Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Ritter (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Willing to userfy content on request. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 00:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Allen Ritter
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I spent hours yesterday trying to save this article, only to discover it continues to fail WP:BIO; with little depth of coverage in reliable sources. Most sources cited are interviews, self-published, or dead links. Other sources mention his name only with no narrative. The large table of Production discography is almost entirely without sources. Fails WP:MUSICBIO, even though he was nominated for a Grammy, he was one of 19 musicians all nominated for the song "All Day" ([http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-grammys-2016-nominees-winners-list-story.html source). Hardly notable. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - This article was deleted earlier this year, and there have been no significant changes since then to justify recreating it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete G4 - If there has been no change in the less than 3 months since this article was deleted via community discussion and consensus, it is purely disruptive to recreate it. Article should be removed and the editor that created it should be minimally warned if not sanctioned. ? Apparently you can see the prior version? Can you think of a reason not to speedy G4 it? John from Idegon (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Move to DRAFT - (see comment a few bullets below) Delete ... reluctantly (but very tempted to say Keep per WP:IAR) . This is one of those textbook perfect cases of where Wikipedia's rules work correctly to prevent an article being written about a man who has made (and been recognized for) substantial contributions in his industry. The discography of his work is impressive. But at Wikipedia we only write about what others have said/written on the topic. This guy has had nothing written about him as a person and what has been written about him is a great many little recognition blurbs on many individual work projects. His WORK is extremely notable as a body but nobody has written about that body as a whole. So clearly the work of this man is also not notable despite its enormous value to many people in the music industry and to the consumers of those projects he worked on. Technically there is not enough material to write on the guy but it seems a shame to delete this article. Some major magazine like Billboard or Rolling Stone needs to do an in-depth interview with the guy so he can have an article here. Koala Tea Of Mercy ( KTOM's Articulations &amp; Invigilations ) 02:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am asking, and  to take a look at this article again, then, for example about the comparison of another person in the music industry, take a look at Kodak Black, which one has more info, more sources and more contribution to the music industry. I have updated the sources and added new interviews about him by Revolt and Genius, you will see on the article. This editor claimed that they were trying to "save" this article, but it really only appears that he only removed sources, even correct sources, I have no idea why they would do that. Why would this get AfD, while Kodak Black stays, even through it got AfD and it still stayed, this guy did a way lot more than what you guys think. Xboxmanwar (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Regarding the added reference interviews via Revolt and Genius. Genius appears to be a user generated site that allows anyone who registers as a member to write articles/interviews. It fails as an independent, third party source. I'm having a hard time vetting the credibility of Revolt. Maybe someone else can do better research? Or it may turn out to be the single non-trivial source for this entire article. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Genius has editors, only users are allowed to write annotations for songs, not articles, this is the writer of that article you can see that he has written for various sources, Billboard, XXL, BET, etc. plus it's an interview, I highly doubt that it would be fake. As for Revolt, it is also credible, because its also another interview, with a video of him in it, plus take a look at this. Xboxmanwar (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks for clearing that up. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - There is nothing in the Wikipedia article about Revolt that speaks to its reliability as a source. Notability does not in any way equate with reliability. The National Enquirer is notable but totally unreliable. Also, interviews with the subject of the article lend very little to notability.  Sources for notability need to be independent and obviously what he has to say about himself is not that.  An interview with a respected authority in the industry about the subject of the article would show notability, if it came from a reliable source. It's really not WP:AGF to infer that editors who have voted here haven't read the article.  And WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid arguement at AfD. It would behoove you to read the instructions for posting here linked at the top of the page. Finally, you seem to be missing an understanding of the basis of notability. It is almost completely based in how much has been written about the subject in reliable sources. His importance in the industry is not all that relevant. The fact is that generally not much is written about people in the music industry that are not performers.John from Idegon (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So basically what your saying is that, their importance in the industry doesn't matter, its how much they are talked about, that is reliable. Your basically saying that the interview is fake, and it isn't notable to be used. That sounds pretty ridiculous to me, its an interview about the person in this article, you basically don't trust the interview because it doesn't look it notable? He is notable for being producing RIAA certified songs with major artists, plus a Grammy nomination. He is just like Boi-1da and Vinylz, they got Grammy nominations, and they make music, a lot which are RIAA certified too. What your saying doesn't really make any sense at all. Xboxmanwar (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I said no such thing. I made no judgement about the reliability or accuracy of any interview with the subject, because interviews with the subject are not relevant to discussions of the subject's notability. Interviews are not independent.  Independent reliable sourcing is required to show notability.  Notability is all that matters in decisions whether to keep or delete articles. You are absolutely correct about one of your statements.  With only a few exceptions detailed at WP:CREATIVE, his accomplishments (or any other non performing music industry person accomplishments whose article's are up for deletion) do not matter.  You have been told this by several people, several times.  Time to start listening. And please stop pinging me.  I have this page watched. John from Idegon (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So then, tell me whats notable for you, what is the difference in notability in terms with this article and Vinylz. I'm interested to know. Xboxmanwar (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have again attempted to clean-up this article, only to have User:Xboxmanwar revert my edits three times. Surprising because he was blocked for edit warring just a week ago, however, at least an attempt was made to remove text not supported by the sources he had cited.  I left notes about some of the edits I unsuccessfully attempted on the article talk page.  That same editor was cautioned on his talk page for canvassing to gain support for this deletion discussion.  Magnolia677 (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have proposed to here that this article be moved to draftspace if he is willing to take personal responsibility for it. I have also offered some advice in the same thread on how to find sources for the article. If he does then this AfD will be moot. I am changing my !vote above to reflect my hope that this will be the outcome. Koala Tea Of Mercy ( KTOM's Articulations &amp; Invigilations ) 14:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Xboxmanwar has had over a month to improve this article and it has remained much the same as it was the last time it was deleted. Furthermore, that editor has been edit warring with those who have tried to improve the article by removing its copious bogus sources.  Allen Ritter is--by Wikipedia's definition--not notable and this article should be deleted.  Magnolia677 (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Magnolia677 In regard to your "over a month" statement, thats because nobody wanted to remove the page, it was fine mostly the way the way it was, just had a few missed errors, but then you came along, removing all this info, saying the sources were wrong, plus you nominated the first AfD for this article too, which means that you wanted this article removed the first time also.


 * Well, your statement on "bogus" sources is wrong. You were ignorant enough to not realize that the "dead" links you removed weren't dead, they were simply not formatted correctly, but didn't fix them, an example here you see that you removed that link thinking it was wrong, but it was simply missing the


 * > | < (the middle separator between the link and the publisher)


 * (its missing here in the link you thought was dead)


 * (as you can see the separator is in there now between the end of the link and the publisher)


 * You should've noticed it and fix it, instead of skimming through it and blindly removing what you barely see, I already fixed I think most of them, there aren't any bogus sources on the page, plus you didn't contribute to the article, you added no sources, there were more sources that could've been added, which I did add some more. Your claim of "trying" to "save" this article isn't a very profound answer, for the reasons I stated in the sentence before this one.


 * As for User:Koala Tea Of Mercy, I appreciate your suggestion and I think it would be a good idea to do so for now, thanks for your help, I will probably do that soon. P.S.: You mentioned on the talk page of this article, that your not my personal search assistant, and I understand that, in fact, I just wanted an opinion on that topic, anyway thank you again. Xboxmanwar (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have moved this article to my draft, as suggested by User:Koala Tea Of Mercy, to further improve. Xboxmanwar (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You did not move anything, Xboxmanwar. You copy and pasted the article under discussion here to User:Xboxmanwar/sandbox/Allen Ritter. What is now sitting in your userspace is a Copyright violation and needs to be deleted immediately. When this discussion closes, if the consensus is to move it to draft, the closer will do it. If the consensus is delete, you can apply to the deleting administrator to WP:REFUND it into draft space for you, but doing so is at that administrator's option. You need to blank your sandbox asap. Copyright is a serious issue. John from Idegon (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * John from Idegon ? Xboxmanwar (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I suggested moving the article to DRAFT space, not copying it your USER space sandbox. There was a reason I said an Admin would need to move the page. The fact that you do not understand what a move is or what DRAFT space is, is very concerning. I suggest you carefully read the WP:DRAFTS link and then decide if you still want the responsibility that using DRAFT space requires. I also suggest you very Very VERY carefully read WP:RS and WP:N since some of your choices (and some of your talk page comments) suggest you do not fully understand those policies. Koala Tea Of Mercy ( KTOM's Articulations &amp; Invigilations ) 09:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My issue is that the editor who marked this AfD claims that even through he was still nominated for a Grammy with other people, the editor still thinks that the article is failing WP:MUSICBIO, and the editor is trying to say to overrule the Grammy nomination, which they cannot do, and I don't like the fact that some editors "feel" like that he isn't notable, and that other editors makes comments that he needs to be "talked" about by big sources to have his own article. Per WP:MUSICBIO, he has songs that also meets these two things:


 * 2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.


 * 3. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.


 * I already explained earlier in another paragraph that he has songs that he worked on that are RIAA-certified, and songs that he also worked on that are on the charts and songs that he worked on that were on the charts before, but not anymore, which means that even without the Grammy nomination, he still meets the criteria for WP:MUSICBIO. Xboxmanwar (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

1st: If you have any issues with other editor(s) those problems do not belong being discussed on this page. This is an AfD page and the conversation should be limited to the article and its sources, not dragging in any personal disputes. On this page write about the sources as if the other editor does not exist. Tell new editors why those sources are both reliable and significant (see WP:GNG for a definition of "significant coverage") sources capable of satisfying the requirements of WP:N.

2nd: While you seem to be genuinely trying to improve the article you also seem to be not understanding much about how Wikipedia works. You seem to be making the common mistake of thinking that when WP editors are talking about "notable" or "notability" they are using the words like they are defined in the dictionary. We are not! When WP editors use the word "notability" (unless explicitly saying otherwise) we are referring to the very specialized Wikipedia-specific use of the word as defined at WP:Notability. Being famous, being respected, winning awards, and doing great work are not "notable" in the WP world. Having reliable sources write stuff about who the guy is and why he is famous is WP:Notable. Having reliable sources write stuff about his being respected and why he is respected is WP:Notable. Having reliable sources write stuff about the awards he has won and why he has won them is WP:Notable. Having reliable sources write stuff about his work and why it is great work is WP:Notable. Just being/having/doing is not notable at WP, reliable sources must write stuff about this and not in a trivial way (again, read WP:GNG). Trivial coverage provides no "meat" for using to write a WP article.

3rd: Yes, there are articles out there that fail everything I just said. And guess what? I guarantee that someday some editor is going to tag those articles for deletion unless they can be upgraded to meet those criteria. It is just a matter of time. If an article is going to survive on WP it must meet the minimum criteria described to every editor who bothers to read the instructions found at About Wikipedia, Wikipedia's 5 Pillars, and the guide to writing Your First Article. (Here is a good hint: Click all wiki-links used on Talk Pages and read them.)

4th, and finally: This last is addressed to both you and. You have both spent more time fighting each other than creating good articles. You have both displayed a remarkable lack of good faith (which is required at WP) and poor editing behaviors. You have wasted your time and worse, you have dragged in and wasted the time of other WP editors because neither of you seems to understand that Wikipedia is a team effort that requires civility (which is also required at WP) and courteous discussion. It is okay to disagree but do it politely, keep a cool head, and beware your own personal tigers. You both are acting like little kids and if you acted this way in an business office you would be fired. If either of you continues acting this way at WP you will very likely both risk being banned. It is just a matter of time. If you want to contribute to WP then learn the rules and follow them.

And by the way, for the record, I am very much an Inclusionist so don't be thinking I like seeing articles get deleted. I do not. But we have rules and without them we would have a pile of crap instead of an encyclopedia. Koala Tea Of Mercy ( KTOM's Articulations &amp; Invigilations ) 18:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * - I have responded to your insults on your talk page. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * - is not insulting you, nor they are insulting me either, they are simply stating the truth, Koala Tea Of Mercy, I respect all your points, and your right, our feud needs to stop, but I need to tell you something about Magnolia677, no offense to them, but that editor needs to use common sense, as in many articles I witnessed, tries to do everything exact, and it gets me fed up with it, it seems that they never seem to ignore the policies at times. Also, since Magnolia677 failed to explain why this article isn't notable enough to have his own article (even through they say this article fails WP:MUSICBIO, it doesn't, as stated in the linked guidelines and what he has achieved), Koala Tea Of Mercy, I want your opinion on why this article might not be notable enough to have its own article, despite you being an inclusionist, the other editors here specifically only stated that this fails that, without saying how it fails, only saying to go read the independent guideline that the article failed to pass, I want to see your understanding of it. Thank you. Xboxmanwar (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

He is not discussed in the article as a musician. All of the poor references you have provided are to him being a writer and or producer. The fact that he is a musician is unreferenced. Writers and producers are not covered by MUSICBIO. The applicable standard is CREATIVE. With that I am done here. It is obvious you are not going to listen to anything I or anyone else says. This discussion will be closed in the next few days. I can only hope that the closing admin looks at your WP:IDHT behavior here and considers that before userfying the article to you. John from Idegon (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - He was still Grammy-nominated, regardless of all the other nominated people, it can't be overruled. He worked with artists on songs that are RIAA-certified, for example (Google it for proof, I'm not posting a ton of links to the songs or their certifications), Work by Rihanna, No New Friends by DJ Khaled, The Language by Drake, Blessings by Big Sean, All Day by Kanye West, R.I.C.O. by Meek Mill and Back to Sleep by Chris Brown. He also won two 2016 ASCAP Rhythm & Soul Award plaques for Blessings and All Day. This guy has a lot notability, and he has been in the industry for some time now, since 2010, I think he deserves his own article. Xboxmanwar (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That would all be great, except the subject of the article in question is not a musician and WP:MUSICBIO does not apply to him. Yawn. John from Idegon (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * John from Idegon Of course he is a musician (not mention that he is a singer and a pianist), it does apply to him, read where I pinged you at. Xboxmanwar (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for needed information to prove WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO
Below is my understanding of the problems with this article but I am going to put it to you as a list of bullets that you need to supply references for. How you reply to these will certainly persuade the uninvolved editors one way or the other about the WP:notability of this topic/person. Be sure you vet your sources to make sure they are both (A) WP:reliable sources as we define them and (B) include "significant" coverage" as defined at WP:GNG. If you an provide 3 or 4 of these from sources that most Wikipedians consider reliable you will probably have met the minimum standard for WP:notability. Now add to that the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO and I will ask one last bullet... Good luck. Koala Tea Of Mercy ( KTOM's Articulations &amp; Invigilations ) 05:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What can you tell us (a.k.a. write in the article with sources) about the man besides basic bio statistics. His history? His family? Anything personal that is relevant to his work?
 * What can you tell us about his work besides that he is what he is? "The guy has a job/career as X" is not significant coverage. What do other people say about his work?
 * Besides being able to simply list his credits and awards, what else can you tell us about his work and accomplishments?
 * Can you provide any well-sourced commentaries, interviews, or articles where other people of influence or journalistic repute have talked about the guy or his work?
 * Which 1 (or more) of the 12 specific criteria listed in WP:MUSICBIO can you prove and with what sources? Read the descriptions of those criteria carefully because your answers to these questions will be scrutinized by everyone. Expect the sources to be challenged for both verifiable content and reliability, as they should be.

Responses

 * Response 1 - In response to Koala Tea Of Mercy,


 * I want to mention something that I noticed that's worthy enough to explain.


 * I noticed that there was more guidelines below WP:MUSICBIO, an extension to it, WP:COMPOSER (I blindly never saw them until now).
 * So I read those additional guidelines, and now, here is what I found, in two parts, Part 1 and Part 2, plus a small note at the end.
 * Please read everything, and check everything, and tell me your response please.


 * Part 1 -
 * I found that the article on Allen Ritter doesn't fail WP:COMPOSER, as specified in that guideline (He is a composer/songwriter/record producer, also record producer are composers/songwriters too, they are making a piece of music, its considered composing/writing it):


 * 1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.
 * (Check singles below.)


 * Ritter is either credited as a couple of the following, composer/songwriter/record producer (There are different listings on him, which he has different credits on) on the following notable singles (Notable in terms of charts, RIAA-Certification and radio airplay, I also mentioned all of these singles before):


 * Work by Rihanna featuring Drake from the album Anti has charted on the Billboard Hot 100 and it's peak was 1.
 * It's RIAA 3x Multi-Platinum Certification
 * Ritter's credit proof --   


 * No New Friends by DJ Khaled featuring Drake, Rick Ross & Lil Wayne from the album Suffering from Success has charted on the Billboard Hot 100 and it's peak was 37.
 * It's RIAA Gold Certication
 * Ritter's credit proof --   


 * The Language by Drake from the album Nothing Was the Same has charted on the Billboard Hot 100 and it's peak was 51.
 * It's RIAA Gold Certification


 * Blessings by Big Sean featuring Drake from the album Dark Sky Paradise has charted on the Billboard Hot 100 and it's peak was 28.
 * It's RIAA 2x Multi-Platinum Certification


 * All Day by Kanye West featuring Theophilus London, Allan Kingdom & Paul McCartney has charted on the Billboard Hot 100 and it's peak was 15.
 * It's RIAA Gold Certification


 * R.I.C.O. by Meek Mill featuring Drake from the album Dreams Worth More Than Money has charted on the Billboard Hot 100 and it's peak was 40.
 * It's RIAA Gold Certification
 * Ritter's credit proof ❌ --  


 * Back to Sleep by Chris Brown from the album Royality has charted on the Billboard Hot 100 and it's peak was 20.
 * It's RMNZ Gold Certification
 * (This single hasn't gotten a RIAA Certification, but the album which contains the song has charted and has gotten an RIAA Certification, as shown below.)
 * (This single hasn't gotten a RIAA Certification, but the album which contains the song has charted and has gotten an RIAA Certification, as shown below.)


 * Royality by Chris Brown has charted on the Billboard 200 and it's peak was 3.
 * It's RIAA Gold Certification


 * Part 2 -
 * I also found the article on Ritter also doesn't fail WP:MUSICBIO, as specified in that guideline, also, some honorable mentions, he is a singer and a pianist (He is qualified for the following because of his association of the listed singles and above, and some additional matters that apply to him also):


 * 2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.
 * (Check above.)


 * 3. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
 * (Check above.)


 * 8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
 * (Grammy-nominated, regardless of him being nominated with 18 other people, he was still Grammy-nominated, also, he was awarded ✅ for Blessings by Big Sean featuring Drake & All Day by Kanye West featuring Theophilus London, Allan Kingdom & Paul McCartney.)


 * 9. Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition.
 * (One of the first place winners of the 2003 McDonald's Gospelfest music competition in Westbury, New York, he was part of a youth choir group called Harmony, the group is made up of the Ritter family, according to one of it's members (his sister), and the competition itself appears to be legitimate and big enough to be cited.)


 * 11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.
 * (Check above, all those singles were released to radio stations for radio airplay across the USA, possibly other countries too.)


 * Note - I will provide more information about him, his family, his interviews, all that good stuff later, it took me a long time to sum this up, but I will wrap it up soon. Thank you again. Xboxmanwar (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I think you are just not understanding what is required. Every specific claim needs a specific source.
 * Your claim that he is "credited" on these songs ( which I have no doubt is true but my opinion does not matter because I am not a source ) needs to have sources that prove those credits exist as described and so far your one-and-only source for supporting this claim (see the http://www.ascap.com/rsawards link in Part 2) says that he was a "Writer" on Blessings and All Day.
 * Suggestion: If he is credited on the actual album covers or liner notes then you can use those for citations. There is no rule that all sources have to be online, only that any person can check the source for themselves if they are willing to find and gain access to that source (which sometimes is hard but not impossible). In this case a quick trip to a music store would prove (or disprove) such sources easily. Read WikiProject_Albums/Sources, especially the section named "Other Sources". Be careful and be sure that the source actually says what his role on the song/album was and use that exact job title when completing the citation template.
 * That same source also talks about a "Producer" named "ritter boy" but I can find no source except a linkedin.com page ( which is definitely NOT a reliable source ) that connects those two names in any way, so you will need to find a reliable source to prove that "ritter boy" is Allen Ritter if you want to claim he was producer on those two songs.
 * Out of all the "sources" you linked to in Part 1 above not a single one of them even has the word "Ritter" on it. None of these sources help you to establish WP:notability for Mr. Ritter.
 * Finally, and most importantly, you say "I will provide more information about him, his family, his interviews, all that good stuff later". You asked me what was wrong with the article and I replied. I said that 3 or 4 of these "good stuff" items as you call them is "the minimum standard for WP:notability". That means that these should be the first things you are looking for and supplying. Even then it still may not be enough depending on how significant the coverage is and what they cover.
 * Without at least a few of the minimum items the article will not survive. It is not because we are mean or cold, it is because we are an encyclopedia. If we cannot find sources to base the article on, there is no material for us to use to write about the topic. Sometimes a really hard working great guy simply cannot have a WP article because nobody else has written up enough of his story and as an encyclopedia we can only write about what others have already written. It is sad but that is the way it works here. Koala Tea Of Mercy ( KTOM's Articulations &amp; Invigilations ) 06:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Koala Tea Of Mercy I have added the credit proof for the singles, I will provide more information later, I also have proof that Ritter Boy is him, that I will present later. Thank you. Xboxmanwar (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed the Part 1 sources relevant to his credits and color-coded them as ,,, according to my sole opinion of their reliability. If you replace any of these sources please strike-out the entire line of text following the bullet and start a new bullet line below it so it looks like this:
 * old source info -- and ❌ comments.
 * new source info.
 * Sorry but I will not have time to review the other sourcs or revisit this page today so I will see you tomorrow. Koala Tea Of Mercy ( KTOM's Articulations &amp; Invigilations ) 15:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Other responses

 * Delete instead as I'm still not seeing enough confidently better to suggest the substantial independent notability, delete and we'll wait for better overall, as even with improvements, this is not the optimal convincing it could've been. SwisterTwister   talk  04:38, 18 July 2016 (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.