Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Earl

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 Delete. I'm persuaded by the arguments that WP:BLP1E applies to this article. The legitimate concerns raised over both off-site canvassing (most – but not all – of the editors active on Wikipediocracy support deletion) and apparently double- or triple-"voting" (3 of the "keep" editors appear to have very similar IP addresses, and few edits to anything else) mean that we have to be especially careful about relying on "head counts", and instead focus on the weight of the argument. Countering BLP1E (and WP:BLP concerns in general) are arguments that the subject meets WP:GNG, but as the introduction to that guideline states: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The reliable sources present in the article and mentioned by those opposing deletion do create an assumption of notability, but this deletion discussion, has, from my reading of it, concluded that this subject does not merit a stand-alone article. I'm therefore convinced that deletion is compatible with both WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. 28bytes (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Henry Earl

Henry Earl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One big pile of pure, steaming BLP violation. This is a guy whose alleged notability stems from being arrested a fair few times. But let's deconstruct this. "The Smoking Gun" - clearly a tabloid news source. The source from the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Division of Community Corrections is clearly primary and local. WBKO may or may not be reliable; that I'm not sure about. Google turns up a few things in reliable sources, but they're literally just "he got arrested again". I'm really not seeing how this is encyclopedic, and how it is anything other than a BLP violation - it's literally just a coatrack for "OMG THIS GUY IS BAD". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete Notable for one thing only -- number of trivial arrests. We do not consider every Guinness recordholder to be "notable" so this person is not "notable." Lastly -- is there any remote likelihood that readers would find this to be of encyclopedic interest? I rather think not. Collect (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete No notable sources used and seems to go against the BLP policies as articulated by the nom. Bad sourcing, likely policy violations, and no real encyclopedia value. Delete. Intothatdarkness 16:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete - unless he's the man most arrested ever I see no notability and a BLP violation Neonchameleon (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

And if he is? 218.186.192.195 (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic, merely a BLP pretending that a massive sequence of trivial arrests is in some way notable. See WP:NOTNEWS, which each and every one of these incidents would fail miserably. Wikipedia is not the Guinness Book of World Records. Carrite (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• These trivial arrests lumped up together spell GNG. Of course we are not GBWR, but that does not stop us from being able to write about record-breakers. He is notable, and that's that. A bloke who spent years at the airport got his own page. So did a Japanese soldier who spent years in a cave after WWII ended. 218.186.192.190 (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oh and look, he even has his own Guinness World Records entry. Teehee 218.186.192.190 (talk) 12:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You're fully entitled to "write about record breakers" and I'm fully entitled to express my belief that merely being arrested multiple times is a not a sufficient basis for an encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 07:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

How about also being mentioned in one whole song, coupled with appearances on talk shows as well as contemporary paintings? 218.186.192.195 (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - Should be considered a straight-up WP:BLP1E, with the "one event" being the arrests in totality. Each arrest is itself trivial and mundane, not a separate or notable "event" in terms of establishing notability. Tarc (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - Few deserve the ignominy bestowed upon this article's subject. →StaniStani  17:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep I don't see why this was proposed. Passes GNG easily. Look at this coverage: [1] [2] and [3] [4] [5] You can't literally just throw all these substantial sources away and cry "BLP" when the subject is notable. He can't be a one event because the sources are all spread across diferent periods. A ridiculous AFD. Beerest 2 talk 19:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

  The individual arrests are themselves not notable...weapons possession, public intoxication, and so on. The notability is entirely derived from the overall arrest tally (1500+) over 4 decades. If a person is notable for only one thing, and would otherwise be an unknown individual, then WP:BLP1E takes effect. Barring unusual/extraordinary circumstances, pointing to multiple reliable sources is not a sufficient counter-argument to BLP1E. Tarc (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

  Well, I am arguing against BLP1E. Let's see what it says: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. No, because he isn't getting coverage just for one arrest - he gets coverage for lots of them. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. He is not a low-profile individual, and there is no event article. It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented – as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981. Again, there is no event article. The events are not notable; a person involved in them can be. Which part of BLP1E does he meet? Beerest 2 talk 20:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

  You can't argue here against BLP1E its policy. Go and argue to change it elsewhere (good luck with that). John lilburne (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to argue against the purpose of BLP1E. I'm attempting to argue against whether Earl himself meets 1E. Beerest 2 talk 02:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding "he gets coverage for lots of them", yes, that is true. But this person doesn't have 1,500 points of notability, he has one; the overall phenomenon, oddity, or whatever you want to call it of being a person arrested 1,500 times. Trying to cash in on one's 15 minutes of fame does not overcome the "low-profile individual" criteria either. Tarc (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

  I understand what you're saying and I can't say I really agree with it. I think that since the coverage is spread out over a few years and it isn't just regurgitating the same thing, then it's not really one event. Beerest 2 talk 02:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - be human, otherwise known as pr WP:BLP1E, Huldra (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Come on here. We have articles on living criminals who are notable for things that no human would like to be notable for. Beerest 2 talk 21:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Seriously?? For "public intoxication, with charges of disorderly conduct, third degree trespassing, second degree trespassing, and apparently one count of begging"? Like hell, no. We are not talking about a mass-murderer here, this is no Charles Manson or Anders Behring Breivik. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

He's made a minor celebrity of himself, so I doubt he even cares. He appeared on Jimmy Kimmel Live! to talk about his arrests. This is a silly AfD, people scream BLP but don't bother to fix it. He's controversial yes, but there are sources out there. Beerest 2 talk 21:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

So what if he appeared on Jimmy Kimmel Live!? Do you always have to serve alcohol to an alcoholic? Huldra (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm just saying. People do bad things, we can't just ignore them to play nice. If the article was "Henry Earl is a true moron who has been arrested so many times that it makes my head spin" then it would be a BLP violation, but it wouldn't violate BLP if sources were followed. Beerest 2 talk 21:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Jeez, this is not a case of throwing WP-rules at one another, this is about "being human". Quite simply. And to me it does not sound as if he has done seriously "bad stuff"; more like very stupid/silly stuff. Have some mercy and leave him alone. Huldra (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there any indication that he's a latter day Mr Bojangles, or Ira Hayes? John lilburne (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

While I agree with the overall sentiment of "be human", something that is all too lacking in this project at times, you really need to beef it up with a policy/guide-based argument, otherwise this entry will likely be discarded when closing time comes. Tarc (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep How the heck is this 1E? It's 1267E, if you will. Being notable does not mean that you have to be a conventional celebrity. Earl is a celebrity in his own rights. We see that much of enduring coverage, stretching from when he was first arrested to now. There are plenty more sources out there that are not in use here. Surely GNG has been met. I'd go on to suggest that some kind soul should create an article titled List of people arrested the most times, or something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.192.190 (talk)

  Habitual drunk that lives in doorways, is habitually drunk and lives doorways when not in the county jail. Damn that is sure some prime time information, to preserve for posterity. John lilburne (talk) 13:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

  I can't agree more. 218.186.192.190 (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. I concur with all the reasoning presented thus far about the non-notability of this individual. — Scott • talk 16:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep ~ To review the nomination it appears that the issues are a lack of sources, a notability issue, and a violation of WP:COATRACK. For the issue of sources, I have already cited CNN, Daily Mail, and the Huffington Post in the article, in addition to other sources, including the New York Post and ABC News, that I didn't include. For the issue of notability, I think that being arrested over a thousand times is a rare, if not unique, thing for a person, especially for what seems to be intentional purposes. Not to mention his web presence due to the images of his numerous arrests that he has had over the years. WP:WHYN, which states the reasons for the notability guidelines, is confirmed at each level in the current article, especially on independent sources. As for the issue of WP:COATRACK, I believe that WP:WINAC should help the matter. Simply put, the multiple arrests are Mr. Earl's claim of his notability as no person has been known to be arrested over a thousand times. Why it isn't WP:BLP1E could be noted for the fact that this isn't a single event, as BLP1E requires, but a series of events that have led to the present time. In addition, the focus of the events has also been on his internet fame from those arrests, not just from his overall arrests. Finally, I would like to note that The Smoking Gun is a part of the Turner Broadcasting System and appears to be a reliable source for this topic, not to mention that it still complies with WP:WHYN as a 'single' source with CNN. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• I think the fact that you cited The Daily Mail as a source shows that you have absolutely no idea what a reliable source is, and that your judgement of The Smoking Gun is therefore completely unreliable as well. TSG is pretty obviously a tabloid and not a reliable source for anything whatsoever. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Since you and a few other on Wikipediocracy seem to have a problem with my comment, I can expand it. Yes, the Daily Mail is a tabloid, but is there a blacklist on tabloids from being citations? WP:BLACKLIST only covers spam, which the Daily Mail isn't. So, Lukeno94, can you give me an example on Wikipedia where we removed a citation by the Daily Mail for being a tabloid or an AfD where an article was seriously considered for deletion due to having a citation from the Daily Mail? If so, I can check to see if the ABC source can be used in conjunction with the Daily Mail citation. For the Turner Broadcasting System comment, my point was that for the purposes of WP:WHYN, CNN and TSG are considered the same source, but my opinion still complies with it in relation to other sources. In other words, even with them being the same source, there are still enough reliable sources other than CNN+TSG to apply to the article. To add on to this, a website that focuses on a specific topic can be a reliable source for that topic. That was my point on why TSG can be a reliable source for this article. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• The Daily Mail is never accepted in an AfD debate as a reliable source that contributes to notability. And the owners of a newspaper are irrelevant anyway; The Sun (United Kingdom) are owned by the same people who own The Times; The Sun is most definitely not a reliable source, and The Times is usually a reliable source. Nor does something focusing on a particular topic make it a reliable source for said topic; that is an absolutely ludicrous statement. A fan blog focusing on a band is not a reliable source. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Basically, it's one long event - an accumulation of arrests over time. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep The subject was already a celebrity back in 2004 - see Newsweek and Internet love the man who loves.... Back then Wikipedia was just getting going and Facebook was being launched. The fact that he's back in the news yet again tells us that this is quite the opposite of BLP1E which therefore does not apply. To object to the article because the subject is a street person seems to be blatant censorship, like saying "we don't want your sort in here". Such street people may become quite famous and we naturally then have articles about them - see Emperor Norton, Stanley Green and Soho Pam, for example. If the current draft for this page seems deficient then this is just a matter of ordinary editing. It is our editing policy to improve such topics, not to delete them. Warden (talk) 08:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - the one event is the reportage of the large number of offences. The subject doesn't meet the requirements of WP:PERPETRATOR. The coverage is not about the crimes more than the actual person. Per WP:AVOIDVICTIM, this is creating a victim out of a low level, unremarkable criminal. Hack (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Just about everything said in this !vote is contradictory, false or illogical. Reportage is not an event and one is not a large number. WP:PERPETRATOR and WP:AVOIDVICTIM are opposites as the first concerns the criminal while the latter concerns the victims of crime. WP:PERPETRATOR specifically looks for "sustained coverage of the event ... [which] ... devotes significant attention to the individual's role" and that's what we have here. WP:AVOIDVICTIM is not even wrong - it is bizarrely inappropriate - a blatant WP:VAGUEWAVE. Warden (talk) 09:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Weak keep Having made the landing page at CNN, it's hard to argue against WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• BLP1E, as to which the "notability" is for (the one event of being one of the most arrested people) is a valid argument; as is the fact that most coverage is as routine as a football match report, regardless of who is carrying it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - Notable for multiple events, coverage along years and years: thus it passes WP:BLP1E. I don't like the article, it is quite a sad thing indeed: but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an argument to remove information from the encyclopedia, even if a few above seem to disagree. --cyclopia^speak! 18:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment To those citing BLP1E, that is not applicable here. He would be notable for one thing, not for one event. In fact, I would say he is not really notable for being arrested a lot of times, but rather for becoming an internet celebrity because of it. Right now the article focuses entirely on him having been arrested a bunch of times and does not really discuss the more noteworthy aspect of him becoming a minor Internet celebrity. Several sources note that he is popular because people actually kind of admire his vagrant lifestyle and general oddities. This oversight would seem to be a big reason why the article comes off as demeaning. An article on this individual should be less about the arrests and more about the online fame.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

  None of these individual events are remotely close to making the subject notable. The one event is the reporting of the large number of offences. Hack (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

  The "online fame" is because of the multiple arrests, you cannot separate one from the other, that's just...bizarre. It's like saying a musician isn't notable for the music he puts out, but rather the sources who discuss him. Well, why are they talking about him? The music. Tarc (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

  It is hardly bizarre to suggest a man otherwise of no consequence with a long line of trivial misdemeanors becoming an Internet icon because of it makes him significant rather than being a man otherwise of no consequence with a long line of trivial misdemeanors. To use your analogy, it would be like a locally popular band becoming a break-out viral hit and sources detailing what it means for such a band to have gone viral or the way the band went viral. Would the source of their notability really be the music or more how they used the Internet to spread their music? Such an argument is not nearly as bizarre as claiming multiple events are really just one event. I suppose in a broad philosophical sense each of our lives is individually but a single event and thus, per WP:BLP1E no articles should exist on any person since that person would only be notable for the singular event of his or her very existence on this planet. Of course, that sort of reasoning is ridiculous and totally goes against the meaning of the policy.

  BLP1E is about people who are minor figures in a single news story. Someone who has been the subject of multiple national or international news stories over the course of a decade because of a unique interest in that individual is very much not where BLP1E is meant to apply. We do not have any policies that specifically cover this type of situation, as far as I know, so we would typically go by GNG and he meets that measure. The only objection you could raise that would have potential standing is some sort of "ignore all rules" deletion where you essentially argue that such an article is against the purpose of Wikipedia for some substantive reason not covered by existing policy. I would say that ethical considerations for deletion are probably not that credible as the subject seems to enjoy the national attention he gets, which is what one would expect since it is pretty much the only thing he has got going for him.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Canvassing Please note that the nomination and following !votes seem to have been canvassed offsite at Wikipediocracy. The thread there is quite partisan with collusive comments such as "If you AfD it, I'll support you." The original idea seems to have been to attack Jimmy Wales, "When Jimmy Wales begs...". None of the participants there seem to have openly declared their interest here and so their posing as independent Wikipedians seems improper per WP:MEAT. Warden (talk) 09:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Convenience link 218.186.195.204 (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Since you're quoting me there, I shall reply. "Posing as independent Wikipedians" is quite possibly the dimmest thing I've read in a Wikipedia discussion all year. "Partisan"? "Collusive"? Because there happens to be agreement that an article is a nasty piece of garbage? Please excuse me for a moment while I clamp my eyeballs to stop them rolling back in their sockets. You appear to be suffering from the delusion that it's forbidden for Wikipedia editors to talk about the content of Wikipedia outside Wikipedia. You need to shake that off, pronto. It also appears that you have no idea what a conflict of interest is. — Scott • talk 12:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Warden, your statement is patent bollocks. I, and I alone, was the person who mentioned that I'd AfD it, but wasn't 100% sure about doing so because of the fact that I expected a lot of votes where people left their decency and brains at the door. The article is a pure BLP violation, nothing more, nothing less. It seeks to demonize a human being just for being arrested rather often; and even if it focused on his alleged "internet celebrity", it would still be there to demonize him. And, given that 99% of the coverage is routine "OMG HE GOT ARRESTED AGAIN LETS REPORT THIS", and nothing else, GNG isn't definitely met anyway. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Your claim that it is about demonizing him is not really based on anything. He has been arrested a lot. Some people may find that hilarious and others may find it kind of cool. A person may even have found him to be a sympathetic figure. Try not to let your own preconceptions or the preconceptions of others cloud your thinking.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Warden statement may be poorly worded, and off-wiki discussion between editors are nothing odd: but more transparency of off-wiki discussions would be welcome. I came to know the AfD through WO as well, by the way. --cyclopia^speak! 13:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)--cyclopia^speak! 13:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Utterly specious and rather pathetic effort by the illustrious Colonel to save an unworthy article by creation of a bogeyman. Administrator Hex's comment on WPO is taken out of context and represented as something it is not. This is a shitty article that needs to be flushed. Merely sharing that opinion off site (or here on site) is not "canvassing." Ridiculous. Carrite (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Regardless, AfD is not the janitors' association. 218.186.192.195 (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per Warden. 218.186.195.204 (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep The one event can't be the amount of arrests. He received coverage for loads of other arrests. Just because the topic is controversial doesn't mean we should throw it in the trash. If he was notable for having the most amount of soda cans, and he received coverage as he collected them, nobody would be advocating deletion. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 12:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep I would have bought the argument for WP:BLP1E if this CNN & Huffington Post was really the only event. However, the article has existed since 2005 which shows a prolong record of notability with multiple events. Newsweek had an article about him dating back to February 25 2004. Per WP:GNG - reliable, multiple secondary sources, significant coverage, and most importantly multiple, separately reported events over the course of over a decade - it is not just one event. --CyberXRef^talk 13:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Being a "record-holder" is not given in the GNG as sufficient basis for notability. Guinness lists many thousands of "record-holders" almost none of whom are notable enough for Wikipedia. Including people with huge collections of single items, etc. That particular argument should be deprecated as unfounded in Wikipedia policy by anyone closing tis AfD. I would, moreover, suggest that WP:BLP in general argues against this article as making contentious claims about a person which may be harmful to that person ... and since "largest soda can collection" is known, and the owner is not notable, that should put that particular argument well to rest. Collect (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Meets the GNG. Articles with CNN, Huffpo and Newsweek are good enough for me.  The Steve  14:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Ripberger (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete, per WP:DECENCY. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

What the heck is DECENCY? 218.186.192.195 (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - it's basically WP:BLP1E with the same 'event' being just a repeated history of allegations. Per nom, it's one big BLP violation. "Most arrested"? Who cares - Alison ^❤ 23:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete as the WP:BLP violating crock of shite it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

A BLP violation needs cleanup, not deletion, if it is notable. 218.186.192.195 (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Strong keep All you idiots who cite 1E, get lost and go sober up. Isn't it made clear in the well-referenced article that Earl is more notable than being just a guy who got arrested one time too many? We see one full song being devoted to Earl. T-shorts, oil paintings, etc. People may say that HuffPost is not reliable... Then what about Newsweek and the rest? Sure, I opine that the article needs some cleanup, but AfD is definitely not the venue for that. 218.186.192.195 (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

@Singapore IP 218.XX — Your nastiness aside, Wikipedia is not the True Crime Register. A person that was divorced 12 times or who had 15,000 parking tickets wouldn't be encyclopedia-worthy either. This subject needs to be cleaned up by being cleaned out. Carrite (talk) 05:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

By the way, there's another single purpose editor Singapore IP 218.XX voting exactly as you do above. Maybe the two of you can get together and have tea. Carrite (talk) 05:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, golly, I missed the fact that there is another single purpose editor Singapore IP 218.XX voting exactly as you do near the top. Maybe the three of you can get together and go out to dinner. I hear the duck is excellent. Quack. Quack. Quack. Carrite (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - The closing administrator should be sure to toss the votes of all three Singapore IPs for vote fraud. Maybe as a defender of the integrity of AfD debates Colonel Warden would care to reinforce this opinion by making a statement to us about the duplicitous nature of sockpuppetry... Carrite (talk) 06:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete as BLP issues, and medical privacy issues, but possibly consider undeletion after his inevitable death (we all are headed towards one (what a jolly thought)). Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

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.