Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Depression Quest


 * 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 keep. Speedy keep per WP:SNOW, but using admin discretion to specify that this is without prejudice to individual noms (group nom for varied topics within a same field is a bad idea); thanks however to NickCT for at least trying to make a good-faith attempt at a bold solution to a long-standing dramafest. Hopefully a partial solution might emerge from individual discussions about merging some articles into others. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Depression Quest

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Following a discussion on Jimbo's talkpage, I'm submitting several articles loosely related to the Gamergate Controversy (i.e. Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu, Fredrick Brennan, Depression Quest) to AfD. I submit these articles under the following rationale;
 * Examining these articles' edit histories makes it clear that they were created in response to the Gamergate Controversy. It is not clear that the subjects of these articles would be notable outside their role in this single event. It is not clear the Gamergate Controversy would qualify as highly significant; thus, per WP:BLP1E, individual articles for these subjects may not be appropriate.
 * The Gamergate Controversy article became subject of a significant Arbcom Case, which seemed to make it evident that a number of WP editors had become passionately concerned with the event, and some even felt personal affected by it. That said, we should remember that Notability is global. Things are notable if the "outside world" (i.e. not the world of Wikipedians) has taken note of it. The Gamergate Controversy and related articles have clearly been subject to far more attention on WP than would be warranted by coverage in reliable source. It seems likely these articles exist as a result of navel gazing rather than genuine notability.
 * Finally, an argument based outside of policy; the amount of wikidrama surrounding this event and related articles seems unhealthy. For the benefit of WP as a whole, it may help to reduce the amount coverage given to these subjects.

As a personal post-script, I'd like to note that I'm not proposing these deletions out of misogynism or callousness towards alleged victims of cyberbullying. Misogyny and cyberbullying (including but not limited to doxing, death threats and/or threats of violence/injury) are pretty pathetic, lame and immature. That said, unfortunately misogyny and cyberbullying do exist, and we should be careful not to use WP as a soapbox to highlight individual examples of those practices which aren't covered by external sources.

Unfortunately, given the number of WP editors who have become personally involved/interested with the Gamergate Controversy, I seriously doubt all or any of these proposals will be succesful. To those editors with extensive history editing Gamergate articles, I'd ask you to try to dispassionately assess the proposed deletions by our notability guidelines.

I may propose more deletions using the rationales above, if I find more articles which appear to be created purely in response to Gamergate. NickCT (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - I am full on against the notion to delete these articles. They're all properly sourced and have notability to them. I mean, God sakes. Depression Quest and Zoe Quinn were known before GamerGate. Frederick is pretty much 8chan's M00t. And while I will say GamerGate casted a spotlight on Wu, there's still enough info on her to warrant an article here on this site. I'm really getting tired of people wanting to delete articles or have an all out war on this site just because some people have differing opinions on GamerGate here. It's been almost a year since this whole thing started for crying out loud. GamerPro64  14:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - Tired of which people wanting to delete these articles? This is their first deletion request. And if they were known before GamerGate, why didn't they have articles before GamerGate? NickCT (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Zoe Quinn was nominated for deletion in June 2014 (pre GamerGate) and was kept; Brianna Wu was nominated in October 2014; Frederick Brennan was nominated in December 2014. TheZoe Quinn article was created in May 2014, months before GamerGate. - Bilby (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, you nominated Depression Quest while its in the middle of a Good Article Nomination. While not uncommon, couldn't you have at least waited for the outcome on the nomination? GamerPro64  14:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - Ok. I missed the earlier AfDs. Apologies. Re "TheZoe Quinn article was created in May 2014" - True. But if you look at the earliest revisions of her article they reference the harrassment that would become Gaergate. Her article was clearly created in response to the nascent Gamergate. NickCT (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The harassment that would become GamerGate? Starting from May 2014? Oh come on. I feel like you're grasping at straws at this point. GamerPro64  15:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - So you're saying that the harassment mentioned in Quinn's earliest revisions wasn't Gamergate? Could be. I'm really not that familiar with the controversy. But it strikes me as unusual that she would have been subject to multiple different events of harassment over the same thing. NickCT (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is probably better to think of it that some of the harassment Quinn has gotten from GG is continuation of harassment she got prior to GG as a result of releasing DQ; the harassment from GG built atop that with other factors (re claims from Gjoni's post) joining in. --M ASEM (t)


 * Speedy Keep and seriously consider blocking nominator for disrupting the Wikipedia to make a point. This is a frivolous nomination. --GRuban (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - Read the discussion on Jimbo's talkpage. I'm not alone in feeling the amount of coverage on this topic ought to be reduced. NickCT (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nominating four articles for deletion when you yourself don't think you'll succeed is an excellent example of WP:POINT. --GRuban (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - Ok. So how would you go about delete pages that probably don't meet notability guidelines, but for one reason or another wouldn't be deleted by AfD? NickCT (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * They do meet Notability guidelines, easily: "extensive coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That's why they haven't been deleted. Probably? You mean you nominated them without even you yourself being sure? Yet you are wasting our time here? What does WP:POINT mean to you? --GRuban (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - Your argument is that you must be sure that articles don't meet notability guidelines before nominating? So all unsuccessful deletion are bad faith essentially? Seems like a high standard. I think AfD exists to test notability. NickCT (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep No reason for deletion of a notable (shows NYT coverage)topic is given. If one feels the content in any article gives undue weight to anything, then the article talk page is the proper venue.  Nominating multiple articles when one feels the case for deletion is weak is bootless.  Collect (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - Did you look at those NYT articles? Almost all of them cover GamerGate as the primary topic. Seems to re-enforce the WP:BLP1E argument. NickCT (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that does not mean this topic is BLP1E (I would point out that this article is about the game, thus must meet notability requirements as the game and BLP1E is very weak when dealing with an article about the game.) Collect (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep All the other points I'd like to make have been done by other editors, so I'll just address the whole wikidrama angle: The vast majority of edit warring, topic bans, and drama in this topic area is centered on the Gamergate controversy article. These related articles for the most part don't attract that much drama, just the odd BLP smear every few months. Deleting these articles wouldn't cull the drama, because most of the time they are not where the drama comes from. Brustopher (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - Fair enough. But should we really be maintaining articles that were generated because of Wikidrama, even when those articles don't generate much drama themselves? NickCT (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As has already been pointed out, most of the articles you've nominated were created months before Gamergate began, by people who have subsequently had no involvement in this wikidrama. The one article created during the drama (Brennan) was largely written by GRuban: who I don't think has even touched the Gamergate article (correct me if wrong). It's clear you're trying to do a good thing here, but you don't seem to properly understand the issues you're trying to provide a solution for. Brustopher (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - Look at the earliest iterations of the Brennan article. It includes reference to Gamergate. I don't think it's a stretch to say that it might have been created in response to GamerGate. Certainly the timing of the creation would suggest that's the case. NickCT (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry Nick, I phrased my response poorly. The Brennan article was clearly created due to coverage resulting from Gamergate drama. However, it wasn't created as a result of Gamergate wikidrama, but instead by an established editor with no prior involvement (I think) in any Gamergate edit dispute.Brustopher (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - Ok. So my question is would there be an article on Brennan if there was no GG? And if not, doesn't that count as BLP1E? NickCT (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My answers respectively are no and no. Brennan wouldn't meet GNG without coverage received as a result of gamergate, but he'd received some earlier coverage as a result of his disability. There was an RfC on this and everything. Brustopher (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. -- While I am sympathetic in some ways to the goal of these multiple proposals (which I'll answer here to avoid redundancy), I don't like the fact that this strikes me as using Wikipedia policies and guidelines as a proxy an attempt to control Wikipedia 'culture' (with all the positives and negatives the term carries). BLP1E strikes me as inapplicable -- it does not demand that the event in question be "highly significant," merely "significant."  'Gamergate', as such, demanded coverage from many major sources, including the largest newspapers, websites, and television networks.  This is the outside world notability we look for.  Surely it meets the measure of 'sinificant,' even if I might agree it is not highly significant.  Each of the individuals here had a significant role (as measured by the RS), and thus the third prong of WP:BLP1E is not met to my mind.  The fact that the gamergate area has become the subject of such vituperation is definitely not a good thing.  Perhaps there's an argument that for the good of the encyclopedia, these articles should be deleted.  But if that is the case, let's have that debate.  Don't cloak a providential suggestion about improving Wikipedia culture in a content guideline.  You say the articles are subject to far more attention than is demanded by the coverage.  I don't find policing others' Wikipedia interests particularly helpful.  We all know editors who spend far more time on minor articles than is "warranted."  I, for one, salute them.  Imagine, if you will, a dystopian future wherein 99% of edits on Wikipedia are to Pigasus (politics).  This would not in and of itself support the idea that Pigasus is not notable.  I would urge the nominator to disentangle the two strands of thought, because I find the content argument very weak. Dumuzid (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  The1337gamer (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep and Boomerang.  Wikipedia has pages for minor porn stars, kiddie cartoon episodes, and obscure video games; Depression Quest isn't close to being the least well known game. Unlike, say, [My Little Pony,] (good grief!) Depression Quest received a good deal of coverage because it used a new medium to explore a social problem not often associated with games.  Quinn has been the subject of major profiles -- see the big feature in Boston Magazine for one example. Wu has been widely interviewed and clearly passes GNG both as an advocate for women in computing and as a video game designer-entrepreneur.   WP:BLP1E is in any case irrelevant because there is no event: "Gamergate" is the protracted conspiracy of misogynist harassment intended to drive women out of the computing industry by making these targets a stark example of the consequences to be faced by any woman who dares defy it. If editors have sought to defend Wikipedia from Gamergate’s malign designs, they deserve thanks. The massive and continuing influx of brigaded editors, zombie editors, sleepers and sock puppets who all seek to exploit Wikipedia to harass  Gamergate’s victims and to improve Gamergate’s reputation is less praiseworthy. To say that Gamergate has not been sufficiently covered by sources outside Wikipedia could indeed suggest misogyny or callousness, and I'm glad the nominator cleared that up! MarkBernstein (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * re "the protracted conspiracy of misogynist harassment intended to drive women out of the computing industry" - hmmmmmm.... Ok. re "To say that Gamergate has not been sufficiently covered by sources outside Wikipedia" - Note, we're not proposing the actual Gamergate controversy article be deleted. That probably meets notability guidelines. NickCT (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * On “Notifications:” The nominator has been kind enough to notify several editors who participated at Jimbo’s talk page. The editors that were notified at 14:37-14:44 were Ryk72, JzG, DeCausa, Rich Farmbrough, Carrite, DHeyward, Darwinian Ape, Masem, and Chrisrus. Admins who are familiar with the area will recognize the names in this notification list, and within the hour two three of these editors had responded with the first two delete/merge opinions on the page.  Participants who were not notified include NorthBySouthBaranof, DaveDial, Liz, and MarkBernstein. Admins who are familiar with the  area will recognize these names, too. For my general fund of information, is this considered appropriate Wikipedia procedure? MarkBernstein (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the assumption of bad faith canvassing Mark. Also thanks for not addressing my point. I've notified Liz/North for the record. NickCT (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yea, AFTER you saw this. For the record, I wasn't notified either. And I also have made several comments on Jimbo's Tale page regarding these issues. You are disrupting the project to make a point, you know about the ArbCom case and the sanctions(case is listed on your delete proposal), and if anyone has earned a sanction lately(I have zero GG related articles on my Watchlist, and refuse to edit them), it's you. Dave Dial (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep DQ was notable under standard video game guidelines (it has development and reception information we require for such games) before GG happened (Several Google News hits before 7/31/2014). Simply being tied to GG doesn't change that, and arguably GG had little directly to impact the game itself, perhaps creating a focal point GG built out of, and if you take coverage of DQ that is beyond its ties to GG since it started ,its even gotten more reviews that I can see by non-normal VG outlets (like NYTimes). --M ASEM (t) 15:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - Fair enough on the pre-GG coverage of DQ. I would note though that most of that coverage is not what you'd call "high quality" coverage. NickCT (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If we strictly discussed DQ as a video game and only as a video game (only bringing up Quinn's reasons for creating the game and not discussing any of the GG related aspects) it would still pass for a video game article given the typical sourcing available for video games. (There's a number of standard reviews, and there's even a WSJ article on it ); all predating GG by at least a year. Obviously the ties to GG enhance that notability. --M ASEM (t) 15:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - The WSJ article is a mention. Not direct coverage. Anyways, I'll grant DQ is pretty "borderline". NickCT (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps though there's a para that has Quinn explaining positive feedback she's gotten - it definitely should be (if not already) used in the article. --M ASEM (t) 15:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To add to my keep on DQ, I believe the three others (Wu, Quinn, and Brannen) all also are Keep. While I do firmly believe WP:BLP1E is important, all three show that they have notability beyond one event (being GG) - Wu for founding a dev company with a released game, Quinn for writing a notable game, and Brannen for his disabilities prior to 8chan formation. --M ASEM (t) 15:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge relevant GG material to Gamergate controversy. Not notable outside that scope. --DHeyward (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong speedy keep: the bundling of these separate articles is ridiculous, for a start. Depression Quest strikes me as the least notable article, but even that has 18 reliable secondary sources. Fredrick Brennan is definitely notable for creating 8chan; Brianna Wu also seems very notable, with some references dating from before Gamergate even began. Zoe Quinn also has enough coverage from Gamergate-related articles alone to merit coverage; WP:BIO1E says "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." It's also worth noting that the reason for the article's creations is completely and utterly irrelevant; what matters is notability. If an attack page on a notable subject was created, we wouldn't count that against the article if it later developed into a well-rounded page. Susceptibility to vandalism is also irrelevant. I recommend a snow close; there's no need to have intrusive AfD notices on the top of several widely viewed pages. However, I'm sure the nomination was made in good faith and there's no evidence of pointed behaviour here. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 15:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - Well thanks for recognizing this isn't a bad faith nomination at least. I think bundling was the right thing to do here, as I think all the articles should be considered under the same rationale. Not sure I get your point Re BIO1E. Are you saying GG is highly significant and Quinn's role in it was a large one? NickCT (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Gamergate controversy has 224 references—that alone isn't proof that it's significant, but I've picked several at random. They're all reliable and provide substantial coverage. Zoe Quinn was the original target and a victim throughout the entire event. GG is highly significant and Quinn is perhaps the most important person in it. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 15:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - re "has 224 references" - Again, I think the spectacular number of reliable-ish references reflects the personal interest of a number of passionate WP editors rather than actual notability. If you look at the references themselves, a large majority some from online publications (e.g. Slate) or special interest publications (e.g. PC Gamer) rather than real mainstream, high-quality sources (e.g. NYT, AP, etc). NickCT (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But no amount of interest in a subject can overcome a lack of notability. This is not a case of bomardment; yes, there are some special interest publications (not that there's anything wrong with that), but there is substantial high-profile coverage in that list of references. I don't understand your argument against "online publications"—that is not a bad thing. I have seen Slate sources used all over the place and never heard a single person object to them, especially not for the fact that it is available online. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 16:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - To clarify, I'm not arguing that Slate is a bad source, I'm just arguing that it's not as high quality as a mainstream print media source. When the large majority of your references are to sources like Slate, I think it speaks to marginal notability. NickCT (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. I've seen AfD'd articles survived on two or three online sources. We're dealing with articles that have a combined total of 91 sources here. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 16:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 *  Merge and delete  I would agree that this article created in WP because of gamergate. I propose merging it with Zoe Quinn article(or rather extending the depression quest section in that article) In any case we should not consider keeping it just because | Other stuff exists I would not agree with deleting the biographies but this game looks like a prime candidate for deletion. Darwinian Ape talk 15:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - It easily meets the WP:GNG, and there's enough content present (or out there) to warrant its own article. Seriously, terrible nomination. Stop wasting people's time. Sergecross73   msg me  15:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Can an ArbCom AE admin please give NickCT a GG article notification on his page, and instruct him that this kind of disruption is obviously against Wiki rules, not even considering the articles are under ArbCom sanctions. These 'requests' should be removed immediately, and Nick should be topic banned(at the very least) for this disruption. Dave Dial (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any immediate bad faith here - follow the discussion at Jimbo's page (linked at top) to show that some did say that deletion policy does suggest sometimes remove of contentious articles is an appropriate action, and Nick was following through on that. And as not yet under any GG sanctions, it's hard to assume that this was a intentionally malicious action but one Nick felt would remove disruption from WP. Obviously I personally don't agree with removal but I don't read anything purposely malicious in the AFD nom here. --M ASEM (t) 15:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose topic ban Nick made a good faith, if incredibly ill-informed, attempt to solve the dramafest that is Gamergate. He shouldn't be punished for it. This sort of gung-ho agressive attitude, will only serve to deter experienced and knowledgeable editors from helping in this quagmire of a topic area. Brustopher (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am categorically against topic bans and the like in all but the most dire circumstances. That being said, anyone who cares to have a look at Talk:Zoe Quinn will see that  and I had a long and (I thought) civil discussion on the merits of deleting the page per WP:BLP1E.  I don't think that amounts to bad faith, but I do not believe that the thought of deleting these articles came from the discussion on Mr. Wales' talk page.  I don't think any admin action is required, but it's something to take in to account. Dumuzid (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - For the record, I think civil and long are good descriptions of that conversation. ;-p NickCT (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep WP:SNOW, especially for Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu. OP cites no policy to warrant their removal.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 15:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep with a few comments. I would say that Brianna Wu is closest to a BLP1E case, as she had no coverage prior to GG and essentially all of her initial coverage was related to that. But my guess is there's enough coverage of other things she's said and done in the interim that her article would pass WP:GNG on its own now. I could possibly see Depression Quest getting merged to Zoe Quinn, but she herself has gotten plenty of coverage, a good amount before GamerGate ever happened, specifically for that game, as well as some controversy around a game jam event that happened in early 2014. And if that were the case, a merge discussion could take place outside of AFD. In fact, I'd say starting with potential merge discussions would have been more fruitful and perceived as less of an attack. —Torchiest talkedits 16:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - re " I'd say starting with potential merge discussions" - Perhaps.... NickCT (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - The idea that "the way to solve the GamerGate mess is to delete everything but one article on the GamerGate mess" has been around. Now it has been tried in practice. Clearly meets GNG, which is what we go by at AfD rather than holding normative debates about what should and what should not ideally exist. Carrite (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep all. Articles are kept or deleted because of their notability and other relevant content policies and guidelines, not because of drama within Wikipedia. Navelgazing would be writing articles about "the Wikipedia Gamergate drama" or similar, but these are real-world topics. At a glance, all these articles cover their subjects much beyond their involvement, if any, in Gamergate, so BLP1E is not an issue, and no argument is made that these topics fail basic notability. As an aside: I created the initial version of Brianna Wu after reading an article about her and deciding she sounded like an interesting figure; I don't remember whether Gamergate was already a thing at the time. For some reason, all versions prior to 22 October 2014‎ appear to have been suppressed, so I can't check. Can somebody with oversight access tell me why? I'm reasonably sure at least my initial version was BLP-compliant.  Sandstein   16:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is the presumably un-oversighted version. I regret to inform you that, for you, "Brianna Wu" was not notable until "GamerGate" was notable.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC).


 * What's interesting for Wu (probably for Quinn too), is that before GG existed, she still was a founder of a studio with a notable game, but we would have likely never had a detailed article on her just because of that fact (she'd be a redirect to the studio if not to the game). But you add in GG, and then we got more articles on her non-GG parts of her career to be able to expand that out as well as discuss briefly her role in the event of note. The GG situation may have brought the attention but the attention is now there to justify an article on her. --M ASEM (t) 16:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - Do you recall which article you'd read? NickCT (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * These are all reasonable candidates for deletion. I prefer to see them kept, even though they may be marginal, because it seems to me that they reduce drama.  A well attested fact about Depression Quest (arguably the most non-notable entity here), probably belongs in the article, whereas in GamerGate (controversy) cries of WP:UNDUE would doubtless ring throughout the land.
 * There may be some mileage in merging Depression Quest => Zoe Quinn and merging Frederick Brennen => 8Chan. I don't think we can merge Brianna Wu to Revolution 60, but I wouldn't oppose it.
 * Quiz question What well known piece of GamerGate vernacular might be used to support deletion?
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC).


 * Comment - Well, it looks pretty hopeless at we're going to reach consensus for a delete for any of the articles. I plan to withdraw within the next couple hours unless there is a significant change in the responses being posted. NickCT (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2015 (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.