Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! set evolution (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 merge anything encyclopedic to Jeopardy!, and then delete. There is a huge amount of information here, and little of it is sourced to reliable sources. Further amounts appear to be original research - "In the later years of the NBC version, players used magic markers to write with; in previous years, they may have used grease pencils or even black crayons". However, a summary of the important parts of the game show's set design could easily be compressed into a single paragraph in the parent article. This is not a "cruft" issue - it is an encyclopedic one. Furthermore, the article contains no less than 48 non-free images - if the article were to remain, the vast majority of these would clearly have to be removed. From a purely encyclopedic and free use point of view, I can see no other end to this AfD than Merge (a small subset of the information) to the parent article (which could do with a severe trimming itself). I have redirected to the parent article for the time being; after a suitable time for encyclopedic information to be transferred, I will delete the original. Please do not transfer any fair-use images to the parent article other than those that could be justified in that article under WP:NFCC.Black Kite 15:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Jeopardy! set evolution
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Horribly indiscriminate in nature, too many fairuse images. There is very little here that in my opinion could be merged. The set is just a very minor part of the show, and this is a high level of trivia suitable only for diehard game show fans. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete Although I agree that the article's trivia is so extreme as to be weird, it is referenced. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A lot of the sources are either trivial in nature or the Sony message boards. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for calling that to my attention. The secondary sources are only used to establish side points. The information on the evolution of the set is only sourced by fan discussion boards, etc.  I changed my vote to delete. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete--this amount of trivia is overwhelming. Even if the sources were impeccable, deletion is still warranted under WP:You got to be kidding--someone has time to come up with this?. (I'm working on that policy. Well, I would, but I don't have the time.) Drmies (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Considering all the TV show cruft I've had to deal with lately I could get behind a new WP:FINDANEWHOBBY policy.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it beats dealing with 'internet celebrities.' Drmies (talk) 04:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - seriously trivial. Also fails WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA.  Greg  Jones   II  02:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It has sources, but when it comes down to it, it's just many different ways to say 'Jeopardy has three desks, a host's lectern, and a gameboard'. This would be more useful and appropriate on a Jeopardy! wiki.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete not a Jeopardy! wiki, we don't need to cover every minutia of the show. RJaguar3 |  u  |  t  05:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Jeopardy!, perhaps transwiki to TV.com or something 70.55.86.100 (talk) 07:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Most of the sources are not reliable. Minor things like the removal of the curtain could be covered in the main article (after a redirect) if not already there. - Mgm|(talk) 10:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator does not cite policy/guideline justification for deletion.  Main article subject passes notability with flying colors; this spin-off article needs to be permitted to stand because it presents important information about the history of the show that would clutter up the main article, such as, for example, the locations of its production--information that is well-sourced, contrary to some of the (inaccurate) remarks above.  The nominator is correct that there is little here that could be merged.  This article's raison d'etre is that the Jeopardy! article has the perennial problem of ballooning and the best way to handle the problem was with a reasonably tidy family of articles.  This is how many extensive topics are dealt with on Wikipedia.  The rationale "high level of trivia suitable only for [insert topic here] fans" is not valid because it is not applicable across the range of cultural-historical topics.  There are numerous articles on obscure Civil War topics, for example--myriad generals, battles, and so forth--but I think most here would agree it would be inappropriate to put these topics up for AfD citing a basis that they contain a "high level of trivia suitable only for Civil War buffs".  Information should not be removed from Wikipedia on the basis of value judgments of editors who do not understand the significance of the information--if such were the case, most scientific and mathematical topics would be deleted as trivia. "Who needs all this science and math cruft?  Nobody cares!" The absurdity of the starting point needs to be addressed when presenting this sort of argument. ETA: It's inappropriate that some of the delete votes above cite fictional/nonexistent guidelines as deletion rationale.  This doesn't help the process.Robert K S (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete While there appear to be a lot of WP:WHOCARES arguments, there really is no reason for the production value of a show to have its own article. IRK! Leave me a note or two 17:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete definetely fails WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA, go to a Jeopardy! wiki. I hate to say this also, but this is pure cruft. --Numyht (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there a Jeopardy! Wiki? That's a pretty neat idea. JuJube (talk) 07:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Try this wiki. Full disclosure:  I created the wiki.  RJaguar3 |  u  |  t  16:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What is "Delete"? per nom. JuJube (talk) 07:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Please do NOT delete this article nominated for deletion. It can be useful for further info when needed.--70.240.249.205 (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Chris
 * It is only useful to fans --Numyht (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) As noted above, WP:WHOCARES is not a legitimate argument for deletion. Any article can be said to be "only useful to fans". (2) The article is useful for anyone searching for information about where and when Jeopardy! recorded.  Did the show ever tape at 30 Rock?  This article will tell you. Robert K S (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I was pointing out that the IP said that it was "helpful". Also, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This aricle is nothing but pure trivia, put it in a gameshowwiki or even go and make a Jeopardy! Wiki because while I think it's a good article, it does not deserve to be on Wikipedia. And yes, I know that last sentence is basically saying that this is a I don't like it argument. In common theory, this is basically WP:TRIVIA --Numyht (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a spinoff article about a notable subject, spun-off (like several other articles) because the original article grew too large. As I pointed out above, any topic can be attacked by calling it "trivia".  There's no trivia here in the sense of lists of random information or tangentially-related facts.  It's a stretch to apply WP:TRIVIA to this article. Robert K S (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The Jeopardy! article is big enough. Including the set evolution would be a nightmare for people with slow connections. Plus the information is very clearly connected and thus it would be nonsensical to apply WP:TRIVIA. It is clearly cronolligically ordered and WP:TRIVIA doesn't apply there. From Tagi to Bottom, My Survivor Partay (Wobbuffet!. Dats right) 22:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I will stay on my choice to keep. In order to rephrase what I said earlier, I should point out that the info on the article is legit.--70.240.249.205 (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Chris
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD is now 5 days old and may be maturing toward closure in another few days. Lest a closing admin form an opinion on the basis of voting numbers alone, it may be worthwhile to provide general refutation of the delete rationales provided thus far.  (1) The nominator's first rationale was that the article was "horribly indiscriminate in nature".  Before exploring the meaning of this phrase, let it be stated unequivocally that article is not horribly indiscriminate in nature, as it contains information related only to the article subject and as described in the article lead, and does not contain tangential information.  I hope I am making the right assumption in guessing that the nominator here refers to WP:INDISCRIMINATE, i.e., that truth and verifiability are insufficient indicia for encyclopedia inclusion.  WP:INDISCRIMINATE says little more than that included material must be notable, and that it should not, in general, consist of frequently asked questions, plot summaries, lyrics databases, statistics, news reports.  This article contains none of these lists.  Other delete votes have invoked WP:TRIVIA as a rationale but with an apparent misunderstanding of the meaning WP:TRIVIA, which disesteems "creating lists of miscellaneous facts", something this article is not and does not contain.  (Rather, it "provide[s] a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation, providing context and smooth transitions".)  No delete vote has yet made an agument on the basis of WP:NOTABILITY of the subject matter of the Jeopardy! set but such an argument would be met with the explanation that the article is spun-off of the larger main article, which is of undisputed notability, and that this article's sources, contrary to what is said above, include books, articles, press releases, web resources, and microfilms.  The subject has been noted--only the degree or extent of its notability can be debated. (2) The nominator's second stated rationale is that the article contains "too many fairuse images".  The article does not contain too many fair use images; it contains the minimum number of images to adequately illustrate the subject and the descriptions in the text.  As well, this complaint, were it true, is not a deletion rationale, but rather, a rationale to remove or propose the removal of those images deemed unnecessary.  The nominator has not said which images he believes nonessential.  Each image has been carefully chosen to show some especial aspect of the Jeopardy! set and its change from set to set; the images fall into the category of "film and television screen shots... for critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television" (WP:NFC) and no argument as to their improper inclusion has ever been raised in the article's talk space to date.  But this is for a different discussion, not a deletion discussion.  "Too many images"--fair use or not--does not speak to includability in the encyclopedia. (3) Other delete (and keep) arguments speak to usefulness, appropriateness, or audience.  These are subjective value judgments and none have provided objective evidence, criteria, or AfD case history.  They amount to mere pleading, unsupported by showing of facts or policy.  Robert K S (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  StarM  03:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I reverted my close per DHowell's comment on my talk. My original close is now provided as my reason for delete, with a smidge of expansion. Consensus is that this material does not meet Wikipedia guidelines. It's not a likely search term so I don't think a re-direct is a valid or necessary option. While making the case that the deletes don't cite policy, keep also fails to do so and cite the policies this meets. Suggest a mention in the main article of sourced non-trivial information.  StarM  03:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is reliable source material available in addition to what is cited in the article. Prisoner of Trebekistan: A Decade in Jeopardy! and Television Game Show Hosts: Biographies of 32 Stars both contain detailed descriptions of the Jeopardy! set and changes made to it. This is enough reliable source coverage to make the set of Jeopardy notable and thus worthy of a separate article. Any defects in this article can thus be cured through regular editing, and therefore, per policy, it should not be deleted. DHowell (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete overly trivial aspect of the game show. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 05:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as overly trivial indiscriminate information which is almost entirely unsourced. (The ratio of footnotes to statements in this article is very low.) Allow a transwiki to the Gameshows Wikia if they want it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - fairly straightforward - sourced, notable. No real argument for deletion presented beyond personal distaste, which is uncompelling.  Dial-up internet users and whatnot force spinning out of large content sections into smaller articles - merging is impossible.  Info cannot be honestly claimed as indiscriminate (it's highly discriminate) nor trivia (it's coherent and organised).  Leaves only Keep as a plausible option. Wily D  13:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:IINFO.--Boffob (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are we still seeing delete votes with this rationale which has already been shown to be inapplicable? This article is not a list of frequently asked questions, plot summaries, lyrics databases, statistics, news reports, or similar. Robert K S (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Because people can vote for whatever reasons they want, not what someone has deemed applicable. INFO is not strictly limited to those items. StarM  20:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If IINFO doesn't speak to the class/category of indiscriminate information that a delete voter believes the article content falls under, is it not a valid rationale to cite the guideline without further explanation as to why the guideline fits the case. Sure, editors can "vote" with whatever rationales they choose, but justified arguments ought to carry more weight with a closing admin: the closing admin should be able to justify the close by pointing to guidelines, particularly when it comes to closing an article that has had such a long life and edit history, has had a previous AfD, and has 15 cited sources. Robert K S (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And simple existence does not mean it's notable. INFO speaks to notability, not existence. A previous AfD does not guarantee a keep here. I already closed it once but reverted thanks to a polite request. Closing admin judges consensus, not what an involved editor deems applicable. StarM  21:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Judgment of consensus must take into account validity of rationales, not mere number of votes, and especially not votes that cite fictional/bogus policies (as some do, above--see the redlinks). I and others have addressed the notability issue in this thread and there hasn't been any response in subsequent delete votes--only trite repetitions.  How many delete votes come from editors who devalue the article subject matter, directed here by AfD list pages, submitting token votes rather than investigating the cited sources?  A delete rationale actually aimed at achieving consensus would be persuasive that the article is non-notable or does not deserve its own article for the size control reason.  I will add the additional sources referred to by the editor whom you respected enough to re-open this AfD, but if you intend on closing the nomination again, I would hope you would offer the explanation that has not yet been offered by any delete voters, addressing the points I have made.  IINFO simply doesn't apply here.  The article is about an existing world location and how it has changed--not tangential trivia like "References to the Jeopardy! set in pop culture".  If you want an example article that comes much closer to failing IINFO, take a look at something like List_of_Star_Wars_planets_(E-G), which offers sparsely-sourced, fictional details about fictional places.  By contrast, this article covers a topic of historical-cultural-technological value about real places, people, and objects.  It is a place seen daily on television by millions of Americans for multiple generations.  Robert K S (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to close it, I've now voted and that would be inappropriate. There are issues in delete votes which have not yet been resolved and I have not seen how notability of the set has been proven. And that's said as a Jeopardy fan. The show is wonderful and notable, that doesn't mean the set is. Please also see other shit exists, which doesn't mean it or this should. If it survives AfD, it's because the closing admin will see consensus in doing so. I personally disagree which is my right as an editor. Oh and there's nothing wrong with deletion lits, they're an acceptable part of the project to drawn attention from both sides to get further consensus. Non-involved editors who learn about the AfD that way are actually neutral as opposed to those who think they OWN it. Nothing wrong with either side, but it's hard to be impartial when you've worked on it. I've always said clearly, I won't !vote delete on museums, I'm biased, so I don't close them. When I closed it it was due to consensus but I was willing to re-open due to a polite request. More flies with honey, you know? StarM  21:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't misunderstand my invocation of "other shit", which was not to say, "That is allowed, but this isn't?"--rather, I was trying to draw a contrast between what I see as a valid application of IINFO and an invalid one. Robert K S (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Got it, and thanks for re-formatting me above. I think we'll just need to agree to disagree here since we both have valid points? StarM  21:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: apparently some people need more precision. Yes, it exists and is verifiable. That doesn't make it any less of an essay on indiscriminate trivia. Various set changes over time aren't particularly historically notable in the long run. As mentioned by others, it's an unlikely search term, and it rivals the Jeopardy! article in size. For one very specific aspect of the show, that's a clear sign of bloating with indiscriminate info.--Boffob (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll Take 'Unencyclopedic, Badly Referenced, Trivia Clogged Articles Deserving Deletion for $200,' Please WP:IINFO woes, indeed. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete – Simply because the content of the article may be somewhat verifiable, it doesn't make this article any less trivial. In order for the set of Jeopardy! to be considered notable, the article needs to establish the historical importance of this in a broader context than simply Jeopardy!—for example how this might have changed the field of game shows, television and/or American culture. Just for clarification, I would also like to notice that the notability guideline only establishes "a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion [of substantive coverage in reliable sources], it is not suitable for inclusion". — Do U(knome)?  yes...or no 08:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've collaborated with Robert K S on this article in the past, and we had this issue come up before. This sort of bureaucracy is exactly why many new people get discouraged from editing an encyclopedia - by fearing that their new additions will get deleted for reasons this article are up again. Instead of striving to be a "run-of-the-mill" encyclopedia, why doesn't TPTB at Wikipedia pull their collective heads out of their asses and stop with the AfD nonsense? And maybe strive to be something different. Or here's a better idea - a DARING - NEW ENCYCLOPEDIA WITH INFO NOT SEEN ELSEWHERE!!! (WOW, what a concept!!) The content of this article exists NOWHERE ELSE on the internet in the depth that it is covered here. NOWHERE. Not even Jeopardy!'s own website (in fact, they removed and stopped the practice of showing their own evolution on the Jeopardy! website in 1997). Just because it is a rarely used search term, it does not automatically warrant an AfD tag, or likewise just because someone deems it "useful information." Hey, lemme ask this. What if a kid in high school is doing a report on Jeopardy!'s history and the show's evolution is a required topic (including the evolution of its set and theme music)? Where, pray tell, would one be able to find information as detailed and as thorough as this article? NO FAN SITE ON THE INTERNET covers this information IN THIS DEPTH.  The assertions that this article are mere cruft are nonsense and aren't warranted. Today's Final Jeopardy! Category is this: "Keep This Article". Stop the bullshit already, this article shouldn't have ever been reconsidered for an AfD! Srosenow 98 (talk) 09:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please comment with a civil attitude. And also, I'd recommend you read WP:What Wikipedia is not—We don't add content simply because it can't be found on other encyclopedias/websites/fan sites (see WP:EVERYTHING). — Do U(knome)?  yes...or no 01:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * CommentApologies if that came off as being uncivil (as it was not meant to be), but let's be real here. After it passed the first AfD nomination, it should never have been brought up again. The consensus then agreed to it being up, and I find it rather saddening that TPTB at Wikipedia (as well as the overzealous editor(s) who flagged this for a 2nd AfD) insist on these draconian rules that prohibit good-natured articles such as this from being in existence. Wikipedia needs to 1.) stop being so damn uptight, and 2.) needs to be open to newer ideas (including articles like this).Srosenow 98 (talk) 05:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I found two more books which cover the subject of the game show in great detail: The Jeopardy! Book: The Answers, the Questions, the Facts, and the Stories of the Greatest Game Show in History and This Is Jeopardy: Celebrating America's Favorite Quiz Show. While I haven't yet looked at the contents of these books (they are not available for preview in Google Books), I'd bet it is quite likely that there is more information to be found about the game show's changing sets here. This is one of the most popular game shows on the planet, with plenty of reliable source material available for many aspects of the show if one bothers to look. The opinion that detailed information about a "very minor part of the show" is "trivial" or "indiscriminate" is just that: an opinion, based on no more than a gut feeling. We can, and we ought to be able to, cover in detail such aspects of certain topics when there are reliable sources available which cover in detail such aspects of those subjects. Don't forget also, that what we can find on the Internet is not the totality of reliable source material available: I'd bet that every time the set of Jeopardy changed, there was a magazine (like TV Guide) or a newspaper that covered it somewhere. DHowell (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)'
 * CommentThe problem with those two books is that they do not provide NEARLY as much detail as this article does, and both are are poorly illustrated. The Jeopardy! Book has only a small selection of black and white photos (including one decent one showing the backside of the original gameboard from ca. Season Three, in addition to a fairly decent one of the entire set under natural lighting. All the photos are of low resolution and the book doesn't cover nearly as much detail as this article does. This Is Jeopardy! is also poorly illustrated, only showing cropped photos of each set (with the exception of the 1991-1997 set), and doesn't go into detail when each set was used, nor the minute changes made to each set during its tenure on the show.  Another book I also have, "Inside Jeopardy!" by former show staffer Harry Eisenberg, has NO illustrations WHATSOEVER and doesn't even cover the fact that Jeopardy! taped a second pilot (instead only mentions that a pilot was taped using the card-pulling-set from the Fleming era).  I stand firm in my ground that this article deserves to stay. It survived one AfD and went for over a year and a half before overzealousness struck. I think it's one of the finer articles I've been a part of (having recently added the photos of its second season).Srosenow 98 (talk) 05:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia is not a repository for things not found elsewhere, a book being in poor condition is not a reason to have an article. Also, a keep at AfD doesn't mean "keep forever" it means, "keep now". Consensus can and often does change. StarM  12:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Does anyone ever believe in thinking outside the box anymore? Apparently, I guess not. The draconian rule that "Wikipedia isn't a repository for things not found elsewhere" is, IMNSHO, a rule that should be thrown out. If it can't be found elsewhere, then where in the hell is anyone going to find it, period?! Srosenow 98 (talk) 04:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems that while any one book might not cover the subject in as much detail as this article, if information is collected from all available books and sources, that should provide the level of detail that is appropriate for this article. Nothing in Wikipedia policy or guidelines requires that any single source cover a topic to the same or greater detail than our own article. One of the greatest strengths of Wikipedia is that by allowing editors to collect information from a variety of soruces, we can create a comprehensive article that covers a subject in a level of detail not found elsewhere in any single source. Srosenow 98, one thing you can do to help save this article, since you apparently have those books, is to add specific citations to the article for any information that you do find in those books. Right now, none of the five books mentioned so far in this AfD are being cited in this article. For example, the facts about the first Trebek pilot that you found in Inisde Jeopardy! can be cited here. DHowell (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * CommentI doubt that would have any effect, despite me coming up with the necessary citations (the aforementioned lack thereof in the books mentioned above should be more than supplanted by the screenshots illustrating the visual changes to the sets). Srosenow 98 (talk) 05:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned about statements in the article such as "Instead of a 3-inch border surrounding 30 19" TV monitors, the new gameboard consisted of 30 25-inch TV screens encased in a half-inch frame." It would be difficult to measure the borders and the screens just by looking at a photograph of the gameboard without getting into original research. Presumably whoever wrote that sentence got the information from somewhere, but I have no idea where it came from. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The kind of detail found in this article presumably must have come from some source, because it seems too detailed to have been original research (unless it came directly from one of the set designers or something). It is unfortunate that the original editor didn't cite the source. I managed to track down the original edit to the Jeopardy! article which added this particular information, but unfortunately it was added by an anonymous IP address back in 2005, and that IP hasn't been seen since 2006. It would be really nice to find the real source for this info. DHowell (talk) 07:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Although I was a new Wikipedia editor (had yet to register at that time), that edit sourced in 2005 came from none other than yours truly. The dimensions of the computer monitors were available to me due to the fact that my high school managed to purchase three of those game board monitors when they retired that set for the purpose of using them in a TV News class. Two of them were the chroma key monitors on our weather forecasts, and one of them was an in-studio monitor directly in front of the set. I can even tell you what slot on the gameboard they came from. Srosenow 98 (talk) 09:44, 9 November 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.