Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Moorer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Consensus suggets that the subject is sufficiently notable for inclusion. COI is not in and of itself a reason for deletion; additionally, the article has been largely rewritten, expanded, and referenced since it was nominated. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen Moorer[edit]
- Stephen Moorer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
The article was created by the subject and is autobiographical. User is the major contributer to the article. Promotional article for un-notable Actor/producer. User has also been promoting his Carmel theatres through the Carmel-by-the-Sea article. Amadscientist (talk) 07:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the article does establish notability of the subject with reliable sourcing that supports position of the subject, which is the criteria here. While the article's creator may or may not be the subject, it appears to treat the subject in a relatively neutral manner, or no less so that the majority of biographies of smaller venue artists. It could use more referencing, but there's no indication of extensive hyperbole. The article has certainly had more than one long term registered username make edits to it. An article possibly begun by the subject doesn't automatically qualify for deletion. Issues with a primary editor on this article, who is far from an WP:SPA editor [1] [2], on other articles doesn't apply or belong here, that's a matter for WP:AN/I or WP:COIN. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT - User is the subject. Simply read the talkpage and do not make assumptions of disputes. Page is a Playbill, sections are Acting, Directing, and Producing. The page is purely promotional and references Do not denote notability. Clear Conflict of Interest in that the page was created by the subject and is the major contributor. That does not mean no one else is editing it. He practically drew a straight line to the article by placing his linked name within the prose of the Arts and Culture section of Carmel-by-the-Sea 3 separate times. I'll give him credit for overkill though, because he also mentions the theatre and his Company like three separate times in that article as well....not to mention two other articles that I know of that are also self serving, promotional kruft. Articles created by the subject are indeed candidates for deletion due to nuetrality issues and original research as well as conflict of interest.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - Not notable, local Central California performer/director/actor. His article is bigger than Gary Beach, a tony award winning actor with historical significance to Broadway. Believe it or not, I can create a page about myself and reference it better than his and make it huge. There is enough published third party information.....but does that make me a notable person of interest on Wikipedia? No.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: You cannot "vote" twice. You nominated the article for deletion, that means there is an assumption that you are not in favor of keeping it. Again, this discussion is to regard whether or not the subject of the article Stephen Moorer meets the notability guideline and if the article is sufficiently sourced to support the notability it asserts. That is all this page is for, none of the rest. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - I looked hard to find anything that states I should not add to this discussion after making the nomination. This is not a "Vote". Assumption is not a valid reason to keep me from adding my "Delete".--Amadscientist (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: You cannot "vote" twice. You nominated the article for deletion, that means there is an assumption that you are not in favor of keeping it. Again, this discussion is to regard whether or not the subject of the article Stephen Moorer meets the notability guideline and if the article is sufficiently sourced to support the notability it asserts. That is all this page is for, none of the rest. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article establishes notability under the GNG; COI and OR issues, if any, should be addressed through the normal editing process. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Vastly inflated Playbill entry for a local artist, with no sign of any impact outside of the the region -- a region which, in theatrical terms, isn't all that significant to begin with. A medium-sized fish, at the very most, in a very small pond. --Calton | Talk 14:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article has references - local, yes, but local to the greater San Francisco Bay Area (SF Chronicle, Theatre Bay Area), which is not quite as non-notable to the theatre world as Calton suggests. Any peacock terms or weasel words or trivia can be eliminated by editing the article. Also, it should be noted that this article was nominated in bad faith, stemming from a edit war on Carmel-by-the-Sea, amongst other articles. This AfD should only consider the Stephen Moorer article's merits (or lack thereof); the other edit wars should be resolved within the respective articles' talk pages. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - No, the article was not nominated in bad faith. Attempts were made to work with the user on another page. The dispute was from the user refusing to allow a change in images. I am not new to the page. Another image I had replaced was then changed back when the editor simply brought it to my atention that the image does not appear to be what I thought. After checking I changed the image back and found another home for the pic. The article simply directs readers to the page where one can see that the user did create it and was the major contributer. Wiki states; Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by other editors in the community. Editing a biography about yourself should only be done in clear-cut cases.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The latter is a guideline (and a good one, at that), but it is not policy. Nor is it cause, in and of itself, for deletion. If notability cannot be established, the article should go. If notability is established, the article should be kept, but trimmed of traces of conflict-of-interest or other puffery. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yes, of itself the fact that he started the page is enough to nominate, but to delete I would say it would be for the huge amount of self serving edits to several other articles and lack of notability (the last part is strictly a consensus thing however)--Amadscientist (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Edits to other articles are absolutely irrelevant to whether this article is worthy of inclusion. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yes, of itself the fact that he started the page is enough to nominate, but to delete I would say it would be for the huge amount of self serving edits to several other articles and lack of notability (the last part is strictly a consensus thing however)--Amadscientist (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This person seems to be obviously notable: He is a professional actor with many credits, an award-winning director, and has founded a professional theatre company and various theatre festivals. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article is fully referenced, contains no peacock words, and has been written and contributed to by a number of editors. The subject is notable, as are his productions and, in particular, the company and festivals and programs he has founded. Softlavender (talk) 01:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's a good idea to point out that conflict of interest is not, per se, a reason for deletion, although it is a cause for vigilance. I see all too many AFDs with COI as the sole reason for nomination. That being said, I am neutral regarding this particular article. Rhinoracer (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - I would have to agree, but in this particular case the user has several articles that he is boosting his personal career and theatre groups. I do stand by the AFD nomination, but would also add that notability is such a grey area that I have doubts as to the figure being notable enough to keep an autobiography. I had really never heard of him. But I am not the end all to notability standards....that's why the AFD here. Historic figures in the area such as Bruce Ariss and his theatre had questions of notabilty on wiki, go figure.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as subject meets the WP:GNG quite easily [3]. Any problems with COI or article style and POV are best addressed with cleanup by other editors... not by deletion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Article does not "Easily" meet all standards, all citations are local newspaper clippings, and online references, that do not necessarily meet reliability. The article uses a review as a reference for a claim that he received positive reviews. That is not a reliable third party source for an extraordinary claim. That requires the statement be published as stating he has positive reviews, not using a positive review as the reference. No publications or journals other than the limited news (much of which was theatres arrange) exist to my knowledge. It fails "Significant coverage" with OR, fails "Independent of the subject" with sources from affiliations connected with the subject (the theatre website). No, sorry but that was incorrect. Regardless of what consensus is lets be factual and within wiki guidelines. Just remember, google hits does not make him notable as not all hits are for the actual subject, Newspaper clippings from local area are easy to come by even for a local performer, establishing a festival in a small community that is not known for theatre in general, is not in itself notable--Amadscientist (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Guidelines WP:RS and WP:BIO do not mandate that the the coverage be world wide. What matters is "significant covereage in reliable sources". He has that... multiple times over. Let's not reinterpret what guidelines say. Else one might disavow the New York Times as a RS for anything written about New York, or the Washington Post writing about happenings in Washington. The very fact that we are able to outselves read and check the available sources means they are not really "local". One would expect news about New York to be in the New York Times. One would expect news about Washington to be in the Washington Post. One would expect news relevent to San Francisco (not exactly a small-town backwater)to be in the San Fransico Chronicle. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No mention of worldwide status, figure is not known past local area except within th theatre community and even then still not notable. If what matters alone is references than we do need to be extremly strict when considering the sources as reliable and many of the online sources are either paid websites affiliated with the theatre or are promotional sites that cannot be used as references. If article is to remain references will have to be strictly within all policies and guidelines as stated on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, no mention of world-wide staus, though the sources are available world-wide. I cannot accept your determination that notability shown through coverage to the millions in the San Francisco area is simply "local" and so may be dismissed, as we are not exactly discussing a neighborhood bake sale that is of note to only a few dozen. Time for a little perspective. An Athlete is notable to athletic community. A mathemetician is notable to the mathematic community. A scientific discovery is notable to the scientific community. And yes, a thespian is notable to the theater community. The same guidelines that allow mass-marketed, low quality fast food products to have article, allows consideration of actors in proper context to what is being asserted and what is being sourced. Concerns over article style are addressed through cleanup, not deletion. WP:Verificatio of information in the BLP is addressed through cleanup, not deletion. Concerns with notability must look at the significant coverage in reliable sources, either availble on the web or through libraries, or through books... [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]... as the man and his work has received recognition for years, making him per guideline "worthy of notice". And so yes, per the guidelines at WP:BIO, he merits inclusion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No mention of worldwide status, figure is not known past local area except within th theatre community and even then still not notable. If what matters alone is references than we do need to be extremly strict when considering the sources as reliable and many of the online sources are either paid websites affiliated with the theatre or are promotional sites that cannot be used as references. If article is to remain references will have to be strictly within all policies and guidelines as stated on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Guidelines WP:RS and WP:BIO do not mandate that the the coverage be world wide. What matters is "significant covereage in reliable sources". He has that... multiple times over. Let's not reinterpret what guidelines say. Else one might disavow the New York Times as a RS for anything written about New York, or the Washington Post writing about happenings in Washington. The very fact that we are able to outselves read and check the available sources means they are not really "local". One would expect news about New York to be in the New York Times. One would expect news about Washington to be in the Washington Post. One would expect news relevent to San Francisco (not exactly a small-town backwater)to be in the San Fransico Chronicle. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Article does not "Easily" meet all standards, all citations are local newspaper clippings, and online references, that do not necessarily meet reliability. The article uses a review as a reference for a claim that he received positive reviews. That is not a reliable third party source for an extraordinary claim. That requires the statement be published as stating he has positive reviews, not using a positive review as the reference. No publications or journals other than the limited news (much of which was theatres arrange) exist to my knowledge. It fails "Significant coverage" with OR, fails "Independent of the subject" with sources from affiliations connected with the subject (the theatre website). No, sorry but that was incorrect. Regardless of what consensus is lets be factual and within wiki guidelines. Just remember, google hits does not make him notable as not all hits are for the actual subject, Newspaper clippings from local area are easy to come by even for a local performer, establishing a festival in a small community that is not known for theatre in general, is not in itself notable--Amadscientist (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Notability: Subject is listed in at least 1 international reference book, 1 national reference book, and 1 San Francisco Bay Area reference book: [11]. In addition to 160 mentions in the Monterey County Herald (which covers a population of 400,000+), subject has at least 23 known periodal mentions outside of Monterey County, including 2 in the San Francisco Chronicle, 7 in the San Jose Mercury News, 1 in American Theatre, 1 in Theater Mania, and 6 in the Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter: [12]. See WP:GNG and WP:BIO, both of which are met by this coverage, not to mention by his awards won. Softlavender (talk) 04:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply put, you are emphasising things that do not denote notability. Being metioned in the books shown isn't enough for notability, and as I have stated article does not meet WP:GNG and I was very specific.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - The main emphasis on determining deletion is not necessarily notability. WP:BOLP states; Wikipedia's standing and neutrality must not be compromised by allowing the editing of articles to show a bias in their subject's favor, the inclusion of articles about non-notable publicity-seekers, or the removal of appropriate and well-sourced information simply because the subject objects to it.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it worth noting that the article existed without incident for three full years, even though ten other articles link to it and it thus was neither hidden nor orphaned. I find it also worth mentioning that at least one editor on this page has noted that your nomination of the article was in bad faith -- i.e., because of some current personal ill-will with the subject or creator -- which a perusal of relevant talk pages seems to bear out in detail. Again it bears mentioning that the well-explained, detailed consensus on this page is that the article more than meets Wikipedia's stated notability requirements, despite whatever personal objections you may have to that fact. It bears mentioning again, as others have noted on this page, that any POV, COI, or neutrality issues are best settled via an article's Talk page, and via adding to the article sourced and relevant information and/or editing out unsourced peacock words or inflated claims. Lastly, I note that you have just now tagged the article, and also three other articles/sections connected to the subject, with yet another damning template: "autobiography." OK, I'm done. :) Softlavender (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Accusations of personal ill will and bad faith are unfounded. I really do not care that edotors are unfamiliar with the seriousness of the situation, the dishonest boosterism of the editor in question or Wikipedia policy on biographis of living people or Jimmy Wales opinion on how to handle unreferenced infortion in biographies. The single most important part of this discussion is the consensus that is formed, whic I intend to abide by, but don't critisize me for following the guidlines and dealing with this myslf. You inability to see what is happening and point the finger back at me only proves you make desicions based on what you judge to see and not what is happening.
- I find it worth noting that the article existed without incident for three full years, even though ten other articles link to it and it thus was neither hidden nor orphaned. I find it also worth mentioning that at least one editor on this page has noted that your nomination of the article was in bad faith -- i.e., because of some current personal ill-will with the subject or creator -- which a perusal of relevant talk pages seems to bear out in detail. Again it bears mentioning that the well-explained, detailed consensus on this page is that the article more than meets Wikipedia's stated notability requirements, despite whatever personal objections you may have to that fact. It bears mentioning again, as others have noted on this page, that any POV, COI, or neutrality issues are best settled via an article's Talk page, and via adding to the article sourced and relevant information and/or editing out unsourced peacock words or inflated claims. Lastly, I note that you have just now tagged the article, and also three other articles/sections connected to the subject, with yet another damning template: "autobiography." OK, I'm done. :) Softlavender (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The tags placed are withing wiki guidelines as warning that the subject with COI is editing the articles. This is not personal. I do not know the person. But he has threatened me several times innapropriatly and my taking the actions I have are exactly what editors should do. Remember, notability is not formed by consensus, just whether to keep the article. Notability does not change because we decide it.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No personal ill will? It looks to me like you're trying to punish smatprt through every avenue available,[13] when in fact what editors should do is assume good faith, not engage in personal attacks, and step back from edit wars. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no personal ill will. Subject and article have problems. I have nominated everything in good faith regrdless of how you percieve it.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added some external links. The guy is clearly notable...the article is well and fully referenced and he is mentioned repeatedly on the web. Jack1956 (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - Just saying the article is well and fully referenced does not make it true. The Pac Rep website cannot be used as a reference and is about 5 times. Once this discussion ends those references will be removed, if they do not get removed beffore hand. There are numerouse other references that are innapropriate and will be removed as well as any and all information that is not referenced. Wikipedia is not a promotional site, and we have an obligation to follow the policies guidlins on BOLP, notability and OR stricktly in this situation per Jimmy Wales himself..--Amadscientist (talk) 01:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's excessive. While some of the citations to the Rep website could be inappropriate, citation to the Rep's website on statements involving the Rep's activities can be appropriate if they are not "unduly self-serving." Sometimes these are the most appropriate citations; citing a statement that Moore directed a specific production for the Rep to the Rep's website appears no more inappropriate than citing a statement that person X is a member of the board of directors for a public corporation to the corporation's website. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has been the satndard on the other theatre articles. All references to official sites removed as affiliation. It's in the guidelines and I am not misinterpreting it. Articles og Biographies should not use affiliation websites as referemces as Theatres should not use official websites either. I pretty much agree with must of what you say however.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please post links to the guidelines and policies to which you refer. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As per the guideline on reliable sources, primary sources "are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." If you believe that this says that they must be removed, you are misinterpreting it. In fact, as per WP:SELFPUB, "self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as" [amongst several items] "the material is not unduly self-serving" and "the article is not based primarily on such sources". Nowhere does that say that primary sources can not (or even should not) be used. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this article. The subject meets the notability requirements and the article is suitably referenced. Sufficient attention is being paid to ensure that CoI issues do not intrude. Crafty (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The only "significant coverage" occurs in sources of only local interest to be the county (population 400-odd thousand, of which nearly half doesn't consider English to be their mother tongue) and thus not reliable for notability purposes or from non-"independent" sources (the the company's website). Excluding those inappropriate sources, there is nothing approaching "significant coverage". MQS's Google searches do nothing to establish the contrary, nor does the company's or the individual's inclusion in a published directory. Bongomatic 00:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to comment on that. I'm not sure why you are linking to "what Wikipedia is not (a directory)" to establish what notability consists of. Or why you're ignoring repeated coverage in one of the top 10 U.S. newspapers (SF Chronicle), and also in an international Shakespeare periodical. Or ignoring a 4-page review in a major international Shakespeare-performance reference work [14], in which review he is mentioned by name 9 times. Softlavender (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Chronicle reference cited (there are two different citations, but to the same article) has only the following mention of the subject:
- Further afield, Carmel's Pacific Repertory Theatre founding artistic director, Stephen Moorer, has moved over to become executive director, naming Kenneth Kelleher as guest artistic director for 2008. Kelleher has been a mainstay at San Francisco Shakespeare Festival for several seasons - as well as at Shakespeare at Stinson, which changed its name to North Bay Shakespeare last summer and moved inland from Stinson Beach to Novato. This weekend marks an even more significant change with the opening of Bill Rauch's first season as artistic director of the mighty Oregon Shakespeare Festival in Ashland.
- It only mentions his name as a lead-in to a paragraph about someone else entirely. If there is other (and unlike this, significant) coverage in the Chronicle, please point it out. As to the reference in the Shakespeare festival directory, the guide (per its descriptive text here) seems to purport to be a directory of as many of them as possible (it is 568 pages long, of which the theater company's entry takes 3 in aggregate).
Given the unlikelihood of the three editors having actually done detailed research on each of the "over 140" festivals and companies, and would probably have taken organization-generated text for their entry, it is highly likely that the text is not "independent of the subject". Bongomatic 06:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Amended Bongomatic 09:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Read the preface to the book, rather than making assumptions. The author of the 4-page review is cited at the end of the review. Read the rest of this page for the full list of periodical and book mentions, including SF Chronicle mentions. By the way, apologies about the link above, it didn't come out right. Here is the correct link (which I've fixed above) to the 4-page review which mentions Moorer by name 9 times (you can see the mentions in yellow): [15] Softlavender (talk) 08:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't see any other direct mentions of Chronicle articles, but in MQS's Google searches, there was one other. The mention (other than the credit) was "Pac Rep founder Stephen Moorer has significantly improved his staging for the run that opened Wednesday at Post Street, with Holly's widow, Maria Elena Holly, in attendance." Hardly "significant coverage." Bongomatic 09:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Moorer's entire 203 book and periodical mentions are specifically detailed in the post below MQS's. The entire Chronicle article you just mentioned is a positive review of the SF staging of the Buddy Holly musical play, which Moorer directed. Softlavender (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note, there are also references from San Jose Mercury News, another newspaper based outside the county where the theater is located. Also, there are references from Theatre Bay Area an industry publication which covers the region. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Moorer's entire 203 book and periodical mentions are specifically detailed in the post below MQS's. The entire Chronicle article you just mentioned is a positive review of the SF staging of the Buddy Holly musical play, which Moorer directed. Softlavender (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't see any other direct mentions of Chronicle articles, but in MQS's Google searches, there was one other. The mention (other than the credit) was "Pac Rep founder Stephen Moorer has significantly improved his staging for the run that opened Wednesday at Post Street, with Holly's widow, Maria Elena Holly, in attendance." Hardly "significant coverage." Bongomatic 09:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Read the preface to the book, rather than making assumptions. The author of the 4-page review is cited at the end of the review. Read the rest of this page for the full list of periodical and book mentions, including SF Chronicle mentions. By the way, apologies about the link above, it didn't come out right. Here is the correct link (which I've fixed above) to the 4-page review which mentions Moorer by name 9 times (you can see the mentions in yellow): [15] Softlavender (talk) 08:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Chronicle reference cited (there are two different citations, but to the same article) has only the following mention of the subject:
- I'd like to comment on that. I'm not sure why you are linking to "what Wikipedia is not (a directory)" to establish what notability consists of. Or why you're ignoring repeated coverage in one of the top 10 U.S. newspapers (SF Chronicle), and also in an international Shakespeare periodical. Or ignoring a 4-page review in a major international Shakespeare-performance reference work [14], in which review he is mentioned by name 9 times. Softlavender (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.