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 for now. Feel free to re-create under a different name for the appropriate purpose. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:No-go theorems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Neologism. Trovatore (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The term appears to be used in this context: it gets about 20,000 non-wiki hits. [1] If the category and supporting article are to be deleted, it should be under WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. But it's not clear to me if these apply. I lack expertise to hold an informed opinion about the subject. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Impossibility proof, which is the English for this idea. If not renamed something more formal than this, delete. We should explain this piece of slang (and considering the amount of math on the web, rare slang; but not make a category of it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment CRGreathouse's findings are that the term is used in physics, not in mathematics, so moving it to impossibility proof seems to be changing the idea of the cat. --Trovatore (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I like the name impossibility proofs, but I don't think anything in the category other than Arrow's theorem is actually frequently called that. I hope I'm wrong. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how the uncertainty principle is an impossibility proof, or indeed a proof, period. A better name, which I have seen at least once somewhere, would be limitative results. --Trovatore (talk) 21:08, 29 December 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: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Celebrities who were victims of aviation accidents to Category:Victims of aviation accidents or incidents

Nominator's rationale: Merge - the only "occupation"-based subcategory of the plane crash victims category, which is not so large as to require subdivision. Otto4711 (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per nom and "celebrity" is WP:OR/WP:POV. Lugnuts (talk) 09:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nom is not strictly true, since there is an aviators subcategory, but point taken. Merge. Grutness...wha? 22:46, 23 December 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. Articles can be (very carefully) added to the "self-identified" category if there are sources that support the self-identification, but I will not do an automated batch merge since not all of them self-identify as such. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with alcoholism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Questionable category despite what the criteria says. There is already a category available - Category:People self-identifying as alcoholics - which predates this one and uses the exact criteria. Also, an article must support the use of similar categories Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Note also Cfd 2006/Feb/16 for Category:Alcoholics resulting in delete as well as CfD 2008/11/21 for Category:Self-identified drug addicts also resulting in delete.-choster (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:People self-identifying as alcoholics. Unless the subjects are self-identified, this is potentially libellous. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What happens if we merge and they have not self-identified? Seems like that would be a larger problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:People self-identifying as alcoholics which already exists and has a less-problematic title. Alansohn (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - echoing previous comments. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 00:26, 26th December 2008 (UTC)

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 without prejudice to re-creation if more lists are created in the future. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT-related lists of television episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - single-item category that seems very unlikely to expand any time soon. No prejudice to re-creation should there be a sudden spate of LGBT-related TV episodes. Otto4711 (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• merge to programmes category. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Already there. Otto4711 (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I assume that there are LGBT-related episodes on television produced in other countries. Given the growth of these LGBT-related categories, wouldn't it be likely that more such lists are on their way? Alansohn (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have seen no evidence of the development of such other lists. Indeed, the sole occupant of the category was originally a general list, not one specifically for American shows. From the time the list was created in 2005 to when I moved it per a suggestion on the talk page in February of this year, there were never any episodes from any country other than the United States included to the best of my knowledge. However, there are many entries from other countries on other lists at the series level. I take this to mean that there is not a great deal of interest among editors to document individual television episodes in other countries. But again, if such lists do get created at some point I have no objection to re-creating the category. Otto4711 (talk) 19:00, 23 December 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 all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:LGBT-related lists of award winners and nominees to Category:Lists of LGBT-related award winners and nominees

Category:LGBT-related lists of events to Category:Lists of LGBT-related events

Category:LGBT-related lists of fictional characters to Category:Lists of LGBT fictional characters

Category:LGBT-related lists of people to Category:Lists of LGBT-related people

Category:LGBT-related lists of periodicals to Category:Lists of LGBT-related periodicals

Category:LGBT-related lists of television programs to Category:Lists of LGBT-related television programs

Nominator's rationale: Rename all. "LGBT-related lists" is an awkward construction. The lists aren't LGBT-related; the contents are. This would be like having Category:Jewish lists of sportspeople rather than Category:Lists of Jewish sportspeople. Otto4711 (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all – per Otto. Occuli (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The awkwardness of the current tiles is only exacerbated by the insertion of "-related". In all cases, the events, characters, people, periodicals and television programs are LGBT-related, not the lists. Alansohn (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support EXCEPT for "Lists of LGBT-related people". That should probably just be Category:Lists of LGBT people. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 07:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The category currently contains lists which include people who are not necessarily LGBT, including List of LGBT rights activists, List of drag queens, List of people executed for homosexuality and List of male performers in gay porn films so "LGBT people" would be inaccurate. Otto4711 (talk) 19:08, 25 December 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bayern Munich board members to Category:FC Bayern Munich board members

Propose renaming Category:Bayern Munich managers to Category:FC Bayern Munich managers

Propose renaming Category:Bayern Munich non-playing staff to Category:FC Bayern Munich non-playing staff

Propose renaming Category:Bayern Munich players to Category:FC Bayern Munich players

Propose renaming Category:Bayern Munich II players to Category:FC Bayern Munich II players

Propose renaming Category:Bayern Munich female players to Category:FC Bayern Munich female players

Nominator's rationale: Rename. At present, the sub-categories in Category:FC Bayern Munich are inconsistent in their naming. Some begin "Bayern Munich..." while others begin "FC Bayern Munich...". I believe it is appropriate to achieve consistency within the category and between the main category and its sub-categories, hence this renaming request. – PeeJay 17:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – PeeJay 17:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all for standardisation purposes. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 17:33, 23 December 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Capital One Citrus Bowl champion seasons to Category:Capital One Bowl champion seasons

Nominator's rationale: Game is no longer called the Citrus Bowl; the proper name is Capital One Bowl. --fuzzy510 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Go ahead and change it. Maple Leaf (talk) 16:48, 22 December 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). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:House of Jayata (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete empty category, redundant with Category:House of Jayanta. rikker (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --can this not be speedied as a typo? I hope that the replacement categories will be better populated. At present it has a single article. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:17, 22 December 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; can be re-nominated for deletion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Texas State Cemetery burials to Category:Burials at Texas State Cemetery

Nominator's rationale: Rename to better agree with other subcategories found in Category:Burials in the United States by state. Eastlaw (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 10:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support to match many other comparable categories within the parent. I will point out that there is a huge mix of "Buriels at" and "Burials in" scattered throughout Category:Burials in the United States by state. Alansohn (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Consent seems non-controversial, but not a must-do. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - where one is buried is rarely if ever defining. A good list (albeit unreferenced) already exists in the main article for the cemetery and a sourced list, which can be sorted by such things as date of burial, is a superior way of presenting burial information. Otto4711 (talk) 02:57, 23 December 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ethnikos Piraeus players to Category:Ethnikos Piraeus F.C. players

Nominator's rationale: Ethnikos Piraeus is a multi-sport club; this category is for footballers, and there are articles for other sports sections of the club which could accidentally get added here. Jogurney (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. Jogurney (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Also, the category then matches the club's main article (Ethnikos Piraeus F.C.). – PeeJay 00:25, 23 December 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. Nominator's assessment of the POV nature of the category appears to be accurate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Knockoff companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete This is essentially an attack category which makes an accusation of illegal activity and singles out two countries. Stepheng3 (talk) 01:47, 22 December 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: no consensus, but as a minimum fix name to Category:Scouse culture of the early 1980s for clarity and per standard WP decade reference. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scouse culture of the early '80s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Narrow intersection. There is the sense the creator wishes to group together some Liverpool musical acts, venues and hangouts from the early 80s, though the reason is not clear. Selection and intersection feels slightly subjective. Perhaps an article on the topic might be more helpful. In the meantime, we already have Category:Music from Liverpool and Category:Culture in Liverpool. If this is kept, if might be appropriate to consider a more suitable name - Category:Music culture in Liverpool 1980 - 1985? SilkTork *^YES! 00:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Split -- transfer music related entries to Category:Music from Liverpool then Upmerge the rest to Category:Culture in Liverpool. I agree with nom that this is too narrow, unless these categories become heavily populated and need to be divided by period. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Liverpool has had a notably active cross-cultural scene in the past, and this peaked separately in both the '60s and '80s (with apologies to the avant garde theatre, which might reasonably argue for another peak in the '70s). Although this has always been dominated by music, it's characteristic of Liverpool's scene that it was also cross-cultural, albeit with a strong slant towards a counter-culture (e.g. the radio pirates) rather than traditional establishment culture and the Phil.

This is a narrowly specific category that refers to a brief period in time and place, but not at all in the sense of intersection that Wikipedia:OC#NARROW warns against. As it already has 17 members with no effort and some obvious gaps left to fill (the pirate radio articles in particular) there's no shortage of relevant content to include. A background article would be excellent, if someone cares to write it, but the category is too open-ended for a simple "list of..." to work well.

"Music in Liverpool" has no sense of the time (the place is still over-dominated by that popular beat combo and its "music" is too often seen as only meaning the early '60s). There's also the point that we shouldn't exclude Birkenhead. This was the rationale for its creation with this scope and title, although better ideas for wording it would be welcomed. As a concept that has both cohesion and content, without excessive overlap or coupling to Category:Music from Liverpool et al. then I think the category should stand, and with the members it currently has. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep Liverpool's music scene in the early 80s was stylistically distinct from that of other time periods, and there are enough articles existing to make a meaningful category. The scene of that time is frequently referred in to as being a distinct thing of its own. Deserves a category. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:50, 26 December 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Celebrity Writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Delete. Completely trivial and superfluous category. JBsupreme (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Makes sense to me. I can see reasons to make a serious study of, or write an article on celebrities who have written a book. And we have Category:Celebrities with various sub cats. SilkTork *^YES! 01:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. At the least, the title of the category isn't according to WP:Naming. I'm not sure what to make of this category. The criteria for inclusion is a bit vague. Does this mean any celebrity who has ever written anything? Book authors? Does it extend to lyricists, celebrities who might have written an article for a magazine, a screenplay? Fiction? Does it include musicians and actors - people with actual job titles, or just people who are famous for being famous? Autobiographies? A great number of actors, for instance, write an autobiography at some point. It seems to be a catch-all type of category that has the potential to be over-populated mis-populated. I am not at all sure I support this category and so am withholding keep or delete right now. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I share your concerns. And a renaming would be appropriate (and needed anyway as "writers" should not have a capital). The concern with the vague nature of celebrity would apply to all the celebrity cats, though that is more a case of defining the cats accurately rather than not having them, as people do have an interest in celebrities and the very nature of celebrity. How about "Celebrities who have written a book"? SilkTork *^YES! 08:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Defining who a celeb is becomes WP:OR. Or upmerge into the appropriate writers' category. Lugnuts (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Celebrity writers, the intersection of Category:Celebrities and Category:Writers. Occuli (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Celebrity writers, but tighten inclusion criteria and cleanup. We've defined Category:Celebrities as including "a person who is famous for being famous", but most of these people included here are famous for some other criteria. Tila Tequila is probably a good match, but Billy Crystal is an actor, Ed Koch a former mayor of a sizable city and Jane Fonda is independently known as an actress and for encouraging the people of North Vietnam to rise up and get themselves into the best shape of their lives with her series of exercise videos (or so I recall). Alansohn (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable intersection between "famous person" and "wrote a book." Note that since Category:Celebrities is limited to articles on various types or facets of celebrity there is no intersection between it and Category:Writers. Otto4711 (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Otto really should get used to the idea that members of subcategories (such as Category:Socialites) are also in the parent. Occuli (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Occuli really needs to understand that the contents of a subcategory are not directly parented in the top category. And if someone wanted to create Category:Socialite writers and populate it I would have no objection in principle (although I might on the merits), because that is the direct intersection between the two relevant parents, Category:Socialites and Category:Writers. Otto4711 (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Defining "celebrity" is completely subjective and the category does not seem very encyclopedic to me. Andrea Parton (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm leaning towards delete unless someone can provide a convincing case for combining writers who are celebrities into a category with celebrities who are writers, which is the case with the current name. And that is before the we consider the sub categories like Category:Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences founders. Would any the individuals in there who wrote screenplays be included in Category:Celebrity Writers? Exactly what do you need to write? Bottom line is that this may be a POV category and probably is also going to be ambiguous unless the name is changed to limit this to books, but is that an arbitrary classification? If Kept rename to Category:Celebrity book writersVegaswikian (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- The problem here is not with this category, but with the concept of celebrity, which depends on POV. This needs to be reconsidered as part of a CFD for "Celebrity". Peterkingiron (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There seems to be a certain amount of support for possibly renaming to either Category:Celebrity book writers or Category:Celebrities who have written books. But I can't help thinking, How likely is it that somebody who is "famous for being famous" could actually write a book? (as distinct from sticking their name on the work of a ghostwriter) And why would we want to lend tacit support to that kind of illusion with a Wiki Category? Cgingold (talk) 07:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we really need Category:Celebrities who have written books without a ghostwriter? Vegaswikian (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, if only! That would be a terrific category -- if only there was the slightest chance of reliably verifying such a claim... Going in the other direction, we might want to consider Category:Celebrities said to have written books -- or perhaps just Category:Celebrities who have "written" books. :) Cgingold (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Category:Alleged celebrity writers perhaps? Or if the book really sucks, Celebrity alleged writers. Otto4711 (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• In all seriousness, I think we've examined all the angles and pretty much exhausted the possibilities. There doesn't appear to be any viable option for turning this into an acceptable category. QED: Delete. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 13:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:ILIKEIT does not justify keeping. The fact that the parent celebrity category exists or has other subcategories is not a justification to keeping. Then there is the point raised that it is not likely that any of these can meet WP:V which means a cleanup nightmare. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for being a vaguely named category; besides, numerous "celebrities" have written books/magazine features etc. so this could also arguably be unencyclopedic.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:27, 25 December 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.