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 - not contested after five days. Tiptoetytalk 19:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Contains only one article and a redirect. Too narrow to be useful. Upmerge. Pagrashtak 21:10, 10 December 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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete With all characters covered in a list except one, this category is too narrow to be useful. Upmerge. Pagrashtak 20:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Category no longer useful. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Quasirandom. There's only two pages on it now. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master 01:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had been meaning to do this for a while, but never got around to it.--十八 01:10, 12 December 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:upmerge; only contents was list. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete These characters are covered in a list—no need for the category. Upmerge. Pagrashtak 20:45, 10 December 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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete Only Lara Croft is not contained in the list of characters. With the list covering all but the main character, this category is too narrow to be useful. Upmerge. Pagrashtak 18:55, 10 December 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.
While I support German football between 1945 and 1990 being referred to as West German (and really don't want to start that debate again), there is no need for separate articles for this period - in the same way that West Germany national football team simply redirects to Germany. Being 'West German' as opposed to 'German' isn't a defining characteristic, as there is no practical difference between the two. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - yeah, East Germany has separate articles because it was the breakaway nation - a separate team, whereas West Germany and Germany have always been continuations of the same thing. 'West Germany' is a fairly informal name. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the various world cups pre-1990 'West Germany' and 'East Germany' played under these formal names. West Germany and East Germany are separate articles; there are separate categories Category:East Germany and Category:West Germany. Beckenbauer played for West Germany, not Germany. In the UK pre-1990 West Germany was always called West Germany and not Germany. Occuli (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, absolutely, that's all true, and it's all recognised in the text articles, and rightly so. But in footballing terms, the DFB never changed, and nor did the national team - only their names. Where football clubs have changed names, we only have one category for players across the various incarnations, and it should be the same here. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment both West and East Germany were successor states. 76.66.195.159 (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Identifies players as having been eligible for the former West German national team (as opposed to the East German team). – PeeJay 18:37, 16 December 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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete Does this really need a category? Covered adequately by Doctor Who DVD releases already! Stephenb(Talk) 09:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Categorization of works "that have been released, or have been announced for release" for a given media format is rarely defining for them, and as a generalized scheme would contribute to catclutter— plenty of albums are available on vinyl, cassette, 8-track, CD, and for download. WP is not a holiday shopping guide.-choster (talk) 05:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-defining characteristic. Additionally, it likely will, in time, entirely overlap with all TV stories still in existence. -- Skarl 18:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am the creator of this category - I concede that this is a superfluous category and should be deleted Etron81 (talk) 00:37, 13 December 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.
To begin with, the rename target already exists (as a redirect), so there's no need to rename. More importantly, I'm doubtful that either of them should exist, so I'd like to take them to full CFD for possible deletion, if that's alright with you. Cgingold (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the above discussion, it does not appear that there is an objection to the rename to fix the capitalization issue. It is more of a question of retaining the special characters in the name. This may be another form of the em dash discussions.Vegaswikian (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit, that "dollar sign" character in the middle sure got my attention. I probably would have passed right by otherwise. Cgingold (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What I meant when I said I was doubtful that either of them should exist is that I'm not sure that contributing to Ek$i Sözlük is sufficiently noteworthy to deserve a category. Basically, I'd like somebody familiar with the subject to make the case for it. Cgingold (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as non-defining. Otto4711 (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Article on the one included person states that he is "one of two" developers of the project, so if interpreted in the defining sense the category will have 2 members at most; if you want to include all 150,000 "users" to the collaborative project as contributors, then the category would be very large and non-defining. (Kind of like saying someone is a "Wikipedia contributor"?) Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much my take on things, too. Cgingold (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. No one has come forward to make a case for keeping. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:40, 17 December 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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 13:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Moving from speedy since this does not meet the criteria. The reason offered by the nominator Una Smith was 'to disambiguate'. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having said this, I find the move to Weymouth, Dorset was by User:Una Smith in Nov 2008 and was disputed (see talk page). However I think the category should be disambiguated anyway, even if the article is not (cfBirmingham). Occuli (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match parent article. Alansohn (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per my comments when this was initially listed as a speedy. Grutness...wha? 00:21, 11 December 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.
Category:1997 NCAA Division I FBS football season[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 Improperly named category that already exists as 1997 NCAA Division I-A football season. Geologik (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete FBS didn't exist in 1997. Ndenisontalk 15:23, 12 December 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.
Category:1994 NCAA Division I FBS football season[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 Improperly named category that already exists as 1994 NCAA Division I-A football season. Geologik (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete FBS didn't exist in 1994. Ndenisontalk 15:23, 12 December 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.
Nominator's rationale: pages list inductees Mayumashu (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support These categories are about the inductees, not the Halls of fame themselves. Alansohn (talk) 12:53, 10 December 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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This category and the associated sub categories appear to be associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion so probably don't belong in the main article name space category. While not used in a while, this could be a move to talk page type of action. Comments please. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly belongs on talk pages. However, is this the correct place for this discussion? Peterkingiron (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It was always discussed here. I don't recall a discussion about moving this type of decision to somewhere else. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to talk page. There was no support for a rename so moving to the talk page, which had support from Peterkingiron, seems to be the correct action. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:44, 17 December 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 16:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Technical nomination. Found as incomplete doing cleanup. This one and many others appear to be related to this discussion which was closed as no consensus. Should all of the remaining ones be listed here and discussed again? This will bring all of the categories in the parent under the form Category:Television in Foo. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I won't look at the linked previous discussion, but it's probably a good idea to list all categories as the nominator suggests. __meco (talk) 09:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'll have to start retagging all of the categories. If anyone wants to help, do join in. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, everything should be retagged. I also found a few that were not tagged on the first pass. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the parent of each is Foo media, not media in foo. Tim! (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For what is worth: To me Television in Foo means any and all television in Foo, whereas Fooian Television means Fooian produced content on television, for example, Television in Australia has a lot of British Television and American Television on it . . . Or according the naming conventions(?), should there be Category:television of the country for locally produced material, and Category:television in the country for material televised in the country? Peet Ern (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I don't think we need to conform with the "Foo media" in all subcategories. In fact, "foo media" itself might be a bad idea. Pee Tern is probably correct with the distinction he draws. Right now, the categories are probably best conformed with the main articles, "television in foo", though some thought will have to be used (shock horror!) about not including, e.g., American programs in Category:Television in Thailand just because they are broadcast there. (Just think of the potential categories for Baywatch.) But there probably are situations where a non-fooian television program will be legitimately included in a "television in foo" category. Those can be decided on a case-by-case basis, as usual. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Since my nomination was a technical one based on an incomplete nomination it was not really an opinion. I thibk that the comments by Peet Ern are valid. The current name is somewhat ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:35, 15 December 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.
Netural - The term was "gay porn" directors, the adjective gay modifying the noun porn and not the noun director. Nonetheless, if there is misinterpretation, I'm all for the change. - Tim1965 (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. But it's ambiguous -- I wasn't sure about it until I looked at the page. Btw, what's up with that head note, which specifies no "citizens of the United States", etc.? Cgingold (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. That lede sentence seems unnecessary, IMO. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Present name is ambiguous. __meco (talk) 09:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's just not possible to say for sure whether it's "Gay porn directors" or "Gay porn directors". Which reminds me... did I ever tell you about the time I shot a Gay porn director in my pajamas?? How he got in my pajamas I don't know. (Apologies to Groucho Marx...) Cgingold (talk) 12:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nominated. Unless one is conversant in this field, the name is inherently ambiguous. I do think Otto is correct though in the sense that it really shouldn't be ambiguous, because I don't think it's terribly necessary to have a WP category for directors who are gay (see nomination immediately below), but with the current state of categories that exist but probably shouldn't, it is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I still feel a rename is unnecessary, if this is renamed it should expand "porn" to "pornography". Otto4711 (talk) 03:07, 20 December 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:no consensus. Kbdank71 16:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge, upmerge. No reason to split it out from the LGBT uber-cat. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom.--Lenticel(talk) 03:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No merge - I took the time to look into what other categories we currently have for Gay people by occupation, and found categories for the following: Gay actors (plus US & UK sub-cats), Gay musicians, Gay politicians, Gay sportspeople, and Gay writers, all of which are very well populated (and most of which should also be broken into US & UK sub-cats). Category:Gay directors is entirely comparable to these other categories, and our nominator hasn't provided any affirmative reason for deletion. Cgingold (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are fewer than 200 LGBT directors - there seems no reason to separate out "Gay directors" from "LGBT directors". If and when this category reaches the size of Category:LGBT actors, it can and should be split. But simply splitting this one section out doesn't make sense. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have different size threshholds for categories, SatyrTN. I think 180 articles is more than enough to split into sub-cats. It may be smaller than Category:LGBT actors, but it's larger than Category:LGBT sportspeople, which has 4 sub-cats. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what other folks think. Cgingold (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a decent-sized subcategory, though I would be in favour of deleting Category:LGBT directors entirely. At the risk of getting lectured at, I don't think the intersection of LGBT-ness and director-ness is defining. (Really, you don't need to lecture me on it, since that category's not nominated here.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:12, 15 December 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:merge, removal of incorrectly categorized articles can be done at any time. Kbdank71 16:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge - of the first six people in the category, three were not born in Puerto Rico and thus are not "from" there. I assume others in the category are similarly situated. Only those born in PR should be so categorized. Otto4711 (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From does not mean born in. When it was decided that being born in a place was not defining, from was its replacement and when you lived can be defining and in that case the person can be listed as from there. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So someone like Wilson Cruz, whose article makes no indication that he's ever even set foot on PR much less has spent sufficient time there to be considered "from" there, should be categorized as being "from" Puerto Rico? That seems absurd. Otto4711 (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, Cruz probably shouldn't be in the cat. IMO. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removing categories from articles where the article does not support inclusion is a normal activity for me. It happens all too often. So when found shoot on sight. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I'm saying selective merge. Cruz is in the former category but not the latter. If blindly merged he ends up miscategorized. Otto4711 (talk) 13:41, 11 December 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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Current name is subjective, POV and likely has BLP issues. By clearly restricting this to those who have been convicted we might address those issues.Vegaswikian (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. This discussion is now mentioned there. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, Rename per nom. Cgingold (talk) 02:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.--Lenticel(talk) 03:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If anyone wants to add similar categories to this nomination, feel free to do so. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but rename as "Americans convicted of tax crimes". However, neither the current category title nor the proposed new category title would be as accurate and descriptive as, say, "Americans convicted of tax crimes." "Tax evasion" is a felony, and is just one of several kinds of tax crimes, with other tax crimes being such things as willful failure to file, willful failure to pay, and so on. Some of these tax crimes are misdemeanors, not felonies. The national news media tends to use the phrase "tax evasion" imprecisely to refer to tax crimes generally, and that imprecision appears to have seeped over into Wikipedia over time. (By the way, aside from being a tax lawyer and CPA, I am a former broadcast news director, and I'm not trying to pick on the news media.) I used to try to correct this where I could find it in Wikipedia, but I haven't had the time to catch everything. However, if the only choice being presented here is between the current "American tax evaders" and the proposed "Americans convicted of tax evasion," I would support the change, per nominator's rationale. I'll just reiterate that the title "Americans convicted of tax crimes" would be safer and more accurate than "Americans convicted of tax evasion." Yours, Famspear (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It might be instructive to see where this category and its parent came from in the first place. Is it sincere, or is it a POV push of some kind? Does the parent category need to be renamed also? Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? 12:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to add the parent to this nomination, I would not object. As to the others, they could be also added here or done as a follow on once the parent is renamed. Feel free to follow up. I'm in the middle of trying to cleanup the November nominations so that's enough for me at this time. Category:People convicted of tax crimes?Vegaswikian (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As a follow up, take a look at Kent Hovind. This individual is currently included in the category -- incorrectly. He was charged with and convicted of serious federal tax crimes and he was also convicted of evading Treasury reporting requirements. However, he has never been convicted of (or even charged with) tax evasion, which is 26 USC section 7201. Famspear (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here's another: Richard Michael Simkanin. This individual is currently in prison for very serious federal criminal tax convictions -- however, none of those convictions are for tax evasion itself. Yet, he's included in the category -- incorrectly in my view. Again, "Americans convicted of tax crimes" would be an accurate category title. Yours, Famspear (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Americans convicted of tax crimes" per Famspear. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination modified to this name since I think the words of Famspear will convince most editors that this is the better choice. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to Category:Americans convicted of tax crimes. Anyone who doesn't report every penny of income may be a tax evader, but this ought to be based on convictions, not allegations. Alansohn (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would everyone listed here be guilty of tax fraud? If the answer is no, that might not be appropriate. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
fortrunatey tax fraud is a very comon serious felony comited by many epople. I would ntobe surprised if some editors have been charged with tax fraud on ths part. However, i fail to see the relevence of thise and any other allegations re: the topic being raised at levination. Smith Jones (talk)
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.
