< March 14	March 16 >

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 as nominated, by convention. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sedalians to Category:People from Sedalia, Missouri

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The usual naming scheme. Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 22:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page in question. As far as I recall, I looked carefully at the relevant Wiki-directions pages, and found instructions to the effect that, when naming such a category, titles analogous to "New Yorkers" were entirely acceptable (viz., as against "People from New York"). As the creator of this page, it seems that I may have not thought deeply enough about the name. I agree 100% to rename "Category:Sedalians" to "Category:People from Sedalia, Missouri" provided there is a sentence at the head of the page stressing that people from Sedalia are referred to as Sedalians (rather than, say, Sedalites, etc.). Otherwise, I think it just boils down to conventions of categorization — rather than some dispute about either the relevance of the page or its content — and I, as the originator of the title, agree that the wider, and far more standardized convention would far better serve the purpose of the page. Lindsay658 (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sedalians is ambiguous, but Category:Sedalians (Missouri) is an option. – Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 16:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Change: (a) I agree that "Category:Sedalians" is misleadingly ambiguous, (b) I agree that "Category:People from Sedalia, Missouri" is the best choice (if for no other reason than its symmetry with other similar Wiki-categories), (c) I am apprehensive that "Category:Sedalians (Missouri)" might introduce some other sort of unintended ambiguity as well. Thus, provided something like "This is a listing of Sedalians: people who were born in, who have lived in, or are otherwise associated with Sedalia, Missouri" appears at the top of the page, I fully support the change to "Category:People from Sedalia, Missouri". Lindsay658 (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nom - the page has a note on "Sedalians". Johnbod (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per precedent against using demonyms for people by city categories, in favor of "People from [city[, state]]". I would prefer to avoid using demonyms for anything but that's another story. — CharlotteWebb 17:29, 17 March 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: speedy delete, creator's request. ((db-author)) would have done the trick more easily. Bencherlite^Talk 22:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Board and table games articles by importance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Created category with wrong name. --Craw-daddy | T | 21:30, 15 March 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 per convention of like cats. ALSO NOTE the author's name is misspelled in both- should be Jostein Gaarder. New cat will take on the correct name.--cjllw ʘ TALK 03:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Jostein Gaardner novels to Category:Novels by Jostein Gaardner

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Naming convention of Category:Novels by author. Tim! (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom and convention. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom for consistency. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:31, 19 March 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. Many of the keep arguments fall around the "but others of the same exist", which does not explain why this should be kept, just explains what else is out there. One very strong argument for deletion, or at least listification, is that you cannot watchlist what gets added or removed from a category, as pointed out by Lquilter. You can with a list. As for stability, which was another concern, it may be true that membership may be stable over spans of 5, 10, 15 years, but the category is not. In a perfect world, the category would be populated and not touched until a school gained or lost accreditation. But it is very easy to add a school to a category that should not be there, or remove one that should. A win win solution is a list, which takes care of overcategorization and accuracy concerns, and the data is still grouped together, albeit in a different form. Kbdank71 13:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Procedural relisting based on discussion in this DRV. Original justification for deletion was overcategorization (see the CfD discussion here). New information was presented in the DRV that was not discussed in the first, limited, CfD. As this is a procedural relisting, I am neutral. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Other accrediting orgs have their own categories. As a stand-alone cat for this org, they have 200 or so members, well warrants their own cat. GreenJoe 20:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to argue below they should all be deleted as categories. As lists, they're fine -- they can be watchlisted and contents policed. But as categories, "accrediting body" is a bad idea for reasons I state below. --Lquilter (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I don't have strong feelings about the value of this particular category, but I see several reasons to keep it:

• It's apparent from the categories included in Category:School accreditors that many Wikipedians find value in categories that list all institutional members of a particular educational accrediting organization. If there is a desire to eliminate categories like this one, then the nine other agency-specific categories there (plus Category:All India Council for Technical Education, which is in an included category) also should be eliminated. If those ten categories are deleted, logic dictates that several of the categories included in Category:University organizations and Category:University associations and consortia also should be deleted.
• A key issue related to "overcategorization" was the expressed concern that most institutions might belong in multiple accreditor categories. This is not a valid concern; most educational institutions have just one source of institutional accreditation, although programs within a university (for example, the law school, pharmacy school, and divinity school) may have programmatic accreditation. If a specialized accreditor has a category, chances are good that the specialized schools and programs that will fit in that specialized category also have their own articles...
• Another issue is the possibility that category membership is unstable. That should not a concern a legitimate accrediting agency; their membership is very stable. Regarding this specific category, new institutions potentially eligible for accreditation by Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada (i.e., graduate schools of theology) don't exactly spring up overnight, and accreditation is generally awarded (and renewed) for a term of 5 years.

--Orlady (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a real problem, though, because practically-speaking one cannot police a category and its contents. So for concepts where the membership is unstable, a list is much better. That way you can watchlist the list, and avoid the problem of accidental, inappropriate, or vandalistic category adds and deletes. --Lquilter (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information to inform the discussion: The reason this category is empty is because it was deleted. Before deletion, it contained 212 articles and 3 categories. If this discussion leads to a conclusion of "keep," the category will need to be recreated and repopulated. --Orlady (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unnecessary eponymous org cat - many of the articles that were in this cat were schools in the association, which was a major reason for its prior deletion because school by ass'n is not a good idea. Without the schools, this cat is no different than any other cat about an org, this doesn't need it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating an earlier comment, with more details... If that is the logic for deletion, then by the same logic the following categories also should be deleted: Category:Association for Biblical Higher Education, Category:Distance Education and Training Council, Category:Independent School Association of the Central States, Category:Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, Category:National Association of Schools of Music, Category:New England Association of Schools and Colleges, Category:North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, Category:Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, Category:Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, Category:Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Category:All India Council for Technical Education, Category:ASEAN University Network, Category:Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, Category:Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Category:South Manila Inter-Institutional Consortium, Category:Wisconsin Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, Category:Australian Technology Network, and Category:Independent Schools Association of the Southwest. (Perhaps they should be deleted, but I don't like to see broad policy get formulated by means of single-topic discussions with limited participation.) --Orlady (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider it a "laboratory for democracy". <g> Seriously, if we hash it out on individual categories and policies, eventually we accrete enough discussions, rationales, and thought on a matter to come up with a cogent articulation of rationales. It's reasoning from the specific to the general, which is very wikiped-ish. --Lquilter (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this category. We do not typically categorize articles about entities by the organizations to which the entities belong -- this principal is wholly unsupportable and obvious overcategorization.
  • In the specific instance, Orlady dismisses the concern about multiple accrediting bodies -- I think that's far too hasty. The fact is that most departments & schools & programs that have individual accreditation do not have individual wikipedia articles, so the only place for a relevant accreditation category would be on the article for the main school. Consider how many possible categories would apply to the University of California or Harvard. Or if you think that these are elite and will have articles for each and every accreditable sub-unit, then consider mid-tier universities with a lot of programs like the University of Kentucky, which has a dozen or more individual schools / colleges, and scores of individual degree-granting programs. Any medium-large educational institution may be accredited by dozens or scores of accrediting bodies. This is patently not a feasible categorization structure, and is clearly the sort of thing for which lists are the more appropriate approach. (Moreover, because of the policing problem I describe below, I'm not sure how you're going to effectively exclude larger institutions from accreditation categories.)
  • As for "there are other accrediting categories", first we might say that we want to consider the whole tree, but the existence of one bad thing, or even an entire area of bad things we haven't considered, is not a justification for keeping another bad thing. I'll fully support an effort to create consistency in the approach to accrediting bodies. My suggested approach is (a) we ought to consider deleting all of them as categories; and (b) moving them to lists.
  • Regarding earlier comments: The fact that Wikipedians "find it useful" isn't a helpful justification, since it doesn't address why a category is the better approach than a list. Most wikipedians don't really understand the various advantages & disadvantages of categories versus lists, and when educated on the matter I find that they usually come to support current categorization guidelines. (This just explains why someone's presumption about what "wikipedians" find useful is no more useful than my presumption about what "wikipedians" might believe if they were participating in this discussion. In other words, they're not here, so let's not speculate.)
  • Also important, most categories do not reflect a "temporary-and-present-tense" state of being, for very good reasons. It's really difficult to police them when they shift out of that state of being. Fixed identities are useful, but changeable attributes (like "accreditation") are really hard to handle with categories. If someone randomly adds an article to this category, how can we tell? There's no way to "watchlist" the contents of the category. Thus, Wikipedia could very easily become a source of wrong information. That's okay for some kinds of categories, but I hope that people can see that it would be really a bad idea for accreditation.
• --Lquilter (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • • I see a fundamental factual error in your repeated statements to the affect that educational accreditation is a changeable or unstable attribute. To the contrary, educational accreditation is very stable (almost as stable as the boundaries of the world's nations). In most countries, institutions are eligible for accreditation only from one national government agency. The situation is a bit more complicated in India and the United States, where multiple agencies exist. In the U.S. (I am more familiar with the U.S. situation than with India's), institutional accreditation is done primarily by regional accreditors; each of the regional accreditors covers all institutions within its geographic region (there's no shopping around, and regional boundaries are fixed). The application and evaluation process for a new institution to become accredited takes about 5 years, and accreditation is awarded (and later renewed) for periods of 5 or 10 years at a time. Many institutions have held the same accreditation for durations of 40, 50, and 80 years. Long-established specialized accreditors like Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada that have very specific criteria for membership also have extremely stable membership. For the accreditors that handle the vast majority of institutions, the main source of change in membership is academic institutions that go out of business or lose accreditation due to serious financial troubles. (These are changes that also lead to significant changes in articles about the institutions.) The fact that there can be extreme controversy over articles such as List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning (an article with which I have had an absurdly large amount of editing experience) does not mean that real accreditation is volatile or controversial; it only means that there are numerous scam artists around, especially in the Internet world. (Please don't believe the claims to the contrary made by diploma mill operators in their OTRS communications.) Some volatility is related to the U.S. government's relatively recent recognition of some unconventional (and relatively small) institutional accreditors such as Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools and Distance Education and Training Council; membership of those associations is growing as they gain institutional members that previously lacked accreditation, but otherwise their membership is pretty stable. --Orlady (talk) 21:10, 20 March 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 to Category:Uruguayan cattlemen, however without prejudice to any subsequent creation of Category:Uruguayan ranchers and the (re)assignment of appropriate articles to this latter. --cjllw ʘ TALK 11:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Uruguayan cattleman to Category:Uruguayan ranchers Mayumashu (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose straight rename. I'm not sure that a "cattleman" and a "rancher" are equivalents. A "cattleman" is more of a cowboy-type, on-the-move tender of cattle, whereas a rancher suggests a more stationary location. We have Category:American cattlemen and Category:American ranchers and they seem to include distinct articles. Some of the included articles seem to be more about those who were ranchers, while others seem to be more "cattlemen" to me (e.g., José Gervasio Artigas). For now I would suggest a simple rename to Category:Uruguayan cattlemen and a manual creation of Category:Uruguayan ranchers for those who fit better there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn t realize that there was a difference - I d support this alternative Mayumashu (talk) 02:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. All seem clearly ranchers, including Argigas. Johnbod (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Argigas article, I can't see any information about him being a stationary rancher. A gaucho, yes, but that to me suggests "cattleman" more than a rancher. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Born in Montevideo to a wealthy family .... at the age of twelve he moved to the countryside and devoted himself to rural tasks on his family's farms. Observing the local inhabitants - especially the gauchos ....." really? Johnbod (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant in his adult life. I don't know if working on your parents' farm qualifies you as a "rancher". His adult activities fit better as a gaucho, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"farms", please! Better remove him altogether then. The article offers no evidence he ever worked as a gaucho, & it seems most unlikely. Johnbod (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the other articles are equally vague on the point, or they don't say anything at all about cattle/ranches. That's why I think it may be best to leave this one alone, create the ranchers category for those that should be so categorized, and see what's left over. If there's nothing left in the category, it could be speedily deleted, but I don't think a straight rename would be consistent with a possible intent of the creator. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete none of these guys is famous for being a rancher or cattleman - they are soldiers, politicians, and even a few presidents. Most of them probably owned ranches but never really worked them - all hat and no cattle, in Texan parlance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This raises a great point, I think - should category pages be restricted to categories of notability? Mayumashu (talk) 02:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, would a similar category for the US be expected to include Michael Jackson, George Bush (the younger), and Ronald Reagan as they also had ranches. None of these guys are notable for being ranchers, so a cat like that would be a bad idea and ultimately non-defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The situation in Uruguay, with a very small population and in the past an economy doiminated by cattle, and a fairly small ranching oligarchy, is totally different from the US. When I looked at them, it seemed clear that all the others in the category, apart from Argigas (as opposed to his parents) belonged to this group. In local terms, this is highly defining. Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 18 March 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 (and don't rename), no consensus. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Human-derived fictional species to Category:Fictional human-derived species

Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency with other fictional species (and "Fictional <foo>" in general) categories. J Greb (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose renaming - Consistency is important, but it shouldn't take precedence over other considerations. Seeing as there is no such thing as a real "human-derived species", the current name is preferable, as the proposed name would imply that there are such things. Cgingold (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Seems a moot reason to oppose since "fictional" is already in the cat title. Re-ordering the words does not change the intent of the cat or the reading of the title, but does bring it into line with other "Fictional species" cats. - J Greb (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Somehow, you've entirely missed the point of what I said, so let me try again. If "fictional" is moved from directly modifying the word "species", we then have "fictional" as the modifier for the term "human-derived species" -- which, very simply, do not exist. Like I said, consistency is a good thing, but it's not mandatory, so I see no compelling reason to make a change that yields a logical absurdity. Cgingold (talk) 06:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using that logic, "fiction" being present, in any way is redundant, or creates a logical absurdity since both "fictional" and "human-derived" modify the core topic "species". The function the category collects species that appear in works of fiction are are derived from the human genome in some manner. Following the logic that species derived from the human genome are automatically fictitious, then a category serving this function would more aptly be Category:Human-derived species rather than the current or proposed name. - J Greb (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That takes the logic to a place it doesn't need to go. The point is not that its inclusion is wholly useless, but rather that it should be placed where it will be least likely to be interpreted as applying to one word, when in fact it applies to another. Neither formulation is technically and logically "perfect", but I believe what exists right now is better. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is. Cgingold's reasoning makes sense to me here. Since there are no non-fictional human-derived species, we want the "fictional" adjective to apply (and thus be closest positionally) to "species", and not "human-derived". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:14, 16 March 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. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:List of hospitals in Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Hospitals in Sri Lanka, convention of Category:Hospitals by country. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This should be a list, not a category. There is also the identical Category:List of hospitals in Asia. (PS I suspect this is an attempt to follow the deletion of the appropriate list - see here - all that is needed is a better list.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as empty. I removed the only entry since it is already correctly listed in the right category. So it can be deleted as empty in two days. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:02, 17 March 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, non-defining, even trivial. No compelling reason to listify, either. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former McDonald's Employees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, as non-defining. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as non-defining and although I propose a strong delete, there are alternatives. A re-name to 'Famous' former..... --Carter | Talk to me 15:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no list - non-defining as a category, trivial as the subject of an article. Otto4711 (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agnostic re: list If people think that one's job defines people they should be all about keeping this one, but as sentiment here shows, job does not a person define and we should start getting rid of all the other job cats. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and/or rename all "Category:Former Foo" to "Category:Foo", as "Category:Foo" is generally understood as "Category:Those which are (or ever have been) Foo". — CharlotteWebb 17:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Having been an employee of McDonald's is not a defining characteristic of people like Shania Twain or Sharon Stone. Neither of them should be categorized as McDonald's employees. A merger would not be appropriate. Otto4711 (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, so delete both. — CharlotteWebb 03:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We list celebs by their alma matter, I don't see why we cannot also categorize them by former employer. GreenJoe 18:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as completely not defining in most if not all cases. What school you graduated from or attended is also subject to similar comments but has slightly better standing since you can start on something notable there. So comparing the two is not making a good case to keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:29, 19 March 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. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: The category is empty and will never have enough articles to justify it. --Eruhildo (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:03, 17 March 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.