Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batman's career timeline


 * 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   Speedy delete as a copyvio, a noted in the last few comments. Thanks for finding this. I have checked a few entries, and noted that the selection of events exactly matched the one in the book, and that many entries had either the exact same wording, or one only marginally changed. Even though I had participated in this AfD, I don't feel that closing it as a copyvio is a problem. Fram (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Batman's career timeline
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm not sure this is within our remit. I'm thinking along the lines of possible original research, since fiction is not something which can be readily defined given the tendency for writers to change things as they see fit. I'm also wondering how it fits in with WP:NOTDIRECTORY as a collection of indiscriminate information. If there is no inclusion criteria, this will merely grow to be an index of all Batman appearances with plot summary. And if an inclusion criteria is applied, how do we determine it? This is a worthy goal for a fan-site or even as something a fan could submit to DC as a proposal for publication, although I'm not sure what prior publishing on Wikipedia would mean. I suspect DC have a stronger copyright case than we do. Which also calls into play copyright concerns. There undoubtedly are some if this list reaches comprehensiveness. I don't think it is within Wikipedia's remit. Therefore I would suggest deletion. Hiding T 09:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Hiding T 09:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Holy in-universe plot summary, Batman! Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 11:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Holy - you apparently didn't read the page, nor WP:OR, nor WP:PLOT - Batman... - jc37 19:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going with Keep on this one because it does cite sources, and there are other timelines similar to this one that are not under dispute. I'd say to merge it with Batman, but this timeline contains too much information to merge. GO-PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 11:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Almost all those sources are primary source. Those that aren't are not being used to support the timeline itself but the positioning of facts upon a list made up out of nowhere.  The list itself is what should be deleted.  Hiding T 11:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So you don't have a problem with the information, just that it was presented in a list format? (Listing based upon the publication date of the comics that the information was presented.) I've got to be misunderstanding you. - jc37 19:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that is it in a nutshell. Explain to me the cut-off point for inclusion. And I'd go further than you with the list title: (Listing of events related to Batman in order of occurrence in first publication or broadcast). I see no end to the list, and no selection criteria other than the whim of the Wikipedian; the very thing WP:OR and WP:NPOV guard against. Here's a scenario: "Why can't I add this?"  "Because I said so." "Why have you added that?" "Because I think it is important."  Hiding T 08:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, but that's an easy answer. Such events are defined as "notable" enough (to be added to the list) via sourcing. Just because the page isn't currently sourced to your or my preference, doesn't mean that this (which I might call a "stub list", despite its length), should be deleted. (And I think Postdlf makes some interesting points below, as well.) - jc37 00:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete because although it's well-researched, it's... original research. The sources are the comics themselves; this is not reporting on anything verifiable. It is drawing its own conclusions and reporting plot directly from the source. I'm going with "weak" because I hate to toss away someone's work so cavalierly...but it is not in line with policy. Frank  |  talk  11:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Take a moment and please actually read WP:OR, please. much (though not all) of the page is from a primary source. And believe it or not, primary sources are allowed under certain conditions. And I believe that this is one of those. - jc37 19:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would suggest Jc, it is you that needs to re-read WP:OR. It clearly states "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position" is original research.  This list synthesises and analyses events that have been depicted in comic books based on a position imposed by a wikipedian.  It's the very definition of WP:OR.  This isn't a debate about whether we are allowed to use primary source; this is a debate about how we use them.  We cannot use them to advance a position.  Either every Batman appearance is to be included or none are. Here's another scenario:  Say a work exists which does precisely this, delineates Batman's career.  Wouldn't that make the perfect source?  It would give us the perfect inclusion criteria, the perfect listing, and the perfect copyright lawsuit. So, you can't do this because to do so you have to make it up, and if you're copying it you can't do it because you're breaking the law. Those, for me, are the breaks. You need prior analysis to make the point that this particular time-line is of note; and if one exists, you immediately breach copyright law.  My issue is with the list itself.  It cannot be other than WP:OR and WP:POV. You simply cannot add one published event and not another to this list without advancing a point of view. Now maybe a case can be made for keeping the list if we only add items which have been noted in secondary sources; for example Les Daniels notes first appearances in his book on Batman.  But that to me has issues with copyright law. Hiding T 09:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I have read it. Believe it or not, I read that section on sourcing almost every day that I edit here.
 * And I disagree with the "all or nothing" scenario. As I mentioned above, inclusion should be based upon sourcing. Yes, I would like to see every line of this sourced, both from the issue noted, and from some source noting/illustrating its notability for inclusion. But that makes this a "work-in-progress". Place a template at the top requesting sources, and perhaps even try to help. But to propose it for deletion because it's not currently sourced seems rather anti-wiki to me. I thought starting a page with the hopes someone else would help, was one of the keystones of Wikipedia. - jc37 00:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete; I can sort of see the value in a list like this, but our article on Batman already does it so much better, albiet in prose form. The article needs a cleanup (and probably a rename, too) if it's going to stay. Some entries, like "The Joker and Catwoman (then, referred to as "The Cat") debut in the launch of Batman's own, self-titled series", are all well and good, but stuff like "Batman dons night-vision goggles for the first time" isn't exactly relevant to the series. Nifboy (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with most of your points. But since AfD is not cleanup, this shouldn't be deleted, but instead cleaned up! - jc37 19:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In this instance no-one has yet suggested how this article can be cleaned up to satisfy policy. To me it means creating a completely different article.  Therefore... And AFD is cleanup.  I have never understood how the idea that afd is not cleanup took hold.  What on earth are we doing through deletion if not cleaning up the database? AFD is cleanup. But this is a side issue and doesn't serve to debate the merits of the article we have before us, rather than the article we wish we had before us. Hiding T 09:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "In this instance no-one has yet suggested how this article can be cleaned up to satisfy policy." - I believe I have, and I believe J Greb has, below.
 * And nearly every other XfD has changed to from X for Deletion, to X for discussion, except AfD. I'd love to see the name changed to indicate exactly what you said, that AfD can be done in order to "peer review" an article as to whether it should be kept, deleted, renamed, cleaned up, etc. But that's not quite clear yet with AfD. If you would like to start such a discussion I'd be happy to join in. - jc37 00:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Plot summary with zero context. Trying to shoehorn this into another article via merge would probably do more harm than good. Townlake (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Batman is one of the most iconic, recognizable characters in all of comics. He has been around since 1939 and has had numerous adaptions made about him (via animation, live-action television and film, and video games).  It would do the character more good (in terms of serving as a relatively important history lesson) than you could imagine to showcase a "career timeline" through all of the important eras/ages in the comics. Besides, if you're going to delete this article about Batman's career timeline and more importantly, his evolution as a superhero/crime fighter, then you might as well do the same about the article entitled "History of Superman". TMC1982 (talk) 7:19 p.m., 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment That's not a good comparison to ask people to make... a bullet point, cruftfest, in-universe POV list and a fairly well written, prose piece that is grounded with real world context. That's without looking at the footnotes (minimal 'notes as opposed to "mini-articles") and reference (some but more needed vs "There are some there?"). And then there's the 44 external links... - J Greb (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And on that note... Delete. Yes, "History of Superman" is a good example of how an article for the publication, licensing, and merchandising history of a long running comic book character. But what here now isn't that type of article, and it doesn't look like it will become that type of article. - J Greb (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Still, a "career timeline" registers as a source of history and relevance. Except for the Batman article, it focuses strictly on the comics/publication from 1939 through the present.  And another thing, how exactly is this a POV list?  The primary source was from "The Ultimate Batman Guide".  Besides, how else is a timeline supposed to look light other than anything resembling a "bullet point, cruftfest"!? TMC1982 (talk) 7:42 p.m., 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Another thing J Greb, why does it bother you that I've provided at least 44 external links? I would figure, that you were somebody who would otherwise appreciate the idea of backing up the article with what's otherwise known as sources (so it won't just look like original research in your estimation)! TMC1982 (talk) 7:55 p.m., 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "POV" is the point of view, the voice, the aspect that the article is phrased in. Yes, this is given the vernier of dealing with publication order, but it's strictly "in the overall comic universe story, this happens, then this, then this, and he does this, and then he first uses this now, and then faces him and her." That's speaking from an in universe POV. Worse, its presenting information from an editor's own decision of what is important. "Besides, how else is a timeline supposed to look light other than anything resembling a "bullet point, cruftfest"!?" Bluntly? Delete the cruft. Tighten it down to "• 'Cover date': Batman's first appearance in print. (Series #)", drop the plot points, and work on a threshold where items are added or removed based on how trivial they are (for example, the introduction of the Batmobile isn't trivial, but the first use of night vision goggles is). The last, finding that threshold, is going to wind up being a thorny issue with a lot of items needing discussion about why they are included. External links — Read through WP:EL, especially the "Important points to remember" section. Point 4 and 5 apply here. First, "Keep it minimal". 44 isn't minimal, even 11 is a bit much. Second, "Try to avoid linking multiple pages from one site". Only 1/4 of the links are base hubs, the rest are all sub pages. And if they are the references, then put them in a reference section, or, even better, use the in-line cite web to cite the specific subpage in the article body. Though keep in mind, using them as references means they are what would be considered "reliable sources", and a few of them (especially those that are part of other wikis) will fail that. - J Greb (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of what J Greb said above. No question that the page needs cleanup. One thing I'd like to disagree with though is: "...in the overall comic universe story..." - The events aren't in the "overall universe story". In fact, many are not considered cononical in the DCU. - jc37 22:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Indiscriminate collection of in-universe information with poor writing throughout. This is not necessary at all. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It wasn't my intent to provide in-depth or lengthy paragraphs (for a year by year point of reference). That's sort of what the main Batman article is for. TMC1982 (talk) 8:33 p.m., 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your intention, this article is unnecessary and full of information that simply dictates items taken from the comics themselves, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, why exactly is it unnecessary? I already said that Batman is one of the most iconic, well known characters in all of comics and popular media.  Just because you believe that it's unnecessary, doesn't automatically mean that it is truly the case.  Besides, there's already an article called "Batman in popular media" besides the main/general "Batman" article. TMC1982 (talk) 9:40 p.m., 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Batman being well-known and iconic is not a valid rationale for keeping this article. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You still didn't exactly answer my question about why it isn't "valid rationale" for keeping the article other than vaguely stating that it's an "indiscrimate collection of in-universe information with poor writing throughout". TMC1982 (talk) 10:38 p.m., 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and examination of What Wikipedia Is Not provides a valid rationale for deleting this article. I'm as inclusionist as they come when it comes to Wikipedia, but this type of article isn't appropriate for the purposes of this site. Townlake (talk) 05:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay then, explain the justification for "Timeline of the DC Universe" and "List of comic book supervillain debuts" being on Wikipedia also! TMC1982 (talk) 10:43 p.m., 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been meaning to put up the former of those up for deletion for a bit. I might get to it tomorrow. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Care to explain a rationale? - jc37 19:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, in universe plot summary (in a different format than the usual plot summary, but a plot summary nevertheless). A timeline that focuses on the different media, the recption, the succession of artists, ... may be a good article in some cases: a timeline that focuses on the story or the characters isn't. Fram (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * First, please show how it's a "plot summary". (To me, this merely looks like a list of events in a publication. A bit different than summarising a plot.) - jc37 19:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How is a "plot summary" different from a list of events? How is something like "Julie Madison calls off her engagement to Bruce Wayne because of his playboy lifestyle. Meanwhile, using the name Portia Storme, Julie dons a Robin costume as the Dynamic Duo battle Clayface." not a plot summary? If you add in the plot summary of a book the page numbers of where X happens, it is still a plot summary. I don't see any difference with this. Fram (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if we were to agree that this page is overall a plot summary (of which I still disgree somewhat), WP:PLOT states the following: "A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." - In this case, each of these is even less than a "concise plot", but just a note about certain events that occurred in a specific publication. It's a list of events, presented as a list which is sorted by year of publication (not "in-universe" years). And it's useful per Summary style, to many of the other Batman-related articles. So this page is "part of the larger coverage" of Batman and the Batman Family of articles. - jc37 20:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I can honestly see the merits of a timeline article for this fictional character but, the information needs to timeline both the in-universe and "out-universe" stuff. For instance ret-cons and why they happened need to be included. Real world impact needs to be included in order for this to be properly viable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you feel that the page "needs" something, then let's add it. (AfD is not cleanup, after all.) Though I think that there are some good examples of what you note. - jc37 19:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Listcruft of the worst sort, WP:WAX is not a good enough argument to keep it. treelo  radda  14:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither is WP:CRUFT to delete it. Care to actually comment rather than "vote"? - jc37 19:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that is true but exchange "listcruft" for "a list not suited for Wikipedia" if you like. I did read it and found it to be a bit too in-depth for Wikipedia. I won't shirk from calling it cruft if it's only of specific interest to fans but don't assume I'm just "voting" because I feel a deletion would be better than a cleanup. I've said my part, I won't argue to defend my position any further, it's just an AfD. treelo  radda  22:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * AfD is not a "vote". So if you don't more fully explain your position, the closer may rightly ignore/discount your "vote". - jc37 22:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hiding T 08:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. In-universe, plot summary, listcruft. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I see that I'm in the minority here, but in looking over the page, it seems to me that several of those commenting above didn't actually bother to read the page. (And really look quite a bit like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Comments of "listcruft", in particular.) This isn't an "in-universe timeline". Otherwise, the character would be almost 70 years old "in-universe". And that's obviously not the case. This is a list of major events in a publication. The first time that x happens, for example. So this is a way to put the various other articles related to Batman into perspective. DOes the list need some cleanup? Yes, obviously. But that's not a reason to delete it. - jc37 19:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That the in-universe universe doesn't follow normal ageing is not really evidence that it is not "in-universe". This list discusses what happens in the story. "What happens in the story" = "plot summary". It does not discuss artists, publication rhythm, circulation, reception, format, ...: all things that can be discussed in the form of a timeline and which would be "out-of-universe". This isn't... Fram (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not in the story, but rather in each story. Each story is presented separately ordered by "real world" publication. And note that quite a bit on this page isn't currently considered canon for the current "history" of the character Batman, so it isn't part of an "ongoing story", per se. And this information is listed in order of publication, and not "in-universe". - jc37 20:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the "in-universe" comments above; this is ordered by real-world publication (issue cover date), and attributes all of the fictional events to specific comic book issues. In that sense, it is similar to television episode lists (e.g., List of The West Wing episodes) which give real-world data such as airdate for context but contain one or two lines of plot summary.  Because this is organized by real world chronology, sources the actual publications by title and issue number, and does not give excessive plot summary, I don't believe it is any more in-universe than such episode lists, and no more of a copyright concern.  Contrast with the abhorrent Fictional history of Spider-Man which attempts to depict current "canon" (i.e., what the character's current editors have cherry-picked as "true" of the character's past) without any real-world chronology and with minimal reference to the actual publications; I do believe that such an in-universe "fictional history" is at risk of being a copyright infringement because it's just a condensation of fiction, without the transformative context and educational justification provided by real world facts.
 * That being said...I'm not entirely sure that Batman's career timeline is appropriate for a stand-alone list article. I don't know that it has any greater inclusion criteria problem than a prose article about Batman's publication history would have as to what individual comic book issue stories merit description, but maybe this timeline format is a bigger invitation to overinclusion.  But my issue is that it more seems like preparatory notes for a list article (presuming the information is valid) than a list article in its own right.  For now I'm just going to say weak keep and retitle to something appropriately out-of-universe that accurately reflects its contents (something with the words "publication history"), but at a minimum it should be userfied or otherwise preserved as a good resource of the character's development.  Postdlf (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no need for this article to exist. It's an indiscriminate collection of information, much of which is trivial, with no clear criteria for inclusion. Just because parts of it are out-of-universe doesn't make it notable. And at the very least, the article should be retitled, because it doesn't focus on Batman's career (which it shouldn't anyway, because he's not real); instead it lists assorted events from Batman-related comics. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agreed above with the need to retitle ("Batman's career" is an in-universe title) and am aware of the concern of including trivia, but at present it seems to be limited to debuts of characters and devices, and notable story events (character firsts, changes, etc.). So what we have is a real-world chronologically ordered list of how the Batman character has been developed and used over time in DC Comics; we know from reading this timeline that the origin story regarding his parents' death was not introduced until several months/issues after the character's debut, that Gotham City was first mentioned as his home nearly two years later...  There could probably be some trimming (I don't know what the significance of his first use of night-goggles is supposed to be), but I don't think the timeline is inherently or necessarily indiscriminate and I don't think it's impossible to maintain.  Postdlf (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * List of events in Batman-related publications (or "...comics", or something similar)? - jc37 00:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Postdlf: Would the article title and content you're referring to essentially be Batman franchise media? Frank  |  talk  02:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your comment. Postdlf (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it just seems that if you retitled the article, it would be the one I linked above. Frank  |  talk  03:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I understood that's what you were saying, but I don't understand why you'd say that. Postdlf (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been asked to clarify my thinking on this, and I think it is important to do that here rather than on my talk page, because it affects this article. I have no objection to this article being kept.  I have no objection to it being userfied.  But I want to clarify the purpose of the list and that the purpose of the list meets the remit we have for ourselves.  My thinking tends to mirror Postdlf's. At the minute the article has a minimal lead which conveys absolutely no context for inclusion criteria, something which our guidance on lists and leads expects.  Now that's a clean-up issue, yes, but, depending on the context of the list, it can be a deletion issue too.
 * Now let us take a stroll down the list. We have Batman's_career_timeline. What makes this grouping more discriminate than any other sequence of events from the published comics?  What happens if Batman ate a jam sandwich in December? Do we add that?  Do we not?  How do we add and edit this list in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR? I don;t see how you can.  Some lists can be made on Wikipedia within those two policies, because they define themselves: "List of Olympic medallists" defines itself, there are no immediate POV issues over inclusion and there are no WP:OR issues since Wikipedians are not making value judgements on what goes onto the list. WP:V is not an issue in either of these lists, the Batman facts are easily citable to the comics, the medallists to Olympic results. So, how do we discriminate what we place on the list without breaching our policies. What makes June Madison worthy of entry?  Does this mean every romance is to be listed?
 * SO we have another issue with the list: the point of completion. If this list becomes complete, in my mind that means it has to list every single case that Batman has worked on, because this is timeline of the career of Batman.  It also means it has to reflect every depiction of Batman, movies, serials, radio, novels, because we have no qualifiers. No context.  No limits.  Now before anyone attempts to rebut this point I make this strong caveat: The onus is on you to show me inclusion criteria which don't amount to original research; they cannot be arbitrary limits decided by editors. These have to be self selecting rules.  I can't think of any. I apologise for that.  The best I can come up with is making an aggregate list of all events and characters for which we have an article, because those events and characters are of note per WP:N. So, I have no objection to keeping a list.  I object to keeping this list in this form.  I appreciate AFD is not clean up, but I have to balance that against Wikipedia not being a place for indiscriminate pieces of information or a place to publish original research or copyright infringing material.  And in my opinion, if this list were to be complete on the criteria seemingly imposed, there would be copyright issues. Mike Godwin has stated that "relevant provisions of copyright law, trademark law, etc" have to be followed when writing about fictional universes.  An article of this scope, when complete, does not appear to me to be within copyright law.  I think it pushes fair use too far.  I am prepared to accept that point is open to debate, especially by Postdlf, and that ultimately no opinion is worth more than a Judge's.
 * This is probably moot at this point if the copyvio comments below are accurate (I have not checked), but I think your interesting comments merit response. I think the inclusion criteria for a list such as this are the same that limit any article&mdash;the editorial judgment of our fine volunteer contributors as to what is significant and relevant rather than trivial.  2008 in the United States has no expressly stated limiting criteria for what events occurring in 2008 in the United States should be included, and so could obviously expand to a ridiculous "point of completion," so that anything reported anywhere would literally fit.  Yet I don't think we're overly concerned about whether maintaining that list invites such entries as "Britney Spears photographed without makeup outside a Denny's in Topeka" or "Detective Comics #506 published, in which Batman eats a jam sandwich" (actually a truly fabulous image to ponder).  And I don't think such lists necessarily have different concerns than prose articles.  The main article topic Batman also doesn't have any express self-selecting criteria as to what information about Batman should be included that would exclude a description of Batman fabulously eating a jam sandwich.  So the integrity of that article depends just as much as any list upon the editorial judgment and consensus of contributors that such fact would not be significant enough to merit coverage.  See also Handling trivia and WP:UNDUE.  Postdlf (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as copyvio from Batman: The Ultimate Guide to the Dark Knight (ISBN 0-7566-1121-0). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Copyvio verified. The Amazon book listing lets you search the contents of the book. Townlake (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In looking over the link, all I see is a note that there is a "timeline" in the table of contents. Can anyone verify that this timeline is that timeline? If so, then yes, delete without prejudice. But if not, I presume that this isn't a reason to delete. - jc37 00:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Two editors have noted it, and the link above will allow any other editor who can successfully use a search box to do the same. Townlake (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2008 (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.