Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 5

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, speedy G4. Kbdank71 13:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:List of fictional characters who can manipulate wind (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Already a list at List of fictional characters who can manipulate wind, not sure why we would need a category as well. If we did keep it it would probably need some sort of rename. VegaDark (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Fictional characters who can manipulate wind and parent with its like categories in Category:Fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability. Not seeing this cat as any different from any of those. Otto4711 (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Actually, after a bit of searching I came accross Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_14#Fictional_characters_by_power, so it looks like this category can be speedy deleted as a substantially similar recreation of Category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate wind. The same should be done for any category currently in the category mentioned above that was previously deleted in that nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - recreation of Category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate wind. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per VegaDark. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:40, 10 August 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:Shakespearean scholarship. Kbdank71 13:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shakespeare academia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Rename to Category:Shakespeare in academia (or alternatively, to Category:Shakespearean academia, but I think the former is preferable). The current name isn't grammatically proper. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the first suggestion. Wrad (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Note: Wrad was the category's creator[reply]
• Rename to Category:Shakespearean scholarship - many important scholars were & are not salaried profs. And WTF is the The Klingon Hamlet doing here? Johnbod (talk) 02:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This sounds good to me; if other editors agree I will support this proposal. And thanks for drawing my attention to that wonderfully amusing and edifying article on The Klingon Hamlet! :) Cgingold (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support modified proposal: Category:Shakespearean scholarship. Consistent with related cats, better matches the contents of the cat, and things we need this category for. (several supporters and no apparent dissent -> effectuate?) --Xover (talk) 11:59, 10 August 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. Kbdank71 13:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Places associated with Shakespeare (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Rename to Category:Places associated with William Shakespeare. As with the other category below, this should use the man's full name. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 23:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support New name is consistent with related categories. --Xover (talk) 12:00, 10 August 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. Kbdank71 13:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Relations to Shakespeare (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Rename to Category:Relatives of William Shakespeare. The current name simply isn't clear enough, and the man's full name should be used in any event. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not seeing how this is terribly different from such deleted categories as these for broadcasting families or The Beatles' wives or husbands of Elizabeth Taylor. The articles are linked through William Shakespeare and each other so there is no need for the category. Otto4711 (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename per nom. No delete, unlike the examples given Shakespeare's family tree is a subject of considerable research and would pass Notability test as an article, much less a category. --Xover (talk) 12:03, 10 August 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. Kbdank71 13:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Category:People, places, and things named for George Washington to Category:George Washington namesakes
• Category:People, places, and things named for James Madison to Category:James Madison namesakes

Nominator's rationale: Make the subcategories of Category:Eponyms for individuals more pithy (see definition of Namesake). 66.167.48.126 (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per Wikipedia:OC#Unrelated_subjects_with_shared_names. There is no relationship between the things included in these categories beyond happening to have been named for a particular person. Then delete the parent as empty. Otto4711 (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Perhaps there is a good reason to delete those categories but "Wikipedia:OC#Unrelated subjects with shared names" is not one of them. By definition, Namesakes are related. 68.167.253.49 (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How is George Washington Carver related to a George Washington class submarine? If GW class submarines were called "Hedda Hopper class submarines," would there be any relationship between them and GWC? If not then the only relationship between them is shared name. For that matter, how are any but the couple of things that Washington himself actually supported even related to Washington, other than by happening to have been named for him?Otto4711 (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Sharing names" (as in the 'Jones' example that motivates WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES) is not the same thing as a namesake. Of course Hedda Hopper class subs wouldn't be related to GWC, but (again) the relationship that exists among GW's namesakes is that they are all named after GW. You can't say it's an "unrelated subject" when something gets its name to honor or recognize the namesake. Maybe that relationship belongs in a list instead of a category, but it's not a case of "Unrelated subjects with shared names" like the 'Jones' example. 68.167.253.49 (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

• Again, please explain the encyclopedic relationship between a scientist famed for studying peanuts and a class of submarines, other than the common source of their name. That people separated by hundreds or thousands of miles and decades or centuries of time happened to name something after the same person is not only not defining, it's barely significant. Otto4711 (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per Otto. This is listcruft, if anything, but I don't think a category is appropriate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:15, 10 August 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. Kbdank71 13:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Musicians from Pittsburgh to Category:Pittsburgh musicians

Nominator's rationale: as per nomination immediately below Mayumashu (talk) 18:47, 5 August 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. Kbdank71 13:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Musicians from Philadelphia to Category:Philadelphia musicians

Nominator's rationale: alike category pages follow this conventional naming pattern (eg. Category:Philadelphia writers and Category:Pennsylvania musicians) Mayumashu (talk) 18:43, 5 August 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. Kbdank71 13:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Space: Above and Beyond episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: None of the pages (apart from Pilot, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't constitute a category) contained have any useful information apart from the main List of Space: Above and Beyond episodes page. Recommend we get rid of all of them while we're at it. Octane (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it appears not to be necessary to listify. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unless all of the articles are deleted or merged, for which CFD is not the appropriate forum. Tim! (talk) 17:01, 6 August 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. Kbdank71 13:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Holocaust deniers to Category:Holocaust denial

Nominator's rationale: Merge, It is a POV category, often used to smear people on wikipedia and applied inconsistently. It lists people who have barely mentioned their views on the Holocaust and usually involve themselves in other pursuits. Comradesandalio (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE See previous (lengthy) debate on a "delete" nom. Johnbod (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but let's make sure everybody who's there belongs in that category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative keep, as a valid subcategory of Category:Conspiracy theorists. --Eliyak T·C 18:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Holocaust denial is a fairly well-developed viewpoint. It isn't POV, as the folks categorized that way have announced their opinions. There is some gray area when folks dney aspects of the Holocaust, but it isn't a big enough problem to delete the category. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep merging to the main category hardly solves potential problems. In fact the main category seems to contain a number of people who should either be here or removed from either - Ian Jobling for example. Johnbod (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- "Deniers" are people. "Denial" is their intellectual position - the false POV that they hold, but some of them are notable by holding it. This is accordingly a valid category. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I've just written new & improved inclusion criteria for this category, restricting it to individuals who actively promote Holocaust denial. The only remedy required now is to weed out those people who don't truly belong in the category. I also made it a sub-cat of Category:Activists by issue. Cgingold (talk) 02:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep yet again. For all the valid reasons above. I just moved more people from the 'denial' to 'deniers' category where they belong. It would be nice if WP had some method of allowing us to watch what gets placed into categories just like we do with articles so we keep them cleaned up all the time. Hmains (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and merge. I truly believe the best way for our encyclopedia to present this information is a well cited list. It avoids any problems with WP:BLP, and presents the topic in a much more studious fashion. The problem with the current category is that it encourages categorization of people before their articles contain a well cited case that justifies their inclusion. Wikis may provide a wonderful way to grow an article, but categorization is not a wiki process. There is no easy way to track the history,and monitor and revert changes to a category. That is one of the main reasons to avoid controversial categorization. I will admit that this is right on the edge of a gray area, and our policies do not clearly put this category on one side or another. But since it can be problematic and hard to monitor, I ask myself what the disadvantage is of listifying and merging as proposed? On balance I see many advantages. The only disadvantage, is the label of "Holocaust denier" missing in the list of categories. If instead, each article had the label of "Holocaust denial", the articles would be much more likely to contain some discussion of the topic. It seems clear from the discussion so far that the need to police the current categorization can be problematic. If it is problematic, the proposal to merge, along with a cited list preserves all the information and makes the management of the information much less of a chore. I don't think categories should be seen as a badge of honor or mark of infamy. Whenever it feels that way, it is most likely an inappropriate category. I am very interested in discussion that would help clarify the gray area around these categories that might have BLP issues. I think a case can be made that "Conspiracy theorists" mentioned above is also problematic. Rosie O'Donnell seems to have been labeled as one because she happens to agree with one conspiracy theory. This seems inappropriate to me -- a way to indirectly label someone as a crackpot for holding an unpopular belief. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 04:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm taking your comments under consideration, Sam. But for now, I would really like to give the new, more restrictive inclusion criteria that I added a chance to prove themselves. I suppose we could also consider renaming the category to explicitly denote the fact that it is only for people who are activists. Is there any support for renaming to Category:Promoters of Holocaust denial, or some variant thereof? Cgingold (talk) 12:28, 7 August 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:Images of the Living Enrichment Center. Kbdank71 13:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Living Enrichment Center to Category:Images of Living Enrichment Center

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category only has images, rename to fit standard naming conventions. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Images of the Living Enrichment Center. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:40, 6 August 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 with recreation permissible if other warcraft comics articles are found or written. Kbdank71 13:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Warcraft comics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Has only one article in it, one article doesn't need its own category. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there are other Warcraft comics - the big current one being the one from DC Comics/Wildstorm [1]. (Emperor (talk) 13:29, 5 August 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. Kbdank71 13:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:California State University, Fullerton basketball Titans men's basketball coaches to Category:Cal State Fullerton Titans men's basketball coaches

Nominator's rationale: This is an awkward title. I'd like to make it consistent with other entries in Category:College men's basketball coaches. Please note that, in an atheltic context, the school is generally known as Cal State Fullerton. [2] Zagalejo^^^ 03:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:03, 5 August 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. Kbdank71 13:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:California State University, Fullerton basketball players to Category:Cal State Fullerton Titans men's basketball players

Nominator's rationale: I'd like to keep the general naming scheme consistent with other categories in Category:College men's basketball players. Please note that, in an athletic context, the school is normally referred to as Cal State Fullerton: [3]. Zagalejo^^^ 03:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:03, 5 August 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. Kbdank71 13:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming/merging

• Category:Ukrainian Italians to Category:Italians of Ukrainian descent
• Category:Spanish-Italians to Category:Italians of Spanish descent
• Category:Serbian-Italians to Category:Italians of Serbian descent
• Category:Polish-Italians to Category:Italians of Polish descent
• Category:Palestinian-Italians to Category:Italians of Palestinian descent
• Category:New Zealand Italians to Category:Italians of New Zealand descent
• Category:Montenegrin-Italians to Category:Italians of Montenegrin descent
• Category:Iraqi-Italians to Category:Italians of Iraqi descent
• Category:Indian Italians to Category:Italians of Indian descent
• Category:German Italians to Category:Italians of German descent
• Category:Croatian-Italians to Category:Italians of Croatian descent
• Category:Austrian-Italians to Category:Italians of Austrian descent
• Category:Argentine Italians to Category:Italians of Argentine descent
• Category:Arab-Italians to Category:Italians of Arab descent
• Category:Afro-Italians to Category:Italians of Black African descent

(other 26 alike category pages linked to Category:Italian people by ethnic or national origin already follow the 'Italians of Fooian descent' naming pattern)

Nominator's rationale: as per recent precedent and discussion Mayumashu (talk) 02:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)*[reply]

• REname according to much recent precedent. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:24, 6 August 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. Appears to have been further populated since nomination.. Kbdank71 13:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Albion, Michigan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Underpoulated and unnecessary. Only two entries and one subcat which only has two more articles in it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Consistent with other city categories. Only thing needed here is to add some existing articles to the category (and the new Category:People from Albion, Michigan. Potential is there for more articles to be created. older ≠ wiser 13:44, 5 August 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:Flatlinerz albums. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Flatlinerz albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The group only released one album in their career. Additionally the word "The" is not a part of their name. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

• Rename to Category:Flatlinerz albums. Categories like this are always accepted even if the band only has one album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per £10 to match Flatlinerz and convention of Category:Albums by artist. Bencherlite^Talk 09:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to remove the The, but there are hundreds of precedents for keeping the category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:04, 5 August 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. Kbdank71 13:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kamehameha-capable Dragon Ball characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is completely pointless, and unencyclopedic. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep see this discussion. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion has no relevance to this nomination that I can see. Please address here my nominating rationale. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - trivial. Listify if desired but unsuitable for categorization. Otto4711 (talk) 12:56, 5 August 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. Kbdank71 12:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dragon Ball sagas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: All the articles in this category are redirects to the episode list articles, which have their own category. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion has no relevance to this nomination that I can see. Please address here my nominating rationale. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, thought you were pointing to the conversation in both nominations. I wouldn't mind an explanation of it in the above deletion nomination, as I really don't understand it's relevance. At least we are agreed on this one :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - redundant. Otto4711 (talk) 13:03, 5 August 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.