Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eiffel Tower in popular culture


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 01:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Non-admin closure

Eiffel Tower in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - directory of loosely associated topics. "Oh look, the Eiffel Tower is on my TV!" is not reason for an article listing off every time the tower shows up anywhere. Do not merge any of it into the tower's article. Otto4711 22:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Many landmark articles have pop culture sections, so why shouldn't the Eiffel Tower be allowed to? The Eiffel Tower's pop culture section just happens to be large enough for its own article. Epbr123 23:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete' per WP:NOT. And to the above user -- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because other pop culture lists exist (which they shouldn't, as they're trivial), doesn't mean that others should too. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 23:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, they seem to be acceptable in Featured Articles, eg. Mount Rushmore, Cane Toad, Monopoly (game), De Lorean DMC-12, Beagle, Nostradamus, Jabba the Hutt, Infinite monkey theorem. Epbr123 23:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I checked the Jabba the Hutt article, just quick, and it seems that the "pop culture" section at least has inline citations. Also seems to be a bit of analysis of what it means for Jabba the Hutt to appear in popular culture. No wonder it would make for a featured article. But a mindless list of every cartoon appearance doesn't make for encyclopedic material whatsoever, does it? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said below, being uncited and in list format isn't a reason to delete. Epbr123 17:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not really a good thing. How'd an article with such a large, unreferenced section of pure trivia smut make to FA anyway? Yes. I'm talking to you, De Lorean article. But . . yes . . this is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Fact is, even if those sections are bad, this one is inordinately worse. Consequentially 00:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * While I fully agree with getting rid of the pop culture sections in most of, if not all, of those FAs, at least most of those sections are cited prose, not a giant unreferenced list. -- Kicking222 00:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Being uncited and in list format isn't a reason to delete. Epbr123 13:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * delete as being an indiscriminate list of blah blah blah you get the drill. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleterandom, non encyclopedic trivia. Obina 00:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. "The tower can be seen in the background, in a scene in the movie Munich." I mean . . why? Nom has it right on this one. Consequentially 00:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per everyone above (including myself). -- Kicking222 00:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep the use is artistically and culturally significant in many ways. for this article, I've started to classify it. perhaps looking at the part I've begun will indicate the significance of the theme. I'll add some references to that also. I remain extremely upset how a few people in a few hours of trivial work, and destroy a major element of wikipedia . It is much harder to build than destroy--it is harder to improve andy article than to remove it. Those who see something with obvious weaknesses and want to simply remove it on the basis of quick and superficial inspection without considering carefully and in detail how it can be improved, are a danger to Wikipedia. And to do so at this speed -- a speed with which constructive people cannot possible keep up, is perhaps a sign of the extreme vulnerability of the project.
 * Personally, these topics are not a great interest of mine. But my respect for this project has led me to spend most of the week in trying to rescue them--although a little clumsily, as I am dealing with things that could much better be dealt with over time by a group of people knowing the different subjects. . It should not have been necessary--there were much better ways of doing this. I anticipate a long period of trying to recapture lost ground.  DGG (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete unless sources are provided and that the list is trimmed down, even if it's a landmark it's another of those listcruft trivia articles without sources.--JForget 01:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Keep but edit mercilessly (see below Otto's next comment). A section in the tower's article about how (that is, if) it has become a symbol of Paris and/or France to the world would be a great edition. However, a list of all the instances where it has appeared is simply not necessary or notable in this form. CaveatLectorTalk 01:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think then your vote might have been better cast as keep and edit. it does not take AfD to remove sections from an article. I will mention that an indication of how it has become significant is in fact the frequency of its use. DGG (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So lazy filmmakers who want to establish that their film takes place in Paris use an establishing shot of the Eiffel Tower. From such stuff is not an encyclopedia article made. Otto4711 13:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually disagree, Otto. An article that includes a sourced explanation of why an establishing shot of the Eiffel Tower actually works (i.e. why it is a symbol for Paris and what this establishing shot evokes) is very encyclopedic. CaveatLectorTalk 16:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether it is or not, a simple list of such shots would not be. Otto4711 16:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep this article should be kept because its intresting and shows diffrent popular culture of the eiffel tower, besides people want to delete articles all the time that are perfectly good, we should keep this article, wikipedia does not have to be perfect in every way, and removing this article would lose a usefull article, just because there are not much sources does not mean its not worth including, so keep it.
 * Notification as the nom forgot to do it, I have been notifying in a neutral way those registered WP editors who made significant contributions to the article in the past year. DGG (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:USEFUL disagrees. And a lack of sources does mean its not worth including, per WP:V. Consequentially 04:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, WP:USEFUL is not policy. It's no wonder that it has never become policy, really. This particular section assumes that alternative projects exist for every Wikipedia article (blatantly false), then assumes that those alternatives are inherently better than Wikipedia articles (blatant non sequitur), and then never even links the fallacious arguments back to the usefulness argument that it's supposed to be criticizing (a blatant ignoratio elenchi). Then it proceeds to tell us that we can't measure usefulness with a yard stick - well, unfortunately the same is true for notability, verifiability, source reliability, and just about everything else. And I think perhaps these shortcuts (WP:V) can be harmful, because you seem be be mixing up Verifiable with verified. Please read Wikipedia's deletion policy ("All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed") rather than sighting policies and essays which are not in themselves reasons for deletion. — xDanielx Talk 23:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And you have completely missed the point of WP:USEFUL. There are things that are useful that don't belong on Wikipedia, therefore claiming that something is useful does not necessarily mean it should be kept. Dictionary definitions are useful, but they belong on Wiktionary. Claiming there isn't a project for this article does not mean Wikipedia should have it. If there were a project appropriate for this article, claiming it to be inferior to Wikipedia also does not mean it is appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. Also, if you want to keep an unsourced article it is your responcibilty to find the sources. Finding no sources over the course of an AFD means that either all attempts have fail or no one is willing to make an attempt. Either way, the article does not belong. Jay32183 00:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Jay, you're repeating the same argument plenty of times. Your argument is that usefulness can be trumped by other standards. That does not mean that usefulness is an invalid standard for evaluating AfD discussions, it just means that it is not the only standard. It is actually the responsibility of the nominator, or those wishing to delete an article, to demonstrate that reasonable attempts have been made to find sources without success. I suggest you read WP:DP carefully. An article may be deleted if "Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources," or if "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed." If no one feels like making a serious attempt to find sources, then the article should not be deleted for lack of sources. That is the reading of the policy. — xDanielx Talk 03:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the only things that matter at AFD are WP:NOT, WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. IF your keep violates any one of those then your keep is invalid. Making the argument "useful" disregards all of those. Under no circumstances will I find sources for information some one else provided. Read WP:V, it is the responsibility of those wishing to add or retain material to provide sources. I will not look for sources for an article I said fails WP:NOT, that doesn't make any sense. Do not say "Keep - it can be sourced" unless you are willing to provide sources. Otherwise you are undeserving of any respect and should not be contributing to an encyclopedia. You are responsible for your own work and the work you defend. Do not place the burden on those criticizing it. That does not make any sense at all. Jay32183 03:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Jay, WP:V focuses on an article's content, not its existence. The one sentence ("If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.") is clarified in Wikipedia's deletion policy as "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed" (WP:DP). For content disputes, the burden of verifiability is on the editor supporting the contentious claim -- this makes perfect sense, as otherwise any user could carelessly add unverified claims and much work would be required to remove them. When we're dealing with entire articles, the opposite is true: much work has been put into these articles, and canning them because the author(s) were not familiar with the format of a reference tag is disrespectful. When in doubt, remove (or tag) is the principle that is widely accepted for individual contentious claims. When it doubt, keep is the principle that is commonly accepted for entire articles.
 * Also, WP:V makes it clear that only contentious claims require verification. I do not think that the trivial claims made in this article are contentious.
 * Of course, I normally do try to find reliable sources for articles in question, as a measure of courtesy. But this is a unique case, since the claims are not contentious in the first place and adding references is simply a trivial bureaucratic procedure, and also because there are too many claims to source all of them in the course of an AfD when all the work may just go to waste anyway.
 * — xDanielx Talk 07:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are completely incorrect on every point, has you have been with everything you've said so far. WP:V does not say that only contentious claims require sources, the word only is not included. Making that assumption is idiotic if you understand the principle. Adding references is not a bureaucratic procedure, but a necessity. If content is unsourced, it does not belong on Wikipedia. The deletion policy is incorrectly written if it makes you think otherwise. Stop saying "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed". People saying "Keep" and not providing sources is all attempts failing. Get sources or don't say keep, it really is that simple, and foolish to think otherwise. "When in doubt keep" is never to be used, since undeletion is possible, the discussion can go further. Deleting is always the safest thing to do when unsure. Failing to publish true information is not nearly as bad as publishing false information. You also completely ignored the other four policies I mentioned, three of which this article outright fails. Most importantly it fails WP:NOT, because that is not something that can be fixed. You can't take loosely associated material and change it into closely associated material. It isn't a formatting issue, it's that the claim that these things are associated because the reference something is being made. That is a ridiculous claim. Taking any two movies and finding the Eiffel Tower is a complete triviality. Jay32183 18:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A few quotes from WP:V: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." ... "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" (emphasis theirs). I ignored the other policies and guidelines because you did not explain how you thought this article violated them, and frankly I'm not interested in hearing it. I'm rapidly loosing interest in this discussion--I'm concerned that you're continuing this debate for personal or ideological reasons and not substantive ones. We've had civility issues in past discussions, but now you are really pushing on WP:NPA with remarks like "You are completely incorrect on every point" and "Making that assumption is idiotic." — xDanielx Talk 22:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete List of loosely associated items, but that any movie/video that has a scene set with the tower in the background should be included on this list. Corpx 04:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, though it could use a lot of cleanup. If this article is deleted then this sort of stuff will start popping up in the main article on the Eiffel Tower, which is already rather long. Eventually it would need to be split out again. So why not just fix this up nice and save the extra effort? Lots of other pop culture articles exist without causing problems, I don't see what harm this one in particular embodies. Bryan Derksen 07:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping this article, and other pop culture articles are also being deleted. Better here than in the main article is not a reason for keeping this article. If the information is not stuff that should be included in the main article then it shouldn't be spun off into its own article either. Otto4711 13:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sections get spun off into their own articles because they're too long, not because they're not notable. Epbr123 13:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Review any number of similar AFDs for these spun off IPC articles. There is almost invariably smoeone who wants them kept because they don't want the trivia clogging up the main article. Indeed, a number of AFDs have comments from the creators of the IPC articles explicitly stating that they spun off the IPC section not because the article was too long but because they felt the information was not appropriate for the article. There are even some who state that the section was removed so that the main article could make FA status. Otto4711 14:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There's clearly no consensus that all IPC sections and articles should be deleted. Epbr123 14:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * At no time did I suggest that consensus exists to delete all IPC articles. There's pretty clearly quite strong consensus that articles like this one, that are trivia dumps, are unencyclopedic as they are being deleted at quite the rapid clip. The only arguments generally offered up for them are along the lines of what we've seen here; arguments that carry no weight like "put it here so it doesn't end up somewhere else" and the heartfelt pleas like DGG has been making of late since he's been unsuccessful in his other arguments. Otto4711 15:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * comment - I can see the Eiffel tower being worthy of a "cultural significance" type of study, as it's very symbolic. However, this article will invariably turn into a list of every Hollywood chase scene that had the Eiffel in the background. Oh look: James Bond chased a bad guy up the Eiffel. An asteroid hits earth in Deep Impact, and because it hits Paris (instead of, say, somewhere in Yakutsk) you get to see the Eiffel get blown up. For something iconic like the Eiffel, I'd suggest a section in the main article (no, wait for it) simply titled "Cultural Significance", properly written in a scholarly way like the rest of the main article is, that deals with only the cultural significance of the Eiffel. Such a section heading would probably suggest to newbies that they aren't to add in every American corporate movie or cartoon that shows the Eiffel just to let the viewers know "this scene happens in Paris". The "pop culture" sections could be generally eradicated and replaced with "cultural significance" sections in the main articles, to provide proper encyclopedic treatment of the subject. What do you think of that? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is another frivolous nomination on the sole basis of the words "popular culture" in the title. All such nominations ought to be rejected on principle at this point. RandomCritic 15:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not only a failure to assume good faith it is for all intents and purposes an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. You don't like how the outcomes of these AFDs has been going but all the reasons you've offered in other AFDs have been rejected, so you come up with this. Otto4711 16:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, because article shows iconic status of this notable monument. I wonder, though, if "popular" would be better than "pop" in the article's title?  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, as said above the Effel tower is an iconic symbol. It has appeared in many famous works of art, films, and countless mentions in poems. I could see how this information was originally on the main article but had to be broken off as the main article became too large as well as this section. I do agree it could use a more encyclopedic tone to it instead of simply 'bullets', but like all stubs has the potental to become an article of interest. Mkdw talk 19:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I'm assuming that the "under construction" tag went on after the delete nomination, because I can't tell from the history. This one aspires to be better than the "I saw the ________ on TV" type of IPC and, since the Eiffel Tower definitely is a pop culture icon, I think it will succeed.  Let's face it, when you picture Paris (or for that matter, France), what do you see in your mind's eye?  The Louvre?  IPC's are not inherently bad, and an intelligently edited IPC article can be worthwhile.  Mandsford 22:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I put it on yesterday when i started re-arranging the content, to make it clear not all the content had been sorted yet. I added clearer headings, and I could use some help with moving the material correctly. DGG (talk) 04:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Just a collection of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT Jay32183 05:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Redundant unencyclopedic trivia. -- bullet proof  3:16 05:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an iconic symbol and the page does assert notability.-- bullet proof  3:16 05:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep if we're going to have any pop culture articles, well-known cultural symbols qualify more than, you know, television shows getting referenced on other TV shows. ←BenB4 06:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete iconic symbol and patriotism aside, this article violates WP:NOT. I also strongly disagree with the opinions above that the article "asserts" notability.  There are no reliable, secondary sources that prove the Eiffel Tower is important in "pop" culture; rather, there are many trivial instances of even the smallest glimpse of the Eiffel Tower in various forms of media, and from these bits and pieces we are supposed to assume that this building is therefore notable.  That's not the way an encyclopedia works.  María ( críticame ) 15:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The listed films and TV programs are themselves reliable, secondary sources that indicate the Eiffel Tower is important in "pop" culture. Epbr123 15:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they are primary sources. A movie is also not a reliable source for its own analysis; it merely proves that such-and-such scene exists (which is not what is being refuted).  A third-party source, on the other hand, should do more than indicate what makes the scene notable.  Please read WP:PSTS, which states that "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." María ( críticame ) 15:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not the movie scenes which require secondary sources here, it's the Eifel Tower's impact on popular culture. Anyway, I'm sure there is plenty of written secondary sources which discuss the Tower's cultural impact. And articles aren't forbidden to use primary sources in addition to secondary ones. Epbr123 15:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * From your summary of my statement (your first sentence), I'm almost inclined to think that you're agreeing with me, but it's difficult to be certain. Of course it is not forbidden to use primary sources as well as secondary sources, but again I suggest you read the policy; secondary sources are used to analyze and interpret ideas/opinions, such as "The Eiffel Tower is important in pop culture."  If secondary sources are so readily available, however, then why are they not listed in the article?  María ( críticame ) 16:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Eiffel Tower has had an important impact on popular culture. Is it better to prove this by quoting this statement from a book, or by listing examples of exactly how it has impacted popular culture? I would say the second. Epbr123 16:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Policy disagrees with you, and so do I. María ( críticame ) 17:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Either way, a lack of citations isn't a reason to delete an article. Epbr123 17:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A lack of expressed notability (with reliable sources) is a reason for deletion. Actually, several. María ( críticame ) 17:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This subject is so obviously notable that the existence of independant secondary sources shouldn't have to be proven to save it from deletion. Anyway,  this source states "silent surreal shots of the lighted Eiffel tower gave the film an eerily romantic tone." This is a secondary source discussing the tower's use in popular culture, proving that the subject is notable. Epbr123 18:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's OR by synthesis. And, no, although I agree that the Eiffel Tower is indeed notable, its notability in popular culture is assuredly not proven by this article.  Again, this list is trivial, indiscriminate, unencyclopedic cruft.  María ( críticame ) 18:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Using your logic, most of the sections in the Eiffel Tower article should be deleted. There are no secondary sources provided which prove that the Events, Similar towers and reproductions, Installations or Background sections are notable topics. Epbr123 19:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. They should. The "events" section is just WP:TRIVIA with a different label, and the reproduction of the tower in other cities lacks reliable sources citing the importance of such reproduction. Your argument is an extension of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Consequentially 19:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So everything in the Eiffel Tower article should be deleted? Epbr123 20:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not what Consequentially said. I agree completely with their assessment, but we mustn't get off-topic; this AFD is not about Eiffel Tower, and you are utilizing OTHERSTUFF, which is not looked upon favorably.  María ( críticame ) 20:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That is what he said. None of the sections in the Eiffel Tower article have sources showing they are notable topics. Epbr123 20:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That isn't what he said. I said that the trivia section labeled Events and the trivial sections of Background and Installation should be removed. How does "some things" equate to "whole thing?" Consequentially 21:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not what I said. I said most things, not some things. Getting back to my main point, its ridiculous to insist that sections should only be included in articles if there are sources provided which prove that the sections themselves are notable. The important thing is that the content of the sections be notable. Epbr123 21:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you're right on that one. That's something I'd have to see on a case-by-case basis to make up my mind on. But still, we apply notability and verifiability requirements to every article on Wikipedia, why should we not apply those same rules to Foo in popular culture lists? In the same way bands and people and places and things have to demonstrate a reason why they should be covered within the encyclopedia, so, too, should cultural mentions of foo. The quality of a list that is restricted to items of significance would be a boon to the encyclopedia. Consequentially 04:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what kind of proof is needed to show this topic is notable, but the Eiffel Tower itself has an exhibit called The Eiffel Tower in films.

Epbr123 08:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah! That's the kind of thing that I think makes a good "in popular culture" article. Of course, we should always start with a section in an article, and if we could reference that exhibit in the main article, we're doing the right thing. My problem is that said exhibit probably doesn't mention Deep Impact, or similar appearances, and they remain out of the realm of significance. I wish there were more sources like that, because those a good encyclopedia make.Consequentially 19:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per the unsigned comment DGG replied to. Mathmo Talk 21:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG and Mathmo. Lack of sources is not a reason for deletion unless "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed" (WP:DP). This subject is interesting and notable, and a lot of work has been put into the article. It's not violating any policy, and it's not causing any harm. — xDanielx Talk 23:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. If it's not a good article as it is, it can be improved. I agree that an "indiscriminate collection" is not what we should have, but a coherent account with a substantial list of examples could replace an indiscriminate collection. Michael Hardy 21:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ...and I would add that in this case the way the occurrences are classified seems intelligent and useful to the reader. Michael Hardy 21:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I've moved the article; instead of pop it now says popular. I've fixed the links to the new redirect page (except the ones from user pages and talk pages). Michael Hardy 21:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Otto4711 wrote
 * "Oh look, the Eiffel Tower is on my TV!" is not reason for an article listing off every time the tower shows up anywhere.
 * I agree, but that's not a reason to delete this. If people are being indiscriminate in what they include in this article, that's a reason to edit this article, not to delete it.  "... in popular culture lists" should not generally be indiscriminate. Michael Hardy 21:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * keep - in order to keep the main article short, it is inevitable that such off-shoot articles are necessary —  MapsMan  [  talk  |  cont  ] — 22:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This article has greatly improved since getting listed here. Maybe that was what it needed to make it more clearly worth keeping.  Maybe some of the "delete" voters will want to reconsider in light of the new edits.  Earlier it looked as if it might have been an indiscriminate list, but now its coherent and organized. Michael Hardy 22:57, 9 August 2007 (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.