). Notified creator with ((cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but rename per Cgingold above. This category should be restricted to only those people for whom this is their most notable characteristic; so, David Icke, but definitely not Rosie O'Donnell, whatever she may have said. Terraxos (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree the rename is better here. Hmains (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Cgingold (maybe then they won't think that we're all out to get them ;-). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, neutral on rename. We've gone through this before, and if the rename keeps the conspiracy theorists happy, I have no objection. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subjective criteria, does a conspiracy theorist have only to buy into one "conspiracy theory" to be in here? And what if the conspiracy theory is widely held is it still a conspiracy theory? UFOs? Existence of God? Life after death? yadda yadda. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  UFOs might be a conspiracy theory, but I don't see how any of the others you refer to could possibly considered such by a rational person. Delusions, perhaps, but there's no conspiracy. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2008 (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 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename to Category:Bishops of the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:CPCA bishops to Category:Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association bishops

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand the abbreviation. Would have nominated this for a speedy rename under the fifth speedy criteria except CPCA isn't a country. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further note, CPCA can also refer to the Cumberland Presbyterian Church in America although I doubt they have bishops. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Bishops of the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association (which is clearer - there might be a Patriotic Catholic Association with Chinese Bishops; or American Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association bishops). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or that, which is probably clearer. Johnbod (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with either form. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Roundhouse. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Roundhouse. --Soman (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Whichever rename happens, and it is clear that this will happen, then Category:Catholic bishops not in communion with Rome needs to be cleaned up so that all of the subcats follow the same form. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2008 (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 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Keep. JERRY ^talk _contribs 16:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bangladeshi Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Awardee by country seems over categorization. Besides it has only 2 articles with very limited potentioan of growth. Arman ^(Talk) 09:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Covered by the "part of wider scheme" exception in the policy. Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It always helps to check out the related categories before taking something to CFD -- in this case, Category:Nobel laureates by nationality, which currently has 23 sub-categories, undoubtedly far short of what it should have. Cgingold (talk) 13:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per above rationales.--NAHID 19:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Per above rationales. I suppose the 'limited potential for growth' remark is an ethnic insult against Bangladeshis. They certainly have continuing chances to win more prizes. Hmains (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator is one himself. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: how about the subcategory Category:Bengali Nobel laureates? The "wider scheme" of categorization by nationality makes sense, but what's with this category by ethnicity (which, at the moment, seems to contain two Bengalis of Indian nationality and only one of Bangladeshi nationality, despite being a subcat of Category:Bangladeshi Nobel laureates)? --Stormie (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A Nobel prize is a very exceptional honour and deserves a national category. The one person in it Muhammad Yunus (with his bank) does belong. There is a problem with the Bengali category: one of its members died before partition and the other is an Indian national. Bangladesh was East Bengal. The other two are from West Bengal or pre-partition Inida. I would suggest (to provide duplication) that Bengali categories should relate to pre-partition India or modern West Bengal. However perhaps there are some Bangladeshi Wikipedians who would like to express a view on this. This is an issue that cannot be resolved in this debate. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep part of a scheme and Nobel prizes are top rank awards not OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2008 (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 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 --Stormie (talk) 07:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recent books (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Created along with ((recent book)) despite the template currently being up for deletion. Purely arbitrary and unnecessary category that does nothing but increase the work load for editors. Yet another attempt to get around the deletion of the current fiction and spoiler templates. Collectonian (talk) 04:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is POV and ambiguous. Is it really defining? It also would require constant updating and maintenance which is not a good idea. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We do not define as "recent". Doczilla (talk) 08:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about recent deaths? Lugnuts (talk) 08:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Will disappear with template, no? If so, wait for that discussion to end. Johnbod (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it will as this category seems to have been made separately, unlike the recent death category which is set with the inclusion of the template. Collectonian (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per all of the above. Chaz ^Beckett 13:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete AniMate 15:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Category:Books by year suffices. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as obviously non-defining. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Category:Books by year achieves the same result, without the requirement of constant maintenance. --Stormie (talk) 09:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per redundancy and general uselessness of this category. Terraxos (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I created this category to go along with the ((recent book)) template, but I think it stands on its own. There's no "despite" here — I didn't create this category after ((recent book)) was listed for deletion. I don't think it's arbitrary or unnecessary or increases the workload for editors. It's like Category:Recent deaths but for books instead of people. And this category is most certainly not an "attempt to get around the deletion of the current fiction and spoiler templates." This category has nothing to do with spoiler warnings. And not all books are fiction. Category:2007 books has 230 articles in it, but this category is meant to narrow it down further. If a book was released yesterday, it's recent. For guidance on when it stops being recent, we should look to Category:Recent deaths. --Pixelface (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete recent changes daily, and few recent books are notable so the greatest value in this cat is raising red flags to place prod and afd tags, but on the whole not needed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:30, 1 January 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 --Stormie (talk) 07:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recent films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Created along with the ((recent film)) template which is up for deletion. Completely useless category that would serve no purpose other than to up the work load and is far to arbitrary (define "recent" film). Collectonian (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is POV and ambiguous. Is it really defining? It also would require constant updating and maintenance which is not a good idea. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since such a category would require extraneous maintenance as films come and go throughout the months and years, not to mention the overly flexible definition of what constitutes "recent" in terms of international releases, re-releases, home media releases, et cetera. In addition, the category's purpose seems to detract from Wikipedia's goal by being a form of news -- there are plenty of websites that indicate the film of the week, and there's no encyclopedic benefit on Wikipedia from such a task. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We do not define as recent. Doczilla (talk) 08:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about recent deaths? Lugnuts (talk) 08:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As with one above, will vanish when template deleted, as seems v likely. Johnbod (talk) 12:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per all of the above. Chaz ^Beckett 13:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete AniMate 15:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Category:Films by year suffices. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as obviously non-defining. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Category:Films by year achieves the same result, without the requirement of constant maintenance. --Stormie (talk) 09:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 10:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - even if the template is kept (which it probably won't be), this is a bad idea for a category. Terraxos (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't think it's a useless category. It's as useful as Category:Recent deaths, which I think is quite useful. I can define "recent" for you: was the film released last Friday? Then it's recent. Category:2007 films has 1323 articles in it — it's too big. This category narrows that down, letting editors find articles to work on that many readers will be looking at. I don't see a problem with maintenance. It's no more a form of news than Category:Recent deaths. If you look at the category page, when a film is no longer in Category:Upcoming films, it should be put into Category:Recent films. This CFD is not the place to define "recent", although I think the category would be fine for 4 weeks after a film's first wide release. We have Category:2007 deaths and Category:Recent deaths, so I don't see why we shouldn't do the same for films. I suppose the nominator will be nominating Category:Recent deaths next? --Pixelface (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. So, "Recent" means it was released last Friday? Well, who is going to do the weekly update of the 1000+ films that come out every year? Even if a film is considered recent for three months, who is going to update the films that should be removed from the recent category every week? And which country's release date do we go by? I wouldn't be in favor of this unless a bot could automatically switch the category from "Upcoming" to "Recent" and then finally, remove "Recent" after a specified time. If not, then this will be an unhelpful mess. --Melty girl (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reasons I stated in recent books above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:31, 1 January 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: Nomination withdrawn. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional comics to Category:Metafictional comics

Nominator's rationale: Rename because a nonexistent work of fiction that is referenced within an actual work of fiction is, by definition, metafictional. Doczilla (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - fictional and metafictional are not the same. Every fictional foo is not automatically a metafictional foo. We recently rightly cleaned up some metafictional categories because none of their contents were metafictional. There is also an entire Category:Fictional media structure and there is no justification for considering a single subcategory of that structure in isolation. Otto4711 (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Nomination withdrawn. Doczilla (talk) 08:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope you mean Speedy keep... :) Terraxos (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh, yes. Doczilla (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2007 (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.