The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 17:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Suggest merge to Category:Proposed languages. --Tabor 19:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge — Sebastian (talk) 00:34, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Do Not Merge- The controversy over whether certain languages are proposed or actual is important. So, whoever wants to add or move items from one list or the other, do so. Have an editing war if you want. In anthropology, you need to be able expand categories, I think. Kzzl 19:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  2 concerns: (1) The article Proposed language says it's most commonly a proto-language. So there's naturally a huge overlap. (2) What do you think is gained for Wikipedia if the distinction is fought out here? — Sebastian (talk) 05:49, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

• Agree with Sebastian, merge. Radiant_>|< 09:26, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• I oppose this merge, unless the articles are merged first. --ssd 11:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 17:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rename to Category:Economy of Argentina, to be consistent with the other Economy of Foo subcategories of Category:Economy by nation. --Kbdank71 17:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 17:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Overcategorization; this small subcat of Category:9/11 only makes it harder to locate anything. Merge it back into the main cat. Radiant_>|< 11:11, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with parent and delete. James F. (talk) 13:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or rename: There may be a point in separating articles that treat the actual events of 2001 from the aftermath, but that should include a lot more articles, such as briefings, ceremonies, and medals. — Sebastian (talk) 00:18, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant. Kaibabsquirrel 06:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 17:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Overcategorization; these small subcats of Category:9/11 only make it harder to locate anything. Merge all of them back into the main cat. Radiant_>|< 11:11, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with parent and delete. James F. (talk) 13:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: These categories are clearly defined; no confusion with the rest of the articles. — Sebastian (talk) 00:18, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
  • So they are, but they're also trivially small and unlikely to get new articles added ever. Radiant_>|< 14:08, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant. Kaibabsquirrel 06:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

POV and potentially name: 'misinformation'. Also, small and confusing in its overcategorization. Merge back into parent cat. Radiant_>|< 11:11, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with parent and delete. James F. (talk) 13:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to something like "September 11, 2001 in popular culture" or merge with the repercussions category, if we keep that one. — Sebastian (talk) 00:32, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Hold. It might be needed as a list of articles to merge if Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks ends up being a merge. If the category is deleted before the VfD closes, please list the articles on that VfD before emptying. --cesarb 23:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV, lacks concise context. zen master T 09:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete due to inherently POV title. Kaibabsquirrel 06:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 17:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redundant with Category:9/11 hijackers, which is up for renaming below. Merge the two of them. Radiant_>|< 11:11, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with fellow and delete. James F. (talk) 13:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge both into new name, as discussed in #Category:9/11 hijackers. — Sebastian (talk) 00:22, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Suggest renaming to September 11, 2001 Commission, since the term '9/11' only has that meaning within the US. Systemic bias. Radiant_>|< 11:11, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 13:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - the full name is the somewhat unwieldy National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, but more importantly in the grand scheme of things for everyone on this commision it was a relatively insignificant part of their notability. The members are listed in the aricle, there is (or at least could be - I didn't check all of them) a wikilink to the article from each member page, so I don't see the value of the category. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:19, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Rick Block. --Kbdank71 14:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as suggested. ℬastique▼^talk 15:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Rick Block. — Sebastian (talk) 17:12, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
• Given the above, I'd prefer deletion over renaming this. Radiant_>|< 10:01, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 18:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Should at least be renamed to Victims of September 11 attacks or something like that, but I'm wondering why we have this category in the first place. There are several lists of such people in the Wikipedia, and the existence of this category tends to attract people who wish to add entries on their otherwise not noteworthy family members and friends. Radiant_>|< 11:54, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 13:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this should be a list. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:21, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There is a tribute list at [1]. --Kbdank71 14:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Sebastian (talk) 00:36, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant. Kaibabsquirrel 06:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• HOLD on deleting this until all the articles in it are considered for transwiki to the sept11 wiki. --ssd 11:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was see each discussion --Kbdank71 18:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[Merged all of the similar categories for deletion together. James F. (talk) 13:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)]

• It is my understanding that the votes here are for all gender-related categories listed directly below. Whoever closes this discussion should note that some people voted both here, and for individual categories. Radiant_>|< 09:49, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge all with unisex equivalents and delete except Queens, which should be kept for the New York borough, and Women of Pakistan, which should be renamed as suggested to "Women activisim in Pakistan", perhaps? James F. (talk) 13:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge all as per James F and Radiant! I agree, they're not equal if they're segregated. --Kbdank71 14:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge (almost) all as per James F. For performing such searches we should implement combining categories, as proposed by Radiant! and many others. — Sebastian (talk) 17:23, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
• Keep all where is the discussion about this? Dunc|☺ 17:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Our Wikipedia:Categorization of people guideline lists this as a prime example of how not to categorize. Radiant_>|< 09:30, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge--"The result of this cat is that you won't find a woman in cat:scientists because she happens to be in cat:female scientists." is plenty enuf argument for me. Exception for the borough, of course, and for a better named Cat for the Pakistani women activists. For 'King/Queen' rulers, keep regnant/consort/mother/fictional subcats in some form. Niteowlneils 18:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 18:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While I understand the value of feminism, women's studies and equality, I do not understand why it would be necessary to subcategorize scientists simply because they're female. As a matter of fact it goes agains the very idea of equality. Radiant_>|< 11:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

gender equality is an absolute joke, because women are still not recognised, even in history. making a separate category (or subcategory) highlights such a group. sometimes, the plight of a group needs to be highlighted. or do you suggest deleting "African American writers" and put them all into "Writers" as well? it´s called diversity in unity, so why not talk about it as well? it´s just a category... 141.20.154.221 15:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• We group people by reasonable distinction, such as their profession or country they live in. We do not group people by skin color or gender, because creating such distinctions only serves to create inequality. The result of this cat is that you won't find a woman in cat:scientists because she happens to be in cat:female scientists. Radiant_>|< 12:08, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 18:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Once more, the existence of these categories asserts inequality, for the same reasons as above. Radiant_>|< 11:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 18:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people asserts that categorization should be gender-neutral. Indeed, creating separate categories for women is a way of creating inequality. For instance, a female high court judge deserves to be in the same category as a male high court judge. Radiant_>|< 11:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

• keep, obviously. Women are disadvantaged in politics because of society. Dunc|☺ 17:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 18:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Empty. But otherwise, same reasoning as above. Radiant_>|< 11:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 19:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ditto, except that in this case most women here are activist or symbolic for women's equality, and the category should be renamed to reflect that. Radiant_>|< 11:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

No need to rename this article as the rename is an unfair generalization. --Anonymous editor 01:00, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 18:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Listed as the very example of how not to categorize on Wikipedia:Categorization of people, each of these should be merged with their male equivalent to create an egalitarian category. Radiant_>|< 11:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I do not care much for the other listings. But "Category:Roman empresses" mostly deals with Empress consorts, wives of Emperors rather than reigning Monarchs. Placing them in the same category as their husbands would cause problems. The Equivalent of listing all six wives of Henry VIII of England in "Category:English monarchs". Would also require quite a rewright of List of Roman Emperors to list their various female co-rulers. Are you in fact suggesting that?User:Dimadick

don't really see a problem with the Category Empresses or Queens for that matter... some ruled by their own, some were married, some were widows, you can´t just put them all into one bag. voting to keep category. 141.20.154.221 15:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep them all. It seems pointless to decide to merge eevrything together just because someone feels the need to create the appearance of gender equality. Kuralyov 17:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 18:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merge both for the same reason as above, into Category:Kings and queens (or possibly Category:Monarchs, but that severs a different purpose presently). Radiant_>|< 11:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Except of course for the parts about the New York neighborhood called Queens :) Radiant_>|< 15:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

What would that achieve? Currently the categorisation makes distinction of not only their sexes but their factions in political life. Kings regnant and Queens regnant being those who ruled by their own right. Kings consort and Queens consort being those who earn their title due to their marriage to a King or Queen regnant. Also listed are Queen mothers, mothers of reigning King and Queens. Are you suggesting for the distinction to be eliminated? User:Dimadick

• I'm suggesting for the king/queen distinction to be eliminated. The distinction regnant/consort is very useful, and should remain. Radiant_>|< 13:47, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

don't really see a problem with keeping "Kings" and "Queens". some were consorts, some reigned, so they were all different. but they had beeing a queen in common. i say keep it. User:antares911

• keep don't be silly. Where is the discussion on ungenderised categorisation? Dunc|☺ 17:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • As mentioned before, here. It's a long-existing guideline. Radiant_>|< 09:50, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 18:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redundant with Category:Philosophers by era - both are a list of subcats that classify philosophers by time, and eras or periods in history make more sense on this account than strict centuries. Radiant_>|< 08:49, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Agreed; centuries may be what pass for eras of late, but that does not justify two parallel schemes. Buffyg 09:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 13:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Sebastian (talk) 17:14, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
• Keep, for pity's sake. Adds significant user value. Era boundaries are uniformly subject to dispute, which makes them a distinctly substandard way of organizing anything. -- Visviva 08:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Has anyone actually looked up the Category:Philosophers by era. Not being without its merits (sometimes apparently parallel schemes serve a purpose), being a student of philosophy myself, I find this chart by century much more helpful, especially in a work of reference. (Because some philosophers cannot easily fit into an era. The era works mainly for Western philosophers, but are difficult to use for, say, Chinese philosophers. So both categories make perfect sense and should be left as they are. Maybe with a cross reference and a brief explanation as to why are there two categories, so this discussion will not repeat itself.) JM.Beaubourg 19:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • How about merging the two then, into Cateogry:Philosophers by time or something like that? Both are rather small, and both serve the same purpose if in a different pattern. Radiant_>|< 09:56, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with JM.Beaubourg and Visviva. Jonathunder 22:01, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Only contains Computer mouse. Pointless. Radiant_>|< 13:13, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, yes. James F. (talk) 13:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 19:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unnecessary categorization; think of the mess this would create if more like these were created. Most of those included aren't even identified with Woody Allen movies, as the vast majority were not repeat performers for him. Contrast with Category:Star Trek actors or Category:Star Wars actors, for example; most of those included are only notable because of those roles, and as for the others, participation in either franchise leaves an indelible cultural mark on the individual. Except for maybe Diane Keaton, the same cannot be said of anyone who appeared in Woody Allen films, which are not as integrated a phenomenon as Star Trek or Star Wars. Postdlf 08:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Agree, I recently seen this cat and wondered how many people actually would know this. Notability on a selective scale. Whereas the other cats Category:Star Trek actors and Category:Star Wars actors are easily identified by a wider audience (notability). Delete. <>Who?¿? 09:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 13:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 19:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Suggest renaming to Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes. Radiant_>|< 07:56, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Rename. Postdlf 08:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rename. There is also Category:Buffy cast and crew as a subcat. Propose renaming or deleting along with this group, depending on population. (note: I listed it as Cfd, instead of Cfr as I wasn't sure) <>Who?¿? 09:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Changed to ((cfr)) now, but good idea. Radiant_>|< 09:58, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as suggested by nominator. James F. (talk) 13:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as suggested. ℬastique▼^talk 15:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: There's also Category:Buffy characters MosheZadka 09:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redundant with Category:United States student societies. Also, using the word 'Greek' in this fashion is systemic bias, as in most cultures 'Greek' means 'from Greece', rather than 'having a name that happens to be composed of Greek letters'. Radiant_>|< 07:46, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. James F. (talk) 13:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 19:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, apart from the renaming suggested below (to group them by country) - is there any particular reason to not merge these two categories into Category:United States student societies, especially given that several fraternities are in fact coed? Radiant_>|< 07:46, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Indeed, merge. James F. (talk) 13:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. (Four German societis moved from Category:Student fraternities to Category:Student societies, all the rest appear to be US based). Nigosh 00:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redundant with Category:Murdered Roman empresses. And also, empty. Radiant_>|< 11:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. James F. (talk) 13:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Sebastian (talk) 17:13, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 19:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.