Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable people who wore the bowler hat


 * 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   delete.  kur  ykh   00:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

List of notable people who wore the bowler hat

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article seems to have been created in violation of WP:POINT in response to this Afd. turns out this may have been jumping the gun on a coincidence, redacted MickMacNee (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Article is also totally unreferenced and establishes zero notability MickMacNee (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Article is as well referenced as List_of_people_who_have_been_beheaded. And for the same reason. Also, it was NOT, repeat NOT created to make any sort of POINT. It's a de-merge from Bowler hat in trying to de-escalate an edit war. S  B Harris 02:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that is BS. It is a direct result from the ensuing AFD on bowties, clear and simple. All it is doing is proverbially adding water to a grease fire. MuZemike  ( talk ) 07:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? I created it, and I very well know why I created it. And you can read the Bowler hat edit summaries if you need evidence to back and prove the story. Now quit assuming bad faith. S B Harris 17:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Why would I assume good faith on someone whom I believe is blatantly invoking WP:POINT? The fact that you intentionally spun this off from the bowtie AFD to spark more (useless IMO) back-and-forth discussion with no end result leaves me little choice but to do so. You very well knew that. MuZemike  ( talk ) 03:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Why would you assume good faith in somebody you believe is not acting in good faith," in other words? Well, where is your evidence that I'm acting to prove WP:POINT? You can say this was spun off the bowtie AFD till the cows come home, but that won't make it true. *I* spun it off. I know why I spun it off, and it is incredibly insulting to have you tell me that I didn't act for the reasons I know I acted for. I knew NOTHING about your frigging bowtie AFD when I did it. Nor do I care about bowties. The edit war that resulted in it being spun off is a matter of record. It stands to refute your argument. As long as you keep making it, I'll just keep pointing out that you're making a vicious judgement about somebody else's motives, based on NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. So keep it up. The more you do of this, the worse you look. If you want to go into the history to show me a liar or in any way acting in bad faith, here's your chance. I hope you try it, and waste gobs of time doing it. It will serve you right, and perhaps teach you something. S  B Harris 19:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That was a bad idea. Pushing bad content off into a separate article just so that "people can edit war over it over there, away from us", is always a bad idea.  Time and again, over the past few years, people have done exactly that, in an attempt to push a problem away to another article rather than deal with it.  And time and again, the problem has ended up here at AFD, with a consensus (as is indeed developing here) to merge the content back in again.  Read User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing.  You've seen and been part of this cycle at least once, now.  (I've seen it numerous times.)  Please learn from this experience. Uncle G (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's not "always" a bad idea. If one of the underlying reasons (stated or not) why people don't like a section is that it is overlong and is taking over an article, that may mean that it is merely time to spin it off to a subarticle with a summary. That works well all the time, and is in fact how Wikipedia grows. As a matter of fact, List of people who have been beheaded was spun off from the decapitation article (not by me), where it now sits, quietly, on a separate pike. All in just the way we've tried to do it here for bowler hat wearers. Do you want it merged back in to the main article? I'd do it, but that really WOULD violate WP:POINT. S  B Harris 17:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, pushing bad content off into a separate article is always a bad idea. You didn't spin this content off because of the article size of bowler hat, which was barely 16KiB at its peak.  Painting this as a size issue, as you are doing here, is a clear falsehood.  You spun the content off because you were arguing about content that two other editors had clearly and explicitly challenged for not being reliably sourced, complete with massive immediate assumptions of bad faith on your part about the other editors involved in the dispute.  You tried to push the edit war over unsourced and repeatedly challenged content elsewhere into a separate article, and you began the cycle that I mention above.  I repeat: You would do well to learn from this that it is a bad idea, instead of trying to misportray a clear verifiability issue as somehow being a size issue.  Uncle G (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 'keep It actually is a definable characteristic for bother performers and sometimes other figures, at least in periods when they werent universal. DGG (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply Wow, thank you for applying your keep vote for BOWLER HAT and not LIST OF PEOPLE WHO WORE THE BOWLER HAT. Different articles, so please explain how this article is notable and not the hat itself. Tavix (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's better to assume good faith. DGG's comments do appear to apply to the subjects of this article and not to the hat itself. (Although see my own !vote below.) AlexTiefling (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you should assume good faith to my good faith comment. Please don't accuse me of something I am not doing. Tavix (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete with prejudice towards recreation, and warn the author not to disrupt Wikipedia again to make a point upon threat of a block. Why has a request for comment not been started regarding articles like these instead of going back and forth with this stupid bickering bullshit? (pardon my strong tone and French) MuZemike  ( talk ) 00:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral This article might well have a claim of notability, but there is no prose explaining why an individual wearing a bowler hat is notable, no sources establishing why bowler-wearing is a notable characteristic and no sources establishing that any of the individuals wore a bowler. If this can be improved to the quality and scope of List of bow tie wearers, which meets all of these criteria, I will be more than happy to reconsider my vote. Alansohn (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:POINT. --Carnildo (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Move Merge There seems to be a history behind this article I had not realised when I came here following the link from the contentious bow tie debate. I think the title is a bit poor, and suggest "list of bowler hat wearers", but apart from that I apologise for bad faith prejudice affecting my judgement. It should be given time to improve, and certainly helps the main article by being separate (and notable also in itself). —Kan8eDie (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This article fails (at the moment) to establish notability. I am wary of making WP:RUBBISH arguments, but the references are not there, and the quality is not such as to indicate that improvements are forthcoming (i.e. there is no point giving the author the benefit of doubt for a couple of weeks to clean it up). I am however open to this article existing if it aims in a similar direction to good articles like List of bow tie wearers, but, on a case-by-case basis, the current article does not do enough to establish itself an an equivalently good footing. Hence, though the title could potentially be made into an encyclopaedic article, but at the moment is there to prove a point, so until this changes, it should go. —Kan8eDie (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is no encyclopedic purpose for this list. Purely opinion/speculation. Tavix (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations to the creator for producing such a substantial article in 2 days - who can predict where it will be in 2 weeks? There was the chap in Clockwork Orange too [already there]. President Hastings Banda invariably wore a bowler. (What or who has been disrupted?) Occuli (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I see it has in fact merely been demerged from the Bowler hat article. Occuli (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is also the highly disruptive List of monocle wearers. Occuli (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete* Article is unencyclopedic doesnt show any interst towards the public or valuble sourcesJbecker90 (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete no point in having this list, unreferenced, and no notablility LegoKontribsTalkM 01:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge Yes, I created the original version of this article, which was demerged from the Bowler hat article, where it occupied 60% of the space. No, I had no idea there even was a bow tie controversy until reading here, so WP:POINT is NOT an issue. This article's content was the subject of a minor delete/edit war on Bowler hat, and thinking that I could de-escalate that, I off-loaded it as a type list article. We do have many dedicated list articles on WP--- see WP:LISTS. In any case, this accounts for the large amount of info appearing suddenly (and yes, I noticed the Clockwork Orange guys are missing, too). Should this thing be kept? Well, the Bowler hat makes something more of a fashion statement than a bowtie, and always did. Why this is, I do not know. This article was created piecemeal by very many contributors, and if it's gone, people will just start adding these things one at a time again to the Bowler hat article. That's rather unlikely that this would happen to the bow tie article, since there are so many other famous wearers. It's a bad idea to delete an article which will be piecemeal re-created, by people who had no idea of its initial existence! But what do you think of, when you think of Oddjob or Laurel and Hardy or Bat Masterson?  Yes, the thing needs to be sectioned into real and fictional characters, and they need some kind of order. But we can't do that, if you delete it.  I'm a little shocked that people would say "might be encyclopedic in the future, but meanwhile since it isn't, delete it." That's not the way Wikipedia grows! A last issue is that many list articles have references embedded in the links they reference. For example: List of people who've been beheaded. . Similarly, very many links in this list article are similar referenced, by a direct photo or drawing of somebody wearning a bowler, in the linked Wiki itself.  S  B Harris 02:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Whatever happens here, it should be the same thing as at Articles for deletion/List of bow tie wearers (4th nomination).   Little Red Riding Hood  talk  03:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: why? The bow tie list wasn't just a list, it was an essay. And it was completely verified, and at least attempted to explain why it was important. This is nothing, just listcruft. Which reminds me: Delete. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - There are significant differences between the two articles. For example, List of bow tie wearers has (at this moment) 127 reference footnotes, and this article has none. --Orlady (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - That's effectively a form of the what about X argument. There's no established policy of ruling in matching ways on similar articles not jointly nominated, and the two articles are very different in their apparent criteria of inclusion. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge back to Bowler hat. I think the list may be notable, in spite of the absence of sources, and (unlike the List of bow tie wearers situation) the list is too short to warrant an article split. Also, regardless of whether it's a stand-alone article or an embedded list in the Bowler hat article, arrange the list elements in some sort of nonrandom predictable manner and support the list entries with citations to reliable sources. As long as this list remains random and unsourced, expect that it will continue to be attacked.--Orlady (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is an indiscriminate list. It's not that it's not referenced or notable, it's that it's unencyclopedic.  Xihr  06:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge back to Bowler hat, or source, add lead, and then keep. I do believe this to be a notable phenomenon, but of the first five entries, only two of the articles about the person or character even mentioned a "derby" or "bowler hat", making the list difficult for the reader to verify. I suspect most if not all of these entries can be sourced, so please do it to demonstrate notability. Because if this is not sourced, there will be an endless cycle of splitting, deleting, merging, and splitting again. Break the cycle with reliable sources! DHowell (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleteas not encyclopaedic, simply an indiscriminate list. Totally fails notability criteria. Verbal   chat  09:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep 1) Articles that are subarticles don't need to establish independent notability, but rather a need to be split off. 2) Since there's bunches of original research in this entry, I believe it should be treated like the bowtie list. Cut everything until you're left with people who were known for bowler hat wearing in particular (not people occasionally seen with one). Depending on the resulting size, that list could be merged back. - Mgm|(talk) 09:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to bowler hat - Although there is the potential for an article here, this isn't it. There are no sources, the lead gives no clear criterion for inclusion, and there's a lot of OR about Brooklyn accents and suchlike. It also used the word 'notable' in its title and 'cultural references' in the lead. This might be salvageable, but I'm not convinced. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Just another indiscriminate list. Themfromspace (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hats Off Egad, characters from TV shows and cartoons (who aren't even real people, let alone notable ones) mixed with actors who wore hats as part of a film role, mixed with real people who wore the once-fashionable headgear. WP:INDISCRIMINATE, indeed. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no sources whatsoever to indicate notability of the wearing of bowler hats. I'll be happy to reconsider if references are added.--otherlleft (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Some work has been done
I have made an initial collection into three categories. Many of them are interesting, and it's clear that if you read them (something I'll bet few commentators above have done) that they contain self-references in their Wiki-links. Also that the bowler hat is a distinguishing part of the character or work of art. Only the Western cowboy hat comes near it, in that regard. In any case, for the time it's taken some of the people above to comment, they could have been improving the article a lot. S B Harris 20:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The absence of sources is still a serious issue with the article. Also, do consider that alphabetical order is often effective for organizing lists of names. --Orlady (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep at least for now. Was a split off of the main article, and was nominated under the mistaken idea that it was a knee jerk article creation to another AFD.  It is extensive, wikilinked, reasonable to think this is a notable characteristic, and should be given more time to develop.  It passes wp:v in that it can be verified even if it isn't yet, and we aren't on a wp:deadline, particularly with new articles.    D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C)  01:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:N trumps WP:V. Even if the article is verifiable, it still isn't a notable subject for a list. Themfromspace (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That argument about "notability" comes down to a tricky way of saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's not that there aren't a huge number of cultural references and symbology related to the thing: example. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7641493.stm. It just means you're not interested in the subject. S  B Harris 02:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't put words in my mouth. Read over WP:N.  "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."  The topic of this article is "List of notable people who wore the bowler hat".  Find me some significant coverage of that topic that "address the subject directly in detail".  Objective evidence on why a list of notable people who wore the bowler hat belongs in an encyclopedia.  Verifiablity only proves the details of an article (X, Y, and Z wore bowler hats for example) but those sources dont prove the notability of the article unless they address the wider subject (the group of people themselves) as the subject of the articles. Themfromspace (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, then you'd have to reintigrate the list back into the article to do that. Lists are like redlinks in Wikipedia: they are groups of facts often waiting for connection. If you delete them first, that never happens. Do what you want. I'll leave you with this reference: http://www.amazon.com/Man-Bowler-Hat-History-Iconography/dp/0807820733, from a guy who has made all these connections and more. "Robinson (English/University of San Diego; Comic Moments, 1992, etc.--not reviewed) traces the cultural significance of the bowler hat from 1850 to the present--in a study as lighthearted and charming as its subject. Having asked, 'Why did Samuel Beckett specify that the four major characters of Waiting for Godot wear bowler hats?,' in a 1986 TriQuarterly article, Robinson was moved to expand his inquiry to book length, studying modern life through the evolving meanings of this item of fashion that combines--symbolically and literally- -both lightness and weight. Following the history of the bowler 'as though a wind were blowing it just beyond [my] reach,' Robinson tells of the hat's debut, in 1850 London, where its combination of style and function satisfied Victorian England's obsession with the practical and the correct. The bowler soon passed from informal use among the aristocracy into a badge of respectability by the upwardly mobile middle class, eventually inspiring Chaplin to use it in his parody of the earnest 'little man.' As 20th-century life brought new strains of malaise, the bowler became a symbol of mass-produced anonymity in Magritte's paintings; of grim soullessness in the works of Anton Raderscheidt and Georg Grosz; and, finally, in Germany, of Jewish greed and evil. By 1948, when Beckett began writing Godot, the bowler had come to stand for an immutable social identity. It has since settled into the relative obscurity of costume wear, resurfacing only occasionally--e.g., as Oddjob's weapon in Goldfinger and an erotic toy in Milan Kundera's The Unbearable Lightness of Being. Yet the bowler continues to '[express] its history precisely as it floats past it,' Robinson concludes, until it becomes a pure design object that can adapt to anything--and 'the dream of the modern will be realized, in at least one small object, at the end of the modern age.' A tip of the hat to this playful yet thought-provoking work. (Fifty-two illustrations)" S  B Harris 02:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete this indiscriminate trivia infested list which has zero encyclopedic value. JBsupreme (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research, like so many other trivia lists. I wish people would have the courage to remove out-of-control trivia lists once in a while. There's no rule requiring them to be spun off. WillOakland (talk) 07:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, that is exactly what happend here in the bowler hat article. Two editors challenged and removed the list, on the basis (given in their edit summaries) that it was unreliably sourced.  Sbharris reverted the trimming, and decided to spin the content off into a new article, instead of citing sources in the main article to show that the content that xe was re-inserting was verifiable. Uncle G (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, indiscriminate, unencyclopedic, we've done this dance before. –– Lid(Talk) 10:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see this as a spin-off per summary style. Notable wearers are indeed part of a thourough study of an iconic item of clothing, as shown by the book quoted above by Sbharris, but the complete list doesn't fit in the parent article due to its length. I agree that it needs cleanup, referencing, trimming, and all that, and also agree with MGM that after the trimming it is even possible that a merge back will be best. --Itub (talk) 12:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The trimming could have occurred in the main article, where this content actually came from in the first place (without proper GFDL-compliant edit summaries by the article's creator), so no edit history is lost by deletion. In fact, it was occurring.  Editors were challenging the content and removing it, and it was being edit warred back in, on the basis that the verifiability policy didn't say what people think it does, rather than on the significantly more sound basis that there were sources supporting the content.  Faced with multiple editors asking for reliable sources, the editor who was restoring the unsourced content decided to use the alternative approach, which never works, of trying to push the edit war out to a separate article.  And hence we are, with yet another article, going around the create-AFD-delete/merge cycle described in User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing, as a result of editors who think that the solutions to verifiability and neutrality disputes over unsourced list-of-characters/people-who-are/do-X content are to create separate articles with their preferred content in, rather than to actually make the existing article verifiable, neutral, and free from original research.  This is a classic fork-out-of-a-content-dispute situation. Uncle G (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Uncle G. This shouldn't haven't been spun off into a separate article. PhilKnight (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Per WP:AFD - if an article can be improved through regular editing it is not a good candidate for deletion. It took me less than a minute find sources and the only remaining issues are to improve the list and the lede to show why bowler hats are tied to these people/characters. Bowler hat, by the way, is also rather a mess so I see little benefit to counteracting what was sensibly spun off. Clean-it up and start demonstrating how the subject can be dealt with encyclopedicly. -- Banj e  b oi   01:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. The list fails immediately as a collection of indiscriminate information.  While it may be notable in an article about Winston Churchill that he wore a bowler hat, since that is an attribute of the man's dress, a list of people, notable or otherwise, who wore the hat is not and can not be notable.  What is interesting is by no means always notable .  A very short list of examples of wearers is acceptable in the Bowler hat article, but, even there, an exhaustive list is a broad irrelevance. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a list of indiscriminate information, any more than a list of players on a sports team, a list of teams in a league, or a list of notable people who've lost their heads to beheading, is "indiscriminate." What discriminates these people is their choice of the bowler hat to make a statement. This does not attempt to be an inclusive list of people who wore one for any reason; it's a list of people who wore one because of what they wanted the bowler to say, and were themselves notable without it, but more recognizable with it and because of it. Like Churchill. Take a look at today's Google logo. It's Magritte's 110th birthday today. Magritte often chose the Bowler to say something, and because of that, Google chose it to say something about Magritte. But many other people besides Magritte made this choice, or else Magritte's paintings would have no meaning from the symbol. Ceci n'est pas une Bowler. S  B Harris 22:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, it is. Put the hat-ness in Magritte and Churchill.  This article is an irrelevance Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * By that argument, here is a List of ships. Yep, they're all ships, all right. Why don't you go and put a delete template on it? S  B Harris 22:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * May I refer you to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS please. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * May I point you to the entire article on WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Make a clear argument which avoids some variation of this, please? Above, you referenced WP:IINFO, but the present list violates none of the bad examples, there, so that's irrelevent. The subarticleWP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS appears to me to be nothing more than a combination of IDONTLIKEIT combined with the dubious assertion that Wikipedia actually has no obligation whatsoever to be consistant. But unfortunately, pillars, policies and guidelines are no help whatsoever without examples, so a certain amount of consistancy is needed. Also, since WP:lists and categories on Wikipedia duplicate and compliment each other, per policy, your argument that something should not be a list basically fails unless you can make an argument that it shouldn't even be a category. S  B Harris 22:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Point all you wish. It is, in my opinion, a list that is an indiscriminate collection of information. I have never argued for "list or category but not both" nor will I. I am arguing for the list per se being not notable (and thus indiscriminate).  You will not convince my by rhetoric.  You might if the list becomes what I view as notable.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but if you look at WP:IINFO the definition of an indiscriminate list of information given, is a list of things which each aren't in-and-of themselves notable. It is NOT what you suggest, which is a list of notable things that somebody like you thinks shouldn't be notable "as a list." As you see, nearly all the items in the list of bowler hat wearers already have their own wikis on wikipedia. They are notable. If each list itself on WP had to be notable "as a list," then it would need independent RS, V confirmation as such. But that would wipe out a lot of WP categories, which (in case you haven't noticed) are technically OR, by virtue of their collection and tagging as belonging together, here, for the first time, on WP. No encyclopedia can avoid some of that. We've collected a unque bunch of articles that start with the letter "A," too-- one you won't find anywhere else. Where's your reference for this collection, since it only exists on Wikipedia? See the problem? S  B Harris 23:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Sorry, but" is a phrase which I do not find endearing. It has the appearance of politeness but is really a sneer.  I suggest the person closing this AfD is in a better position than either of us to judge the arguments brought to bear and thus the consensus formed.  I have no intention of going further into this with you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The endless list vs. category AfD debate
I recommend anybody who doesn't want to repeat past wikiwars familiarize themselves with WP:CLN and WP:LISTS. For a shocker, also look at List of lists and some of the extensive materials therein. S B Harris 03:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "A continuous problem at AfD is the category-vs-list conflict. One purpose of this guideline is to end that conflict. The lead included a good explanation of the conflict, but it was recently removed. I've restored the version of the lead that includes Dcoetzee's refinements above. The Transhumanist 03:01, 1 February 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.