Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kresimir Chris Kunej (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   keep. Rough consensus is that the subject has a just-ample amount of notability, and so meets inclusion criteria. Regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 23:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Kresimir Chris Kunej
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

We looked at this extensively the last time around; it spent time in a sandbox/incubator and it looks a lot better. However, it is still an article on a non-notable person, relying for its claims of notability on primary sources. The only coverage that one could call independent and secondary is the TV coverage. Now, if this person's activism made such an impact in the field, one would expect the issue having been written about; apparently it's not that notable. Finally, the claims that notability is achieved because an article of his was used in a seminar in Germany, and that he translated a textbook that's in use, those claims are overblown and do not a notable scholar make. I think the final section, Recent Years, indicates well enough to which extent the person is not notable. Sorry Turqoise, but I don't see how WP:N is met. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - So basically this article was recreated with approval of the community? If not then is it a candidate for CSD. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 03:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're referring to G4, I imagine--I don't know about approval, and I don't want to make the call this this is a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy." Like I said, the article looks cleaner than the last version I remember, but the claims themselves look familiar. I'm not an admin and can't do a detailed comparison to make that kind of a nomination. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * this newly moved article is quite different. It is a lot shorter (a lot of extraneous irrelevant material was removed), previously lacking sources were fixed and made available, new sources were added. I followed the rules; improved article much in userspace, consulted other editors (including one that previously voted delete) and took article to WP:Feed before re-making it. Thanks.Turqoise127 (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No substantive new claims to notability; no substantive new evidence that the subject meets the inclusion guidelines. Bongo  matic  04:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Nominator himself commented on how much the article is now improved. Per previous discussions, article clearly passes WP:PROF 1, 4 and 7 (let me know if someone needs more details on this claim). Nominator states "Finally, the claims that notability is achieved because an article of his was used in a seminar in Germany, and that he translated a textbook that's in use, those claims are overblown and do not a notable scholar make.", but I think he is wrong, those claims exactly contribute to notability in a huge way if one reads the above listed WP:PROF policies. Regardless, the paragraph "Resulting lasting impact in the field of Croatian translation" shows notability per WP:Anybio in a very obvious way. This is not a standard BLP, it is well researched, well sourced and academically relevant. There is a point at which "no notability" accusations become unreasonable, I hope we do not reach it. Thanks.Turqoise127 (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I said it "looks better"--and it certainly does, without screen shots of local television programs that were supposed to verify subject's importance. But that a text is used in a seminar (adding "at one of Germany's oldest internationally noted universities" is just rhetoric) does not mean that a subject is notable. Thousands of things get taught at seminars, and in some seminars dozens of articles are included--but where is the secondary coverage that says "Kunej's article was even taught in Tubingen"? Secondary coverage doesn't just verify fact, it also establishes what facts are important. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't really see any evidence for WP:PROF criteria #1, #4 and #7. Note #1: "The person's research has made significant impact", etc. Note also #4: "The person's academic work has made a significant impact", etc. The same goes for #7, more or less: "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" (all emphases are mine). The only impact that is possibly significant is in fact his non-academic (i.e. activist) work, but as an editor from Croatia I can say that even for local WP:NOTNEWS standards this is barely a blip on the radar. The independent sources report on the initiative, making a more or less perfunctory coverage of the person who started it, so I don't see it as a basis for WP:GNG claim either. GregorB (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not think this editor disputed claims of meeting WP:Prof successfully. WP:PROF #1 The academic publishing subject had published constitutes research, if you understand Croatian, read those sources; you will find research in those papers. The fact certain translation standards were introduced as result of subject’s initiative is the significant impact. one can also look at how widely the person's books are held in various academic libraries when evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. Sources list numerous Croatian libraries that list subject's works and others. #4 Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education. Subject’s work is used at two universities (Germany and Croatia). #7 Subject wrote his papers in his academic capacity, and introduction of new translation standards is substantial impact outside academia. Turqoise127 (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You list two libraries in Croatia that have the subject's books (and those books on Dubrovnik, they aren't academic books, are they?), but neither the Library of Congress nor WorldCat list anything, and generally WP requires substantial holdings as indicated by WorldCat, for instance. Now, notability can be established "if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks"--but the use of one textbook at one university (which the subject didn't write but translated) and an article at another does not meet that guideline. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I wish you would read the article more thoroughly, Drmies, I listed more than just two libraries. There is also the Rijeka City library as well as the Museum Documentation center... WP:prof 1 does not say substantial holdings must be via WorldCat.Turqoise127 (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In regards to the Recent Years section, the only thing there that can be verified is the subject's position in Utah, through a search for Kunej via "Salaries"; he's listed as an Accounting technician. That he was "thoroughly tested and interviewed" in Virginia is unverified--but even if it were, what would that matter? These are precisely the resume aspects that BLP requirements guard against. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If the Recent Years sections bugs you that much, Drmies, delete it, I will not oppose or revert. It does not matter for me if the subject is a stunt man or trash man in the US, his notability is from activities in Europe.Turqoise127 (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, it doesn't bug me at all. There is no question in my mind that this person (but see below on the autobiography issue) is not notable on either side of the ocean. The issue here is WP:PROF, which you claim supplies the argument for notability, so the biography section is directly relevant--and what we learn from it is that the subject is not a "PROF" and has never been one, and the rest of the article tells me that the work they did as a not-PROF doesn't meet the PROF requirements either. As for your library argument, that's also just nothing. Two, or three, or another number "that can be ascertained" of libraries hold books translated by the subject? Good for the subject, but it seems to me that PROF would ask for academic books held by a significant number of academic libraries worldwide. Oh, another red herring: "per previous discussions" in your first response here, as if there was agreement that the subject passed those times--if it had, we wouldn't be here, again. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Watch your tone and insinuations Drmies, you are starting to sound rude. I do not understand your passion against myself and this article. WP:HOUND comes to mind. We are discussing notability here and your assertions undermine all other editors participating here. There is no "autobiography" issue here, you tried these accusations last time. There is no COI. WP:PROF directly states that person need not be a "professor" in the western sense of the notion. You are plain wrong. And what it seems to you PROF would ask for about libraries is not what the policy states. Please contribute constructively and calm down, whether this article is kept or deleted it isn't the end of the world. Turqoise127 (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Quite right on the prof part. However, WP:PROF, WP:TEACH, and some additional ones all point to the same criteria – and Kunej satisfies none of them (see below). Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC).

<--My tone is rude? We'll let an uninvolved person decide that--you are much too involved in this article and this AfD, as you were the first time around. The autobiography issues, well, I have my suspicions but they are not relevant to notability--they do, however, explain the personal insults you've flung at me and other editors (Bongomatic, for instance). Didn't you once claim I was biased against Croatian translators? As for hounding, editors may want to check your history, where for instance you went on a tagging spree slapping notability templates on articles I created--George Brown (scholar), Oscar Tompkins, Basic income in the Netherlands. Playing the victim (as you are doing below also, toward Agricola) is quite unbecoming. Keep your cool, try to be constructive, and try to apply policy--including AGF. My intent is to improve the encyclopedia, it's nothing personal, no matter how hard you try to bait me. If the article is kept I won't lose any sleep over it, and Mr. Kunej has my best wishes for finding meaningful academic employment where he can really get to work improving the field of translation--and who knows, hsi work might even receive significant secondary coverage. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * keep, per [WP:GNG] and [WP:ANYBIO]. Here is what I see in this article even though I do not know this language. Everyone is focusing on WP:PROF which is hard to apply and can be debated both ways as we see here. There are three independent reliable secondary sources listed under references (14, 15, 16), two different tv stations and a newspaper (jutarnji list, we have an article on it, seems reliable). And when I read the paragraph that Turqise points out about “resulting lasting impact” I can’t help but to say it meets WP:ANYBIO (The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field PamelaBMX (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Being interviewed on TV has never been considered&mdash;in itself&mdash;significant coverage, just as writing editorials (even if for reliable publications) has not. Bongo  matic  00:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, but having an entire segment on TV with in-depth coverage on the subject is. That is why I had included screenshots of the tv show previously, ones that no one liked, to proove that. Turqoise127 (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * weak Keep as just sufficiently notable in his specific professional niche. 03:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
 * Weak Keep: I would still chop this down, but there are a few worthwhile Croatian cites now, and its improved since the prior AfD (where i !voted to delete).--Milowent (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I tried this:
 * ...and got zero relevant hits. These are the top four daily newspapers in Croatia, one of which (Vjesnik) is a Croatian newspaper of record that has a full and freely accessible online archive that goes 12 years back. Nothing.
 * Also: is this an autobiography? If it isn't, where did the unsourced stuff from the "Recent Years" section come from? GregorB (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It certainly quacks like one. However, the real issue is notability and I think what you've reported above lends further support to deleting this article. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC).
 * ...and got zero relevant hits. These are the top four daily newspapers in Croatia, one of which (Vjesnik) is a Croatian newspaper of record that has a full and freely accessible online archive that goes 12 years back. Nothing.
 * Also: is this an autobiography? If it isn't, where did the unsourced stuff from the "Recent Years" section come from? GregorB (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It certainly quacks like one. However, the real issue is notability and I think what you've reported above lends further support to deleting this article. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC).
 * It certainly quacks like one. However, the real issue is notability and I think what you've reported above lends further support to deleting this article. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC).


 * With all due respect, Gregor's inability to find sources lends no support to deleting this article. Numerous verifiable sources are listed in article. In addition, Jutarnji list (the newspaper) started in 1998, the events in the article take place in the early 2000's. When did all these eastern European newspapers introduce online newspapers versions, and/or do they have the server capabilities to save old news for many years? Gregor was unsuccessful in disputing the WP:Prof claims, so he now attempted to downplay the reliable sources. Once again, I believe he was unsuccessful.Turqoise127 (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is quite correct that my "inability to find sources" is in itself not a proof of lack of notability: however, I think it's a rather good proof of a lack of lasting impact, as reported (or not, in this case) by reliable sources, contrary to your claims. Lasting impact is what separates notable subjects from WP:NOTNEWS items. Also, I didn't even try to dispute WP:PROF claims because basically there's nothing to dispute. See my emphases in points #1, #4 and #7 above. Merely writing a book or a paper is not enough, even if it's "required reading", otherwise all university professors would be notable - and they are not. GregorB (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I completely agree that lasting impact separates notable from not news. Have you read the "Resulting Lasting Impact in the Field of Croatian Translations" paragraph? New national standards in professions last forever.CheersTurqoise127 (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but only important ones will be covered by reliable secondary sources. Not the case here, except perhaps for HZN and FFZG, but the link with the initiating event is unclear. Not covered by reliable secondary sources = not important (or not important enough). GregorB (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article's focus is on the learned work that the subject has done (translating textbooks, writing technical papers, and such), so WP:PROF is indeed the appropriate metric. As with the majority of hopefuls, he has to be tested on WP:PROF #1 because he clearly does not pass any of the other criteria. (With all due respect, there seems to be some basic confusion on what constitutes a pass on some of these criteria, for example testimonials on how someone's work changed the protocol in a narrow area of study or how their work was required reading at one specific institution certainly don't satisfy WP:PROF #4 – see prev AfD for specifics.) Disinterested inspection of the body of his work is conclusive: he has 0 hits and 0 citations (h-index = 0) for research work in the standard indexes (WoS, GS). The article clearly claims research publications, but my guess is that these articles actually appear in something like trade publications. For example, "Translator: Journal of the Croatian Association of Scientific and Technical Translators" seems to be the official publication of a translation agency. (Article seems to confirm this: "Kunej's most notable publication is a professional article/paper he wrote in 2003 entitled “Analysis of Translations from Croatian to English and Vice-Versa Along with Suggestions for Improving the Profession” [1] that was published by the Croatian Association of Technical and Scientific Translators [5] in their trade publication"). The article is also heavily loaded with pointers to other white-papers and unpublished material that contribute nothing toward notability. There is also the usual confusion related to the media, i.e. mistaking a brief appearance related to an event for substantive coverage of the subject himself. The red-flags are numerous, including listing how many minutes into the broadcast the subject appears, listing individual institutions that make trivial mention of his work, e.g. "the wedding customs book is mentioned also online on the Rijeka City Library website", etc. I think it is very clear that the article's content strains to manufacture notability where none (perhaps yet) exists. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC).


 * Thanks for your valid comment Agricola44. The reservations associated with the h index and other bibliometric measures were discussed at length in other Afd's, as I am sure you know. The Croatian Association of Technical and Scientific Translators is independent from the for profit agency. Here is a direct quote from WP:PROF; Measures of citability such as H-index, G-index, etc, may be used as a rough guide in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied, but they should be approached with considerable caution since their validity is not, at present, widely accepted, and since they depend substantially on the source indices used. For scholars in humanities (translations is humanities) the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. This article clearly meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG as discussed and shown above. If one wishes to step even higher to WP:PROF, some criteria are met, and WP:PROF states only any one criterion needs be met.Turqoise127 (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't buy the "let's try on different notability guidelines to see which one fits" mentality. The article describes this person as one who is doing the learned work of learned individuals, holding various kinds of posts in the education industry (broadly defined), etc. WP:PROF is often mistakenly assumed to apply only to university professors, but note that WP:TEACH and the like do in fact point to the same criteria. These are the appropriate criteria to test against. With all due respect, I'm afraid your argument on the h-index is nonsense. Kunej doesn't even have any published articles in any of the World's main indexing services, as far as I can see, nevermind any citations to such articles. No ambiguity here whatsoever about his impact. The exception you're mistakenly invoking (as a red herring, it would seem) must be applied to published pieces that aren't necessarily highly cited, but for which an argument for impact could nevertheless be made. I've also demonstrated in the past that the word "often" in "existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate" is misplaced. People in the humanities do publish in journals (in addition to writing books perhaps more frequently than those in the technical disciplines) and those publications are easy to find in the indexing services. (For example, my favorite poet Mary Jo Bang's 46 articles in Poetry, The Paris Review, et al. show up in WoS.) No, the problem here, is that our subject simply hasn't published, and consequently has no impact per WP:TEACH #1. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC).


 * More than one guideline can apply Agricola44. You know that. And my argument on indexes is not nonsense, many have argued similarly. It is inappropriate to believe only you are right and disregard similar opinions on those indexes by many experienced editors in the past, as well as policy. And subject did publish, by the Croatian Association of Technical and Scientific Translators; a reputable organization, even though you tried to smear that already. Be careful not to seem like you have a bias for non US and Canada articles. Respectfully, Turqoise127 (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, you can turn a blind eye to what I just demonstrated, which is that the humanities are well-covered by the indexing services. Now you resort to the next level, which always goes something like "___ only publishes in journals from ___, which aren't indexed because US bias". Again, this is demonstrably incorrect. For example, WoS indexes almost 900 journals published from the "minor" (if you'll please pardon that expression) European countries (including Croatia), i.e. not Germany, France, England, etc. (as queried from their Journal Citation Reports portal). What you are apparently confused about is what qualifies as "publishing" for our purposes. It is generally considered to be something in a mainstream, peer-reviewed, well-established learned journal. As far as I can see, nobody accused the Translator Association of being disreputable – that seems to be something you've mistakenly perceived. But, that's also not to say that their trade magazine qualifies as a mainstream journal – it doesn't. Pardon me if I get down to brass tacks here, but I think the following is a fair summary of matters as they now stand: (1) You created this article with a lot of flowery WP:PUFF that stretches to establish notability, (2) the article has been around a little over a year and there are no article links to it, (3) except for a whole bunch of redirects that you created on all variations of the name (e.g.Krešimir Kunej, Krešo Kunej, Chris Kresimir Kunej, et al.), effectively creating your own little WP:WALL, and (4) the subject has not accomplished anything that has had any demonstrable impact or created notice as can be documented in substantive sources that discuss this person or his work in a non-trivial way. Kunej wants to be acknowledged as notable for translating, which is honorable work, but not notable per se. I understand that you have a strong emotional investment in this article and I apologize if any of my observations have offended you. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC).


 * Not having links is irrelevant, they can be introduced. We agree to disagree that subject hasn't accomplished demonstrable impact. And I believe you have shown stronger emotional investment than I with the passionate novels you write here against this article, buddy.Turqoise127 (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You're free to believe whatever you like. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC).


 * Weak Keep - I don't understand the ins and out of WP:PROF here. The article has a lot of references even if most are not secondary. Having a TV interview is certainly useful although not itself meeting notability. WP:GNG looks like it passes but it's marginal. Milowent switched from Delete position in previous AFD to Week Keep, so I think that is about right. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and delete Drmies. He's obviously a partisan of musically challenged Dutch heavy metal bands and his strong opinions against this propagandistic hagiography should be discounted. . Any "expert" who has had a "lasting impact" on Croatia's linguistic profession must have their article kept, especially when the editor creating it tries as hard as Aqua-blue. Reap what we sow. Fidel Castrato (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC) — Fidel Castrato (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Part of your comment above was in direct violation of WP:NPA, I have struck that part out, please focus on content and not individual editors. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 01:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep- per WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO as some editors above noted. Yes it is kind of on the borderline, but sources are plentiful, and sufficient to pass GNG. Also, I must concede that ANYBIO is met (...contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.) It does not matter how important or unimportant this field may be. The one paragraph conveniently titled in a way to point to this does show this, although I see potential WP:SYNTH issues there (not a deletion issue, possibly a re-wording necessary). I tend to vote "delete" much more than "keep", and personally I do not like this article included on here but I do not see this as the usual BLP suspect. I like how some participants try to raise the bar to WP:PROF (even the article creator foolishly), but that is not necessary since it seems several persons have stated GNG is passed. I tend to agree with Drmies that subject does not seem to pass WP:PROF 4 and 7, but I believe it passes WP:PROF 1. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 00:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Er, h-index of 0 is the poster-child of failing WP:TEACH #1. The reason we have WP:TEACH (again, along with WP:PROF and others that all point to the same criteria) is because if you want to apply the test that "contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" and especially if "it does not matter how important or unimportant this field may be", then every person doing any sort of learned work will qualify as notable: all professors and instructors, including most at the community college level, anyone who's every written (or translated) any text, anyone who's ever written a single article, many high-school teachers, most administrators in secondary and higher education, and, well you get the idea. It's the same sort of reasoning that prompts us to apply WP:MUSIC instead of ANYBIO to someone who's contributions have been music-related. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC).
 * Agricola, please stop WP:BLUDGEONing every voter. You have made your stance quite clear, as have I. You are plain WRONG about your indexes, and you are in effect disrespecting policy and other editors by ignoring the section of WP:PROF that states, "Measures of citability such as H-index, G-index, etc, may be used as a rough guide in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied, but they should be approached with considerable caution since their validity is not, at present, widely accepted, and since they depend substantially on the source indices used." What part of that do you not understand? This seems to not be the first time you have done this, you overly passionately argue many BLPs (see Agricola talk pages).Turqoise127 (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems you already got the same admonition above from Drmies. Yes, please have a look at my talk pages and edit records – You'll find I follow a "constructionist" philosophy regarding WP:BLP. If you've read that document, you'll recall that BLPs are somewhat different (i.e. strict) than other types of articles on WP for a whole host of reasons. A large fraction of BLPs are nothing more than vanity pages (as this one appears to be), i.e. they violate one or more precepts of WP:BLP and they don't establish notability. As the old adage goes, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. That means we should call attention to points of confusion, for example like when saying that someone's work has made a significant impact when in fact that work has barely been cited. I've done nothing more than that, thanks. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC).
 * Drmies is an involved editor who is biased on this issue (as am I, as the creator of course). You, on the other hand are biased on BLPs and have your own agenda (deletionist). This is fine, but do not WP:BLUDGEON every comment because it is against policy (bludgeon, read it), rude and disruptive. You have made your feelings clear. Others may agree or disagree with you -hence reason we are here. Seems like more disagree, so you feel the need to be disruptive. I would hope the closing admin takes this into consideration.Turqoise127 (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and before I forget, you further prove your consistant violation of WP:bludgeon with always having the last word, as you will surely prove with your next comment below. I know you can't resist. I do think you may be more of a hinderance to the deletionist camp than help...as I was once told I am for the inclusionist camp. They are probably right about me, be careful that same doesn't become true for you Agri. Turqoise127 (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're so right me :) and I'm sorry this seems like having the last word, but I again beg to correct – WP:BLUDGEON is an essay not a policy – see here for the important differences. In all seriousness, it sounds like you're trying to censor me from further participation in this discussion. I'll not have it, thanks. Perhaps we should both pipe down unless there's some other obvious confusion that pops-up here (this case is starting to really suck-up some serious time on all our parts). Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC).
 * Agreed. Turqoise127 (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2010 (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.