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. Kbdank71 16:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Animal video games ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Too broad of a category, and a form of overcategorization. RobJ1981 00:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Um this category appears to be a lot less broad than Category:Video games, do you perhaps mean that the criteria for inclusion are too subjective? Kappa 20:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Animal-related video games for clarity. LeSnail 21:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. To clarify: many video games feature animals, so it's too broad. People are a form of animal as well, so just about any game could be put in this category. RobJ1981 22:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Let's have some common sense when arguing. I doubt anybody would be as stupid as to actually use that argument to categorise The Sims there (as opposed to The Sims 2: Pets and The Sims Pet Stories). Circeus 02:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Animal-themed simulation games. Poor choice of name. Circeus 02:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete not defining, those suggesting Animal-themed or Animal-related, how much themed or related must it be to be included and what RSes will tell us it's at least that much? It cannot be maintained as suggested, so it should just be deleted. Carlossuarez46 17:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew c  ^[talk] 23:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete as excessively broad and subjective. All of the current contents ought to be in Category:Simulation video games if they aren't already, and Category:Animal simulation video games would be too specific a subcategory. - Sean Curtin 04:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment: There is Category:Biological simulation video games. -- AVRS 06:39, 23 September 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 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 per WP:CSD G7. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Media coverage ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I created this category this morning, and have since replaced it with Category:Media coverage and representation, which I consider a better name because it more easily encompasses related articles like Media representation of Hugo Chávez. Request deletion of the earlier category because it now has a duplicate, redundant scope. Kurieeto 21:43, 17 September 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.

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, articles already merged into correct categories. Kbdank71 16:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Ohio State University fraternities and sororities ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category seems to be very promotional, being only groups (and not even limited to just Greek organizations) founded at OSU. At least one is still at OSU only. Other 'groups of groups' started at a single school have their own page, if deemed notable, such as Miami Triad. This is not notable. — Scouter Sig 21:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per the other fraternity categories. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge into Category:Fraternities and sororities, many are on dozens of campuses. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge into Category:Fraternities and sororities per Prove It (changing my !vote). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs)

• All articles have now been categorized into either Category:Fraternities and sororities or Category:United States student societies where appropriate. (Good call ProveIt.) This category can now be deleted.— Scouter Sig 18:33, 18 September 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 keep. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 16:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Afghan politicians to Category:Politicians in Afghanistan

Nominator's rationale: Rename, There are many reasons for this renaming. One reason is that Afghan politicians can refer to Afghan politicians in lets say America, and there are several Afghan politicians serving other countries, for example Zalmay Khalilzad. Politicians in Afghanistan or Politicians of Afghanistan would avoid this issue. Behnam 20:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Category:Politicians by country is well settled on the "Fooian politicians" format as is Category:Afghan people by occupation. Otto4711 21:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Otto4711. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep per BHG & Otto. We mean Afghan as nationality only, not to imply anything about ethnicity. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep - As noted, this name is a settled matter -- in fact, it was affirmed in a recent CFD, in which User:Behnam was a dissenting participant. As for the suggested confusion, that's a non-issue, because, for example, Zalmay Khalilzad is not an "Afghan politician", he's an "Afghan-American politician". Cgingold 13:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep, as per standard scheme. -- Soman 16:36, 21 September 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. Kbdank71 16:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Institutes of Management Technology ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is too specific and narrow in scope. Only one article about a particular institute (Institute of Management Technology) is categorized under it. Apart from that, it serves no purpose, hence this nom. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 20:34, 17 September 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. Kbdank71 16:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Poland under-21 international footballers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Only one entry in the cat, and the same players appear in Category:Polish footballers. MSJapan 16:23, 17 September 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. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Marvin, the Paranoid Android songs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - nominated once previously and kept per Song by artist convention but the song articles have now all been merged, so the category is empty. Otto4711 15:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Agree with nom rationale. Delete-- SarekOfVulcan 16:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I came to propose them and found it had already been done. SilkTork * SilkyTalk 21:50, 18 September 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 merge into Category:Australian albums and Category:Albums by artist. Kbdank71 15:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Australian albums by artist ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_8#Category:Pop_songs_by_artist
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_20#Category:Hip_hop_albums_by_artist
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_8#Category:Hip_hop_songs_by_artist
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_30#Category:Pop_songs_by_artist
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_6#Category:Country_songs_by_artist
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_9#Category:Avant-garde_jazz_albums_by_artist
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_9#Category:Jazz_albums_by_artist

Merge into Category:Albums by artist, which is designed to function as a directory. Creating subcats for it defeats the entire point of its existence. You shouldn't need to know the nationality or genre of Foo in order to find Foo albums. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• ProveIt, there is a wealth of difference between genre and nationality. Merge into Category:Australian albums, as is surely standard practice for albums by artist nationality, given the other subcats of Category:Albums by artist nationality. Grutness... wha? 23:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I hadn't noticed that the Australian albums category had been entirely depopulated. Of course you're right, they should be restored. All of these categories should belong to both Australian albums and Albums by artist. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:26, 18 September 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 merge. Kbdank71 15:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:Open source software to Category:Free software

Nominator's rationale: Merge, This is a duplicate in terms of scope, and the beginning of a duplicate in terms of contents - as Category:Open_source was. It covers the exact same topic ( free software), just using an alternative term for free software. Category:Free software - whose description already mentions "open-source software" - includes thousands of articles, broken down into subcategories. This category, if someone put effort into it, can at best only become a complete duplicate. Gronky 13:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Conditional merge
  • Merge, if it's certain that non-free things like unrar (which prohibits the use of the source to recreate the compression algorithm) do NOT get into Category:Free software.
  • Otherwise make Category:Open source include Category:Free software, and not vice-versa, and move articles to where they belong.
    -- AVRS 14:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply

It is certain that this merge would not cause unrar to get into Category:Free software. Unrar is not free software and cannot be called free software (and it cannot be called "open-source software"). Unrar can only be called "viewable source" or "shared source", neither of which is part of the category to be merged or the merge target. -- Gronky 14:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Merge. I agree with gronky on unrar. By many definitions of OS (including the one in the category description), it doesn't belong in the current cat anyway. -- Karnesky 14:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep -- Open Source software is not necessarily free (see Microsoft's Shared Source program), and free software is not necessarily open source.-- SarekOfVulcan 16:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply

...but shared source is not open source, so it would never be in Category:Free software or in Category:Open source software. The only link between "shared source" and free software (or "open-source software") is two licences which FSFE [1] say are free software licences, and which have now been submitted to OSI for approval, and under which Microsoft have released nothing worthy of a Wikipedia article. -- Gronky 19:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Merge. -- Hamitr 22:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge: the "open source definition" was originally called the "Debian free software guidelines". The two terms are effectively synonyms with slightly different emphasis. Suggest making Cat:OSS into a cat redirect though, or it's likely to get recreated. Xtifr _tälk 06:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep if I'm right -- It seems to me that free software is a subset of open source. Maybe I'm thinking about source-available? Free is open but open is not necessarily free; OSI approved does not means FSF approved. So if I'm right, then Category:Free software should be a sub-category of Category:Open source software. Someone could correct me with a reference. Open-source software is confusing... -- Kl4m ^{Talk Contrib} 06:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Neither is a subset of the other. The alternative terms for free software article has info and references for this. OSI and FSF have virtually identical definitions. They have disagreed with each other three times about licences. One time, FSF approved a licence that OSI rejected (an old Netscape licence), and two times it happened the other way around (an old Apple licence and an old RealNetworks licence). Of these three licences, none are used for any projects that are active anyway.

Like you mention, if "open-source software" meant "source available", then free software would be a subset, but that is not the case. -- Gronky 10:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Make that a merge then. -- Kl4m ^{Talk Contrib} 23:16, 21 September 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. Kbdank71 15:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Taiwanese religious figures to Category:Taiwanese religious leaders

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to match all sibling categories. Alex Middleton 12:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom, to match the conventions of Category:Religious leaders by nationality -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom & ProveIt Johnbod 20:53, 23 September 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 no consensus. Kbdank71 15:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose merge Category:Forteana and Category:Anomalous phenomena using the name Category:Anomalous phenomena. Did Fort have to write about a topic to make it in the category? I had to look him up just to find out who he was.

Nominator's rationale:Shouldn't the category be Category:Anomalous phenomena which is more encompassing? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep as is, they are two different things.-- Buridan 16:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment are there any sources defining Forteana, which redirects to Charles Fort, as a topic distinct from Anomalous phenomena? Tewfik ^Talk 06:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- cjllw ʘ TALK 09:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete as redundant and ambiguous. Afterwards, Category:Charles Fort ought to be created, which would contain articles and categories directly related to Fort, such as the Fortean Times. Reworking the category like so without changing the name would only serve as an open invitation to return to the current state of redundancy. - Sean Curtin 04:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge Category:Forteana into Category:anomalous phenomena, redundant. Fort did not originate these topics, and the fact that he wrote about them is not a defining characteristic. His article would be the place to describe or list the topics he wrote about. As to whether or not we need a category to contain things specific to Charles Fort, am not sure there's enough to justify, so Category:Forteana could then just as easily be deleted. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 03:42, 19 September 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. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 16:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:That's It Production artists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Empty & unnecessary category, created as part of a larger vanity campaign. Eusebeus 07:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom.-- SarekOfVulcan 16:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete. There's nothing there but empty vanity. SilkTork * SilkyTalk 21:52, 18 September 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. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 16:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Independant Record Label ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: A misspelled irrelevancy. Eusebeus 07:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete empty cat per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan ( talk • contribs) 16:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment Note: The correct cat is at Category:Independent record labels. Lugnuts 17:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Yes, delete as a mistake. SilkTork * SilkyTalk 21:54, 18 September 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, empty. Kbdank71 15:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Home security ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant. Security principals are the same at business, home or elsewhere. Cat's history shows no activity since 01:17, December 19, 2006 user:Danaman5 (created as subcategory of Category:Security) Exit2DOS2000^{• T• C•} 07:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I think the intention might have been to group together Property security. There is no cat for that. Into Property security could go burglar alarms, car alarms, etc. Possibly rename this cat Category:Property security? SilkTork * SilkyTalk 22:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete That's not a bad idea if someone is prepared to populate it; there are plenty of articles in the Security category, which is rather large. But that can be started from scratch any time. Johnbod 00:00, 19 September 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 all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Motor racing templates to Category:Motorsport templates

Propose renaming Category:Motor racing infoboxes to Category:Motorsport infoboxes

Propose renaming Category:Motor racing navigational boxes to Category:Motorsport navigational boxes

Propose renaming Category:Motor racing venues to Category:Motorsport venues

Propose renaming Category:Motor racing venues by country to Category:Motorsport venues by country

Propose renaming Category:Motor racing venues in Australia .. Category:Motor racing venues in Venezuela to Category:Motorsport venues in Australia .. Category:Motorsport venues in Venezuela

Propose renaming Category:Motor racing venues by series to Category:Motorsport venues by series

Propose renaming Category:Motor racing by year to Category:Motorsport by year

Propose renaming Category:1950 in motor racing .. Category:2007 in motor racing to Category:1950 in motorsport .. Category:2007 in motorsport

Nominator's rationale: Replace the term "motor racing" with "motorsport", which is more commonly used within Wikipedia, e.g. {{ Motorsport venue}}, {{ Motorsport formula}}, Category:Motorsport in Australia, Alfa Romeo in motorsport, etc. DH85868993 02:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Support per naming used at WikiProject Motorsport. "Motorsport" is the term that is most agreeable throughout the world. Royalbroil 04:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Support for the same reason as Royalbroil above. It would also allow non-racing forms of motorsport (rallying, speed events, trials etc) to sit more happily within such categories. Loganberry ( Talk) 12:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Support per WP:MOTOR ref above.-- SarekOfVulcan 16:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Support - Davnel03 18:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename all per nom and Loganberry. Note that there are motor sports that aren't even close to being racing, like Freestyle Motocross. Xtifr _tälk 06:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Support- sure, why not? Fclass 14:31, 21 September 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. Kbdank71 15:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Regions of the Middle East ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Middle Eastern countries. All entries seem to be duplicated, so no need for merger. Picaroon (t) 01:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Keep Palestinian territories is not a Middle Eastern county. I think the category needs improvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RS1900 ( talk • contribs) 02:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Possibly so, but Bahrein is not a region either. Delete Johnbod 03:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Well, yes, Bahrein is not a region. Some change should be made. RS1900 05:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• I have made some changes. The category can be improved. RS1900 05:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Note:All members except Palestinian territories now removed, I presume by RS1900. Johnbod 12:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Well there isn't much point in categorizing one article with nothing else, so I still think it should be deleted. Picaroon (t) 19:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Absolutely - the Palestinean territories aren't really a region either. Johnbod 20:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Merge/rename to Category:Middle Eastern countries and territories. Grutness... wha? 23:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete regions are ill-defined allowing for a huge mix that bear little in common. Carlossuarez46 04:27, 18 September 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.