Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people killed because they were transgender


 * 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 no consensus.

The full result should read "No consensus possible for now". Let me explain: When this article was nominated for deletion two days ago, it looked completely different (permalink) from the current revision (permalink). All discussion that took place within the last days revealed one thing: That this topic is so complex at times that people cannot even agree on the correct article name. The recommendation by should be followed: agree upon a title and improve the article with renewed focus.

Following a suggestion by the nominator,, and after input from admins and  (permalink), I decided to close this AfD early because it cannot possibly lead to any consensus for reasons outlined above. This does not mean this article cannot be renominated for deletion again very soon if nothing changes. The current article name has WP:NPOV issues and the topic itself may fail WP:NOT. A new deletion discussion might even benefit the article and allow us to reach consensus on the topic.

Deletion debates are a way to reach consensus and there are several procedural points to follow when dealing with them. While "speedy keep" and "speedy delete" are valid options, "speedy no consensus" usually isn't. The whole reason why there is a 5 day period is so that there is time to reach consensus. Here, I decided to bend the rules a bit, with an interpretation of the snowball clause: Judging any consensus here will be very weak because the closing admin, who'd have to decide "keep" or "delete", cannot judge which !votes were cast for which revision of the article. So if there is no way that clear consensus can be reached, there is, going with WP:SNOW, no reason to complete the whole process. Again, I believe that consensus is possible and can be sought very soon once the article is reasonable stable. It is just not possible to be determined from this discussion.

Regards  So Why  16:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

List of trans people now dead by year

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

I was in two minds about this article. I see it may be potentially "important" in some manner and have no wish to upset LGBT folk by nominating it for deletion, but it feels like an indiscriminate collection of information, thus I am proposing it here for the community to reach a consensus upon. The article does need work if it survives, but that is not the basis of my nomination Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of LGBT related deletions. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break to ease editing 0
I'm not sure what the title should be ("List of murdered transgendered people" is a good suggestion, except that it's not clear that all of these people were murdered), but I do not think it should be organized "by year." IMO, this would be effective as a wikitable arranged alphabetically by person's surname and secondarily sortable by date and location. --Orlady (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename The title really doesn't do this article any favours. What it is is a list of trans people who have been murdered, not who are 'now dead' Should be renamed to something like List of murdered transgendered people by year. 'Trans' should be expanded as it's not a word that everybody may naturally understand from the title. --Ged UK (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per - This absolutely can be improved per WP:LISTS but the name is unclear.--otherlleft (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless copyright problems are addressed; article has been moved to a title that establishes a clear and notable criterion for inclusion, so if it's rewritten my concerns will have been addressed. I generally don't buy the "delete so a better version can be rewritten later" argument, but copyright violations are an exception supported by policy.--otherlleft (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. Since the criteria of this list simply seems to be anyone who is transgendered and was killed by someone else, this is nothing more than a memorial.  There is no real notability here, at least no more so than a list of right-handed people who were killed or list of blind people who were killed.  I do not see how this list adds to the quality of information contained by Wikipedia.  This is not at all an attack on this subset of the population, but the list seems non-notable. If the list was based on people killed as a result of hate crimes because they were transgendered, that would be one thing, but there is no indication in the article that these people were killed because of their "status" for lack of a better term.  For all the article says, most of these people may have been killed in various altercations having nothing to do with their gender, such as due to robbery, domestic violence, etc.  I therefore think this list should be removed, or converted to a list of people killed because they are transgendered, not simply people who were killed, and happened to be transgendered.  Theseeker4 (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * comment You make a persuasive point. I'm hoping that the creator and others will pick up on your point and reshape this into something that is not a memorial and is worth including.  I wonder if you might also join in and have a go yourself?  I may have nominated it, but I'm also trying to improve it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * comment I made the logical leap of that intention myself. However, rewording the lead to establish that criterion should be sufficient to address that legitimate concern.--otherlleft (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * comment I have reworded the opening paragraph to reflect the intent. I'm not a subject expert here, so have no idea which of the content to weed, however.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I understand the desire to keep a list that has been created, but the fact is that there are no sources to back up the intention of the list. What I mean is, the people included have no evidence that they were in fact killed because of their transgendered status.  Unless citations can be provided to show the people on the list were killed for that reason, I suggest letting this list be deleted and re-creating it with a new name and with citations once the required research is complete enough for the list to survive.  Theseeker4 (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Userfy until it is significantly improved . See below. I believe that a list of transgendered people who were victims of what appear to be hate crimes is potentially encyclopedic, but this list article is not ready for article space. Not only is the article title seriously problematic, but most of the entries are unsourced (including unsourced statements about alleged perpetrators who are still living people), there is much nonneutral POV, some of the text appears (based on wording) to be copied from news sources, and the style is inappropriate.
 * comment I've added BLP to the article talk page, though am not, myself, acting upon it. While it isn't a perfect warning template it will suffice for the present.  Even userfied that problem still exists, though.  I've put a strong request on the originator's talk page. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Falls into the indiscriminate collection of information area. There must be at least one LGBT wiki where this could reside happily and become a memorial page. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I can envision that someone might save the article to their computer hard-drive, and possibly bring it back in a form that doesn't break so many rules. Besides a non-encyclopedic style, POV (point of view) writing, and Wikipedia not being a memorial, this article suffers from a lack of citations that support the author's assumption--- i.e. that these persons were killed "primarily because of their gender status".  Mandsford (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per RHaworth; further, this could be taken as an attack page, and it comes close to being listcruft. --KurtRaschke (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see the point of listing people by this criteria. The fact they died in a certain year is not necessarily linked to the fact they are "trans". In the event this list is kept, it needs a new title as "trans" doesn's mean anything; if you mean transsexual/transgenered, then say so. And what the heck does "now dead" mean??? 23skidoo (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Change to Delete as copyvio (I previously said Userfy). Changing again; see below. Article looks like it was copied from this "Transgender Week of Remembrance" blog created two days before the article was created. --Orlady (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * comment I checked that blog. The article is strictly "Copyright &copy; 2008" (see the footer) so it has no place here in that form.  If someone chooses to rescue it by editing every segment that still looks unlikely to save it from deletion.  I feel that "a" list of trasngender folk who have been killed because of their status is appropriate here, but this list needs to go. That concern has now been fully addressed.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break to ease editing 1

 * Weak keep Needs some further improvement for objective tone and sourcing. But basically a suitable combination article. One can;'t say "murdered" unless there is evidence that it amounts to murder, but the title does need to be clarified. DGG (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial for crossdressers. Tavix (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * comment your comment really ought to be rephrased As it stands it is capable of being read as offensive.  Wikipedia is not a memorial, period.  Though it may document memorials, of course. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: 1) Wikipedia is not a memorial. 2) Transgendered people are not cross-dressers in any relevant sense. 3) Transphobic violence is a notable topic; could this material be merged in some way to an appropriate general article? AlexTiefling (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * CommentWhile phrased a little abruptly, Tavix's comment is not entirely incorrect. Our article uses the euphemistic "gender non-conforming clothing", but the list clearly contains cross-dressers.Matt Deres (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Que? You might wish to rephrase your comment, Matt . . . "our article" gives the impression that you believe that a particular group of editors owns the content, which probably isn't what you intended.  As it stands, I need to rethink my position (above) based on the copyright violations; technically I guess someone does own it as it's written right now, so it needs a big ol' rewrite if it's gonna stick around.--otherlleft (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The purpose of this article needs to be clarified first. Is it just for transsexual people, for people who identified as the opposing sex, or for cross-dressing people? Or all of the above? Whichever is chosen, the title will need to reflect that somehow (and hopefully a little more lucidly). I'm leaning towards suggesting we delete this mess and perhaps start over with more focused article(s). I'd also prefer less frequent use of euphemisms in the resulting articles. Matt Deres (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Firstly, I've boldly moved this article to a more grammatically and accurate title. Secondly this will be quite a huge list - "As of Nov. 11, the Remembering Our Dead Project reported a total of 20 reported transgender killings for 2008 — 13 people in the U.S. and seven people overseas. Since 1970, when records began to be kept, the project has reported 284 deaths in the U.S. and 126 deaths internationally." There are, of course, many people killed that were never reported to that project. Secondly, like any list, it should be cleaned-up, referenced, and uncommon terms explained. If a cross-dresser was killed for their gender expression then yes - they would seem to fit the basic criteria. Reliable sourcing can help solve these issues as well. Likewise violent death is being utilized as murder is a legal term - similar to hate crime now is. Hate might have been the motivation for the murder with a hate crime amendment but the defendant(s) may not be charged with either. The entire list can be sourced and BLP concerns addressed, of course. These are editing issues - not reasons to delete. -- Banj e  b oi   02:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Here is an interactive list with 350+ people] each link includes a brief description and source that they utilized. -- Banj e  b oi   02:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are committed to saving this article, you had better deal with the WP:COPYVIO situation. Adding reference citations to text that was copied verbatim from a copyrighted source does not resolve the copyvio. --Orlady (talk) 03:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

*Delete This list seems indiscriminate. I think the issues and notability are best addressed in the appropriate articles. But lists of people according to how they died doesn't seem notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - I'm not a big fan of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I'd like to point out:
 * List of people who died in aviation accidents and incidents,
 * List of people who died onstage,
 * List of women who died in childbirth,
 * List of people who died in road accidents,
 * List of racing drivers who died in racing crashes,
 * List of people who died of starvation,
 * List of sports people who have died during their playing career,
 * List of Mayflower passengers who died in the winter of 1620–1621,
 * List of veterans of World War I who died in 2008 -- and that's just the first page of three or four in my Google search.
 * But that's not a valid reason to keep. What *is* a valid reason is that the list is defined, not a memorial, properly sourced (or will be), and is notable - a search for "transgender murder hate crime" turns up 591 newspaper entries.  I would also note that today, in a twist of fate, is Transgender Day of Remembrance, an event that started back in 2001 - see . -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's good enough for me. I think recognizing what we do and don't include, and the precedents do have some significance. I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong and while this list seems rather morbid there seems to be a justification for keeping it. These lists seem more indiscriminate to me than the bow-tie and top hat controversies, but to each their own (list).ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not good enough for me. Big difference in fact. Most of those lists are of notable people who fit the category that have article otherwise. They pass WP:BIO1E, where this list fails.  Grsz  11   →Review!  05:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break to ease editing 2

 * Comment Such a list should be a list of "notable" transgendered people who were murdered, by year. That is, they should be notable for something else, like being a musician with numerous hit recordings, or being a scientist, or an entertainer, or a politician, or a writer, etc. The "Notable" is assumed in such a list. It would be a "keepable" as a list of Lesbian, Homosexual, or Heterosexual Notable people murdered by year. A list of otherwise nonnotable people who are transsexual, tonedeaf, sing in the shower, left-handed, right-handed, are tall, are short, blond, brunette, etc should be deleted as a memorial, which Wikipedia is not.Edison (talk) 06:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no reason a list has to be only of people who are notable - just like other lists don't require such. Some lists do add such a restriction to reign in listcreep but there's no reason to do that here. Simply noting a person who has been killed violently is hardly a memorial. -- Banj e  b oi   10:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I also disagree with Edison's point. Per WP:CLN, each item on the list does not need to be notable in and of itself, so if the topic of the list is notable, others that do not have other notable characteristics may be included.--otherlleft (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as a reasonable sub-article of Hate crime per WP:SUMMARY. This is not a memorial page, as it is not being used to honor the people on it but to document them. Otto4711 (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Withdraw Nomination on the basis that the work in progress in the article currently has rendered it to be notable, presumed free from copyright violation, and NPOV. It appears to be written in such a manner that, while conclusions may be drawn by the reader, it draws no conclusions, reporting cited facts.  The people in the list donot have to be notable for the facts of the multiple deaths by virtue of their gender status to be notable.  For my part all my concerns are removed.  YMMV Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We had this on another AFD recently - basically when the AFD has run for this period of time it's now belongs to the community and need to run it's course (otherwise as I found out all sort of fun and games occur...). --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am simply pointing out that the concerns that I had have gone. AfD belongs to the community as soon as it is issued.  It is up to the person closing the AfD, not up to the nominator. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

* Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * comment I wondered if it were a memorial, too, at first. I hope that you will see on closer inspection that it is different from that, though I can see why one might consider it to be one.  Perhaps this could be made clearer with the introductory paragraph(s) in some manner and thus meet your concerns? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * On closer inspection - half of the entries seem to be included simply because they were transgendered not because they were murdered for being transgendered. So the more I read it, the more I am concerned that it's a memorial. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not entirely sure whom you are referring to in your edit summary about foot stamping and toys being thrown out of prams, but I wanted to assure you that, if it was me you refer to, my feet nor my toys have hit the floor. :) I think one should keep personality out if this entirely. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No not you - go to the article and see what it's now called. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The final thing is the title, really. No point in rearranging the deckchairs if the ship is sinking.  It can be called anything anyone agrees on Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * delete as still without a good discrimination rule. The title currently talks about "violently killed", and the leading says that it's a list of those who "who have met a violent death"... that's silly... whose POV defines what's a violent death? --Damiens .rf 16:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you name some ways that one person intentionally kills another that don't involve violence? 'Cause I'm stumped. Otto4711 (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep We have all sorts of lists for all sorts of things. Why is this any different? Bstone (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * keep is a notable phenomenon of notable people. Is reliably sourced and has no original research. We should remove any entries where there are no reliable sourcing saying that victims gender-identity was relevant, but that's more book keeping than anything else. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Is that in relation to it's current title, it's old title or a combination of the two? I'd vote "keep" for a cleaned up version at it'd old title but not at the current which I think is indiscriminate. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's in relation to List of people killed because they were transgender. "List of violently killed transgender" people seems less helpful and is POV about what constitute "violent". JoshuaZ (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Delete. Indiscriminate collection of information area - it also suffers from POV issues. What is violent? And it seems to imply that the common significant fact with these deaths is the victim's gender status. But is that so? I've happily see an article on Violence against transgendered people - because that could potentially include sourcing that indicated not only that they died violently and were transgender, but that those two facts were somehow related, or vieed to be related in significant sources. But simply this pastiches facts to create the impression of a phenomenon that however politically correct, its sources do not sustain. "List" must not be allowed as an excuse for motivated original research through a synthesis of sources to give the impression of a phenomena (that may, or may not, exist).--Scott MacDonald (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this AFD is slightly broken as the article has changed names twice since it started and I think we are now all talking about different thing. As for the significant of the death - half of those included under the old title "list of people killed because they were transgendered" did not actually meet their criteria - no motive was provided in the sources, that's why the article was moved to it's current title because anyone killed could be included and the sourcing issues could be brushed away. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete the subject of Transphobic violence is notable, whereas a list of dead transpeople is not. WP:MEMORIAL and all that guff. X MarX the Spot (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Close and list new - Consensus cannot be determined from this AfD because the name of the article has been changed twice and the name changes resulted in the above contributors discussing different topics. "List of people killed because they were transgender" is different from "List of violently killed transgender people" which is different from "List of unlawfully killed transgender people". Otherwise, Keep List of unlawfully killed transgender people since it is a valuable information source and in the aggregate serves as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia. Simple Google book, news, and scholar searches show that killed and transgender status is often used by media sources, providing sufficient reliable source material for this topic and making this a viable intersection list. -- Suntag  ☼  19:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge/convert into an article on Violence against transgendered people. This article has been evolving rapidly. As old issues are resolved, new ones seem to be created. I'm not comfortable with the latest title and I'm concerned that the list is not a good way to present the topic. Scott MacDonald's comment about the "violence against" article is the best suggestion I've seen thus far. --Orlady (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break to ease editing 3

 * Keep for the moment, I've worked on the article for a bit and there is the crux of a article there. If someone had a better suggestion for a name, I recommend they be bold the most recent move was because the last move was to such a horrible POV title. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

1) the original title was actually better because the new one, "List of violently killed transgender people", is both bizarrely worded and broad to the point of cruft. If anything this needs to be less broad, not MORE broad. "Violently killed" is particularly bizarre and gives the strong impression that the only reason the change from "murdered" to "violently killed" was made is so that POV-fueled speculation by LGBT publications and groups could be used in place of hard data as inclusion criteria for someone who has never been proved to have been "murdered", much less murdered specifically due to their orientation. The only other good faith reason I could think of is if you wanted to add every transgendered person ever killed due to physical trauma...yeah, like I said.
 * Delete - per User:Theseeker4, and others. I appreciate what you are trying to accomplish here, but here are my issues:


 * 2) What is notable enough about independently-non-notable murdered transgendered people (specifically) that suggests a list is needed? This title suggests that simply being transgendered and being killed (for whatever reason) is sufficiently notable to justify an article. We don't do arbitrary lists of dead people by sexual orientation when there's no proven connection between their death and their sexual orientation (or hair color, or favorite TV show). That's POV cruft and rather insulting, to be honest. If you want to include a tie-in between "killed" and "transgendered" in the title, you need to provide a reason why it's notable. Which brings me to...


 * 3) Let's say a more descriptive title is used, such as "List of notable people murdered due to being transgendered". This would satisfy the notability/cruft issue in the title itself, but the included entries would still have to have reliable citations that specifically state that the individuals in question were targeted for a hate-crime (murder) due to their status as a transgendered person, and not for any one of the other 9000 reasons people of all sexual orientations murder each other all the time. Otherwise, it's cruft at best and shameful POV pushing at worst.


 * 3.1) At this time, there are precisely 1.5 entries out of 8 that even bother to suggest the individual's trans-status had any role to play in their murder. The rest are shockingly speculative POV-fueled nonsense, to be frank. Just because a LGBT coalition somewhere ominously "suggests" someone was murdered solely because they were transgendered does not make it so. When it comes to crimes, we run on evidence here, not POV speculation from POV advocacy groups. I happen to believe that Gerald Bull was murdered by the Mossad. There's a great deal of conjecture and speculation, some of it highly compelling, that this is the case, and this is presented on several pages. However, to add Bull's name to a list entitled "List of people murdered by the Mossad" or even "List of people violently killed because of their dealings with the Mossad" would be unfounded POV pushing not supported by the sources. See what I'm saying?


 * 4) Both titles truly feel to me like they are trying desperately to create a "Memorial page for transgendered people murdered by bigots solely due to their status as transgendered people". I'm fine with all of it except the memorial part, but you can't make a claim to notability without hard sources to back it up, and as the article stand the sources just aren't there and nobody seems overly concerned with the details. The title changes suggest that the original topic was indeed seen as EXCESSIVELY inclusive, when in reality it was barely inclusive enough. Now it's so bad I can't see keeping the article without basically kowtowing to POV enthusiasm and turning a blind eye to our notability criteria. I recognize that none of this will matter and at this point enough drama has been made in a controversial subject area that there's no way any admin would delete it, unless they're fond of the pillory. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 23:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note, please that the title is, currently(!) List of unlawfully killed transgender people it seems to have moved so many times that it might have wheels. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think you underestimate the admins, you know, though it will take a calm head to close this AfD well. The article title is List of unlawfully killed transgender people at present.  Unsourced people or those where their presence appears to be synthesized can be removed easily enough (and should be, forthwith).  The discussion should really be about the merits of having an article of this sort, assuming that content per se is correctable.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * At this point, just to clarify, I vote Keep if the title is changed to something akin to "List of people murdered due to their transgendered status", the scope is reformatted to only include transmen and transwomen who were murdered specifically due to their status as transmen and transwomen, and legitimate authoritative (preferably official legal) sources are presented which identify that the murderer's motivation was proven to be based on hate for transgendered individuals. Anything other than that, I vote Delete, Merge or Userfy. In short, tighten the scope and kill the speculative sources and it's a solid keeper. Bullzeye  (Ring for Service) 00:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Entirely agree with the above. --Cameron Scott (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree. With those considerations in place I would not have nominated it originally. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Procedural point May I suggest that, because there has been such a lot of title changing and draconian editing to alter the article for the better (after all, no-one purposely edits an article to make it worse!), that this be closed ear;y procedurally as "no consensus possible because the target moved about so much", and, if desired, relist it in its current form in a few days for a full discussion based on the much different article? In reality it matters little whether the relisting is immediate or at any time in the future, since any article may be listed at any time if sufficient reason is there in the eyes of the nominator. At present anyone trying to find a consensus in this list of strong arguments for and against the article will be thoroughly lost over precisely which version of the article anyone was talking about. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have raised this on the administrators' noticeboard with a view to making it possible to move forward with much more ease. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

When the title can not even be agreed upon, an afd will inevitably be hard to reach consensus on because the focus of the article is so nebulous as a result of an often-changed title. I have no problem closing this as no consensus with a very strong recommendation to those interested in it to agree upon a title and improve the article with renewed focus if no one objects. I posted this on the AN thread too.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 14:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - There are at time of this posting two entries in the article.  Grsz  11   →Review!  14:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * comment Even the greatest journey starts with a single step. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:21, 22 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.