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.
Rename to match parent article.--Lenticel(talk) 00:47, 16 May 2013 (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.
Category:Gaelic Athletic Association All Star Awards[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale: These are administered by both the GAA and GPA so "Gaelic Athletic Association" is not only a bit long but inaccurate too. They are referred to as "All Stars". The proposed title should be enough to identify the subject. 86.40.196.98 (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2013 (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. (Note that Category:Mérida (state) and a number of other subcategories also exist and could be renamed speedily.)Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no action. Given the nature of the articles in question, those in favour of deletion don't seem to have a strong argument, in my opinion, but if they want to they can nominate the two categories for deletion.Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The new name is an accurate description of the entire scope of the category. Orlady (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just because all the contents are currently in the US does not mean that will always be the case, not does it mean renaming the category is wise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the category has validity, but all of the hyperlocal pages in the current category belong in a geographic category. The better solution would be to create the proposed destination category and move all of the contents of the current category there, leaving the current category as a container for the subcategory. --Orlady (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This labels as spiritualist some places that at best have been the locations of spiritualist communities, but the place designated itself is not really a spiritualist community. What next Category:Mormon communities to include Belmont, Massachusetts because there is a Mormon Temple there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I claim no expertise in the subject of "Spiritualist communities" (I stumbled upon this category by happenstance), but it appears to me that the pages in this category are about spiritualist camp-meeting sites and intentional communities of spiritualists. These are not cities or towns that happen to have spiritualists there, but rather these are camps and unincorporated communities organized expressly around spiritualism. --Orlady (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please close. I've created the proposed destination category and manually populated it with six pages from the source category. --Orlady (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both in their present form. The fact that a town has a spiriutualist community (or campsite) does not make it a spiritualist community: that is in the nature of a performance by perfomer or venue category, which we do not allow. If the churches or campsites merit articles of their own (and both are typically regarded as NN), we could have a category for that. However, in the present form neitehr category can be allowed. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you look at the pages in the category, you will see that this is not a category of towns that have a spiritualist community. This is a category of spiritualist communities. Excerpts from the included articles (mostly from lead sections): (1) "Camp Chesterfield was founded in 1886 and is the home of the Indiana Association of Spiritualists, located in Chesterfield, Indiana." (2) "Cassadaga is a small unincorporated community located in Volusia County, Florida, just north of Deltona. It is especially known for having a large number of psychics and mediums, and has consequently been named the "Psychic Capital of the World"." (3) "Lake Pleasant is a village in Montague, Massachusetts, United States, and the site of an early and prominent American Spiritualist campground. It claims to be the oldest continuously-existing Spiritualist community in the United States." (4) "Lily Dale is a spiritualist community of the Modern Spiritualist movement.... [It] is a hamlet in the Town of Pomfret on the east side of Cassadaga Lake, next to the Village of Cassadaga. ... Lily Dale's year-round population is estimated to be 275. Each year approximately 22,000 registered visitors come for classes, workshops, public church services and mediumship demonstrations, lectures, and private appointments with mediums." (5) "Onset was developed in the 1880s as a summer camp meeting for Spiritualists. Many of the existing cottages in Onset were built as second homes for individuals ... who gathered to hear mediums communicate with the dead." (6) "Wonewoc Spiritualist Camp is a Spiritualist Church community, of the Modern Spiritualist movement, located in Wonewoc, Wisconsin. The camp is open every summer." --Orlady (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2013 (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.
Category:Conservative universities and colleges in the United States[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. "Conservative" is not a defining characteristic for an educational institution. Rather, this is an inherently POV-laden characterization. Furthermore, my own non-neutral POV indicates that the category is underpopulated -- I can think of a number of institutions that fit the description but aren't included. Orlady (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete obviously impossible to make clear determination as to members. Mangoe (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The inclusion of Brigham Young University makes no sense on any grounds. Considering that many BYU faculty have run for office as Democrats, That Ignacio Garcia would never be labeled a political conservative, nor would most people so label David Magleby. True, there are other measures of conservatism that might fit BYU, but I would really question that label on it. The most telling fact is we do not have Category:Liberal universities and colleges in the United States, this is a form of saying "these are not fully in the mainstream colleges, they are just conservative colleges".John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another case on the BYU front is Larry Echo Hawk, who was a law professor at BYU. He later served as head of the BIA under Obama until he became an LDS gneeral authority. Hugh Nibley, in some ways the most famous BYU professor, was never described as a politcal conservative. Hugh B. Brown, another one time faculty member, was not a politcal conservative. It is also telling that Cecil O. Samuelson the current president is not tagged with any political orientation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article on BYU does say "Many visitors to BYU, and Utah Valley as a whole, report being surprised by the culturally conservative environment." I would note that that line lacks a tag, it is also unclear how much it says about the University. Also, are we prepared to lump cultural and political conservatism all into the same category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand Franciscan University of Steubenville is widely seen as a center of Catholic conservatism, well sort of, maybe, depending on how you define it. It is very closely connected with the Catholic charismatic movement. It clealry supports Vatican views, cares about Catholic teachings and doctrine, but is it conservatism. I would also say we miss a lot of that aspect in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One more note, BYU has invivted both Helen Thomas and Harry Reid to speak at campus-wide meetings that have no classes scheduled at the time during a weekday and that students are strongly encoraged to attended. At least in Thomas' case she used the chance to go on a tirade of praising liberal presidents and denouncing George W. Bush. It was not well recived by the student body, but that was as much because it was so overwhelmingly biased as because of the particular bias. The very fact that BYU does not allow outside groups access to campus shows even more endorsement when it invites speakers, especially when giving them total access like a non-competed against forum.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am shocked the category lacks Hillsdale College, although at the same time I am not sure the apelation "conservatiove" would fit on the actions of Hillsdale in the 19th-century. So besides the problem that there is no easy definition in the present, this category suffers from having presentist bias that will not consider and account for the history of the institution as a whole.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hillsdale was prohibiting descrimination based on sex and race in the 19th-century, it was the first American college to do so. Yet it is today the citadel of American conservatism at least according to the National Review. If "liberal" and "conservative" are too broad and ill-defined of terms to put on people, how do we think we can put them on institutions, especially when in theory AAUP views on academic freedom fight the ability of institutions of higher learning to establish coherent philosophies. Are we prepared to put Hillsdale College in both this and Category:American liberal universities and colleges, because at various times it has been without question one of the most noted in both categories. Then there is the fact that some views seen as conservative in 2013 would be considered liberal in 1883. There is a reason that Susan B. Anthony's List a group that would generally be considered conservative if people were forced to label it either conservative or liberal, can go around actually quoting the words of the person it is named for in advancing its ideas.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The terms are in common parlance, with widely disparate views as to what they mean, across the world -- and even in the US. So they make lousy categories. But since they are widely used, in my view it would be important to have encyclopedic discussion of "conservative" and "liberal" associations where appropriate -- such as colleges, which are routinely excoriated or praised for their political leanings. The articles can explain what the criteria for a term like "conservative" are, such as, "self-proclaimed conservative", or "generally described as conservative in early 21st century US media", or whatever, and then try to tie it to the reasons why it would have or take such a label. All of this is fine. Categories are not fine! (And obviously the fact that institutional positions can shift over time, and institutions can be long-lived, renders categorization according to highly temporal features even more problematic!) --Lquilter (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WE have deleted a lot of "conservative" and "liberal" categories in the past. A person (or institution) may be conservative in his POV on one subject and liberal on another. The whole thing is much to vague. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:39, 22 May 2013 (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.
Keep. I don't see how this category is doing any harm. LardoBalsamico (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well, I guess you wouldn't have created them if you didn't think they would do any harm. Would you please elaborate why you think these categories should be kept, when WP:SMALLCAT says that we shouldn't have categories like this? Mentoz86 (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcategorization. Tassedethe (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- Galatasaray is best known as a football club, but apparently is involved in many sports. Some one has been creating articles mainly about the football team, but possibly one other sport too. I would suggest that a category for each deacde would be adequate, rather than annual ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of having one category per decade, would it be useful to have a parent category for all Galatasaray's season articles? Mentoz86 (talk) 05:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would also work. However, I thought that with multiple sports a single category might become too big. My real objective was to get away from miniscule annual categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd go for one parent category per sport in which Galatasaray has team(s). This seems to be the case already. And then possibly a parent category for those cats. Other comment: "Team" is not a proper noun, so it shouldn't be capitalized. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:45, 9 July 2013 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Full name of the district. Shyamsunder (talk) 11:20, 14 May 2013 (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.
Nominator's rationale: All are intelinked with a footer. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A navbox does not make a category irrelevant. Both can exist. --Orlady (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2013 (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.
Category:American Latter Day Saint hymnwriters[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. The last comments suggest that there is scope to reduce category clutter & prune the parent cats by moving some articles into this one from parent categories. – FayenaticLondon 00:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This category is the only sub-cat of Category:American hymnwriters, it is also the only subcategory of Category:Latter Day Saint hymnwriters. It could be leading to needless division in the first case, although the religion of a hymnwriters is clearly a notable and defining trait, it is unclear why we should have this category specifically for this type of intersection.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see how this category is doing any harm. Both "American" and "LDS" are defining characteristics, and the category is very well populated. --Orlady (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom; triple intersection of nationality, religion, and occupation (or at least avocation). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. Seems to me that the religion of the hymns is pretty important. I saw "LDS" as a modifier of the hymns, not as a modifier of the people -- i.e., a compound that meant "writers of LDS hymns". The LDS hymnal seems pretty different from a lot of other hymnals, at least from the hymns I know. --Lquilter (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About half the hymns in the LDS hymnal were written by non-Latter-day Saints. It includes works by Martin Luther and many, many other people who clearly could not be put in that category. Anyway, we would leave these people in Category:Latter Day Saint hymnwriters, just not in the country specific sub-cat. On the other hand, William Clayton's hymn "Come, COme Ye Saints", has been included in slightly revised editions in non-LDS hymnals. This is still overly specific. The category is used to contain any Latter-day Saint who wrote a hymn, we do not analize their work to see if it is really distinctly LDS in content.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reason why we just categorize everyone who is LDS and wrote a hymns here. Joseph Fielding Smith would serve for a time as president of the LDS Church, and was an apostle for over 70 years. Yet his hymn "Does the Journey Seem Long", although clearly speaking of Christ as the Savior (although it never uses those terms, so I almsot could see Muslims singing it) with lines like "So look upward in joy And take hold of his hand; He will lead you to heights that are new". Then there is "Come Unto Jesus" by Orson Pratt Huish, but my Mom told me when it was in the older edition as O. P. Huish she assumed it was a protestant barrowing. We find such standards as Augustus M. Toplady's "Rock of Ages" or Joseph Addison's "The Lord My Pasture Will Prepare". William Williams "Guide Us, O Thou Great Jehovah" is another quite popular peace. Actually I woukld say in the top 10 most sung hymns in the LDS hymnbook is "How Firm a Foundation". On the other hand, I had to check to make sure Annie S. Hawkes, the write of "I Need Thee Every Hour" was LDS, because the text itself really does not propound LDS doctrine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, after looking over J. Spencer Cornwall's "Stories of Our Mormon Hymns", I am pretty sure that the LDS hymnal was wrong in marking Hawkes a Latter-day Saint. The composer/writer of the chorus, Robert Lowry, was a baptists pastor. That faces in the LDS hymnsal John Henry Newman's "Lead, Kindly Light".John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As it says in our plagged with unsourced statements article on the LDS hymns "Many Latter-day Saint hymns are well known traditional Christian hymns." To complicate things more, some of these hymnwriters mainly do music, and so what do we do with "Praise Ye the Lord", in the LDS hymnal with music by Evan Stephens, the greates LDS hymns composer ever, and author of many texts, but that text is by Isaac Watts. The closing question is, what religion was the author of "Guide me to Thee". I will help, it starts "Jesus, my Savior true, Guide me to Thee".John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this category is mainly about writers of "Latter-day Saint hymns", then it becomes even less clear why we are splitting it by nationality. A good percentage of these hymns were written by British immigrants to the United States. The hymns function as international texts used throughout the Church. For example "Hard All Ye Nations", by Louis F. Moench, the one hymn in the 1985 hymn written by a Latter-day Saint in a language other than English, was by the founder of what is today Weber State University, writen while he was serving as a missionary in his native Germany (or maybe more Switzerland), after his founded of WSU. He put it to music by George F. Root, one of the more prominent 19th-century Ameircan Protestant hymnwriters. Is there anything American about Moench's hymnwriting? Do we even want to go there. This is just intersecting too many things, and arguably imposing nationalism where it really does not belong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over it, I think we could convincingly argue that every person in Category:Latter Day Saint hymnwriters is American in some way. However many of them are also clearly Dutch, German, British or other nationalities. The best solution is to just have a category that does not try to assign nationality in this situation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know enough about the people in the category to say whether they are "LDS members who write hymns" or "writers of LDS hymns". The latter category ("writers of LDS hymns") seems like a potentially defining category, but the former category ("LDS members who write hymns") seems like an unnecessary intersection even without the national subcategories. Either way I'm starting to feel like the parent category is not clearly named. It sounds good at first hearing, but it's apparent from this discussion that there are two different meanings. --Lquilter (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In practice though it would be too difficult to try to exclude anyone from it who is clearly without question LDS and clearly without question wrote a hymn. The fact that a hymn is inherently a religious text means that we would have to go so far as to show all the hymns a person wrote were not Latter-day Saint. For what it is worth, we have Category:Roman Catholic hymnwriters as well. We do not divide that one by nationality though, although it also one has two articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The theology of LDS is so different from any other church that a combination with otgher Christian hymn writers (save as a subcategory) is undesirable. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Currently we have Category:American hymnwriters which is not divided by religion at all except for this category. On the other hand, Latter-day Saints hymnwriters like Alexander Schreiner, who was German by birth, is placed in Category:German hymnwriters, not seperated by religion, and everyone is just fine, so why can't we do the same thing with American hymnwriters?John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are only 34 pages in the German hymnwriters category. In contrast, there would be 126 pages in the American hymnwriters category if the 71 LDS hymnwriters weren't in a subcategory. Considering the category sizes and the indication that pretty much the only use of LDS-authored hymns is in LDS churches (in contrast to the situation with many other hymnwriters whose work has been adopted by multiple denominations), the separation of the American LDS hymnwriters category makes logical sense. --Orlady (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However if I read the ERGS rules right, we should not be splitting off people into religious sub-cats without leaving them in the parent general category or another non-religion specific sub-category. So really the American category should be at 126 no matter what we do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the guidelines on categorizing by religion, gender, sexuality and ethnicity state "Whenever possible, a valid occupational subcategory should be structured and filed in such a way as to avoid "ghettoizing" people, but at the same time, Wikipedia rules about redundant categorization should also be respected." The above comments by Orlady and Peterkingiron seem to be seeking directly to ghetoize people, to remove Latter-day Saints from the religion-neutral Category:American hymnwriters, to say that they are not "real" hymnwriters, but only Latter-day Saint hymnwriters, and to deny them inclusion in the undifferentiuated by nationality category. Why do people think it is ok to mistreat the parent category in this way, especially when it is Category:American hymnwriters and has no reference to religion at all. There is no religious context in that category and above commentators have totally misrepresented that situation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
upmerge seems to be a violation of the last-rung rule. Since we don't subdivide in other ways (e.g. by state, or time period, etc), then there is no reason to shunt these guys off into a separate cat just because of their religion. If it is kept, it should be non-diffusing. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Additionally some of the above comments seem to totally ignore Orrin Hatch, whose hymns have been clearly sung by non-Latter-day Saints.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not a question of separating Latter-day Saints from other Christians, this is a question of having one category that combines all Americans of all religions, and then only having as a sub-category Latter-day Saints.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merging - I'm looking over Contemporary_Catholic_liturgical_music#Popular_composers, and wondering why these are not categorised in the parent cat. And also while reading this article, I am thinking that the definition of hymn may have a difference in definition by era, and apparently by religion. (As seems to be referenced in this article.) So if this is true merely of contemporary catholic hymn music to traditional catholic hymn music, I think this may likely be true of hymn music of other religions as well. Or in other words, if not all hymns are categorised the same, then writers thereof should probably not be either. And I also do note things like: Category:Marian hymns and Category:Hallel, both which are sub-categorised under Category:Hymns. - jc37 17:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How does that justify making this the only by religion sub-category of Cateogry:American hymnwriters? We would leave these people in [[:Category::Latter-day Saint hymnwriters]] we would just no longer sub-divide them by the instersection of religion, occupation and nationality. It makes no sense to have only one such subdivision. If we keep this we should also create Category:American Roman Catholic hymnwriters, Category:American Protestant hymnwriters and other religion specific sub-categories. It does not make sense to separate out Latter-day Saints as the only religion that does not count as part of the general group of American hymnwriters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond this, the comment about how we have Category:Marian hymns ignores the fact that we do not have Category:Marian hymnwriters. Specific categories are much more justified when categorizing works of art, than categorizing the people that make the works of art. People continue to ignore the ghettoization inherent in this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alternately, it does not make sense to sub-divide a category by only one nationality. Looking over Category:Latter Day Saint hymnwriters, quite possibly the only one who is without question not an American is John Craven (hymnwriter), for example Robert B. Thompson, though English born and joining the LDS Church in Canada, was working as an editor in Illinois when he wrote his hymn, so exactly how is he not an American hymnwriter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs)
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.
Relisted at 2013 JUN 11 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
