Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southbeach notation


 * 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. I think a wonderful example of WP:V and the importance of WP:RS proving notability. It's not about what is true (if, in the first place, it is true) with respect to proving notability but about what is verifiable and can be supported by reliable sources to prove notability. Without verifiability of reliable sources supporting either GNG or proof of notability, I have to consider Mbonline's arguments lower than Pburka, Mtiffany and the others. With regret, Delete.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  13:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Southbeach notation

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This "visual modeling language" does not appear to be notable. It is mentioned in passing in one book. Aside from that, I was unable to find mention of it in anything at all other than primary sources, and vanishingly few of them, despite searching in Google Scholar, Google Books, the web, and the news archive. Bongo  matic  22:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC) -- Mbonline (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC) — Mbonline (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. No coverage in news or academic sources, apart from books published by the inventors. Probable WP:COI, as the article was created by User:Mbonline, a WP:SPA, whose name is suspiciously similar to M. Burnett, one of the authors of the referenced books. Pburka (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. See reasons below: (should all these have been listed on the main page? That didn't seem appropriate but if listing some would avoid confusion and the need to go through this process in future, please identify which ones, or is there some process in wikipedia that means once this is settled its settled and that is recorded somewhere?
 * The Foresight group within the Department for Business Innovation & Skills in their blog state one of their four workstreams during 2009 to be "Deploying SouthBeach notation to support collaborative futures work" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbonline (talk • contribs) 20:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)  — Mbonline (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * trizonline, a reputable online German magazine focussing on the well known TRIZ innovation method lists Southbeachinc as one of 8 software providers supporting the method. Southbeachinc provides a free software tool for drawing TRIZ and Southbeach Notation diagrams, Southbeach Notation being a superset of TRIZ useful/harmful cause/effect models. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbonline (talk • contribs) 20:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)  — Mbonline (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The specification for Southbeach Notation was published by BPTrends, a highly respected, academically oriented organisation that would not publish such a specification unless they believed it was significant. The announcement of the spec by BPTrends is here. The spec itself can be downloaded, from the BPTrends site; this is work by the authors of Southbeach, the specification of the notation - which BPTrends, a well respected academic organisation believes to be sufficiently notable to make it available directly to all their readers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.30.150 (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)  — Mbonline (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Yes, by all means, please visit the BPTrends site and check out their advisors. Since one Howard Smith is on the advisory board of a company which published an article he wrote I'd say  conflict of interest is a relevant issue. Mtiffany71 (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Southbeach Notation is in use in various places and is recognised alongside various other notations and techniques in various places. The list below shows sites that either contain a reference to or recommend use of Southbeach Notation in different circumstances.
 * http://www.stroudconsulting.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Problem_solving_methodologies.pdf
 * "Southbeach notation" mentioned ONCE in entire document among a list of thirty-eight (38!) other 'problem solving methodologies.' Not discussed at all. Mtiffany71 (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * http://about.qkport.com/m/modeling_language
 * Provides a definition of Southbeach notation, with a link to search results which link to Wikipedia, Southbeachinc.com, linkedin, and bptrends (which has press releases written by one H Smith, why does that name sound familiar????)Mtiffany71 (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.mindmeister.com/56337457/visual-mapping-timeline
 * No information about Southbeach notation is provided. Gives a link to southbeachinc.com. Mtiffany71 (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.answers.com/topic/modeling-language
 * Provides a definition eerily similar to qkport.com's and a link to a WP mirror. Mtiffany71 (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.mind-mapping.org/VicsPicks/2010/08/southbeach-modeller/
 * Legitimate reference from a disinterested third-party. Useful ref. Mtiffany71 (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.mind-mapping.org/?productOrPublisher=Southbeach%20Modeller
 * Same source as above, but copy-paste job of company's promotional material.Mtiffany71 (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.mind-mapping.org/blog/2010/08/southbeach-modeller-and-triz/
 * Another legit reference (all two of 'em so far). Same guy as above, different date. Mtiffany71 (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.innovationtools.com/Links2/linksnew.asp
 * Link farm. Brief blurb (like qkport.com and answers.com, above) and link to southbeach.com. Mtiffany71 (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.irmuk.co.uk/bpm2009/workshops.htm
 * Says that H Smith is appearing at a conference and giving a lecture on Southbeach notation. Mtiffany71 (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.hypershifters.com/blog/2010-07-27/mapping-out-the-landscape-guest-post.html
 * Brief blurb which paraphrases company's promotional material and provides a link to wiki. Mtiffany71 (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.iscanmyfood.com/hd/index.php?t=Visual+modeling - "Visual modeling is the graphic representation of objects and systems of interest using graphical languages. Visual modeling languages may be General-Purpose Modeling GPM languages e.g., UML, Southbeach Notation, IDEF or Domain-Specific Modeling DSM languages e.g., SysML . They include industry open standards e.g., UML, SysML, as well as proprietary standards, such as the visual languages associated with VisSim, MATLAB and Simulink, OPNET, and NI Multisim."
 * The phrase "Southbeach notation" appears twice. That's it. Mtiffany71 (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.estateofflux.com/?p=1348 - listing Southbeach as one of a number of "problem solving techniques" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbonline (talk • contribs) 20:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)  — Mbonline (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Link farm which provides link back to Southbeach notation's Wikipedia article. Patently not a legit ref. Mtiffany71 (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Various invitations to present Southbeach Notation at prestigious events, listed here including to the following:
 * GE Research Whitney Symposium
 * BPM Europe conference 2009
 * BPM Europe conference 2008
 * Shared Insights conference, Boston, Nov. 2006
 * Innovate Europe 2005
 * UK Gov 'Foresight' Program - Future Analysts Networking Community
 * Some of these references are independent consultants, some of them are independent authorities on visualisation, mindmapping or problem solving techniques. The fact that these people are referring to Southbeach Notation means it must be notable to them. The fact that these people have become either authorities or consultants means that what they say must be notable to others. So it would seem that Southbeach is notable, even by only looking at internet search.
 * Some of them are articles specifically about Southbeach Notation, others list Southbeach Notation as one of a number of techniques alongside other techniques; in other words, the author is effectively giving Southbeach Notation a similar level of credence to the other techniques in the list.
 * For example the answers.com page lists Southbeach Notation alongside Jackson Structured Programming and IDEF. Now, most people will not have even heard of those either, but these are technical techniques that are well known to people who work in the related field. Surely wikipedia is for everyone and should contain as much knowledge as possible as long as it is impartial and accurate.
 * The Stroud consulting paper lists Southbeach Notation alongside the GROW model, TRIZ, and Pareto analysis; the presence of such articles indicates that Southbeach Notation is recognised by some as a technique that is relevant to their field of endeavour, and in this case, in a way that they believe adds credibility to their own
 * The article does not attempt to advertise or lay any great claims, but rather objectively describes what Southbeach Notation is and the way it is used. If there is any language in there that seems biased, surely the best service to sharing of knowledge about what is out there in the world is to revise the article to make it more impartial... not delete it. If anyone thinks the article is biased or promotional in any way then please do say so here so that can be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbonline (talk • contribs) 13:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Non web, but verifiable, references:
 * Southbeach Solutions has a partnership with ShapingTomorrow, wherein ShapingTomorrow have adopted the notation to illustrate futures trends and scenarios, and also Southbeach Modeller is integrated with the portal in various ways.
 * Known companies using Southbeach include CSC (some evidence here), BearingPoint UK (some evidence here), Intel and ShapingTomorrow, as well as a raft of individual users at many large and small companies.
 * BPTrends references —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithh (talk • contribs) 18:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BPTrends - highly respected academic and research site related to BPM notations and trends, published the specification here
 * BPTrends also published an article announcing the first reference implementation of the Southbeach Notation, by Southbeach Solutions, here.
 * BPTrends published a series of article that led to the development of Southbeach which are collated here with links back to the BPTrends source here.
 * They confirm it is actively downloaded and referred to by many of their readers
 * BP Trends have offered to help publish Books on Southbeach going forward and to bring their editorial resources to bear
 * Southbeach Solutions
 * Southbeach Solutions is the first company to implement the Southbeach Notation here
 * The wikipedia page describes the notation, not specific software implementations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithh (talk • contribs) 18:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No coverage in news or academic sources, a couple of self-published sources and some trivial mentions. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I visited this page to refer a link to a colleague and was surprised to see it recommended for deletion. The references above certainly show the noteworthiness of Southbeach Notation. As with any innovation in its early stage, there may be little mass media coverage, but this is certainly an innovation in the process of innovation and will grow way beyond the companies mentioned above and individuals looking for a tool to implement TRIZ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin.ashcroft (talk • contribs) 17:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As with any innovation in its early stage, there may be little mass media coverage - which is an argument for deleting it, not keeping it - we aren't a publisher of original thought. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

What is a publisher of original thought? Southbeach Notation has been covered many times, just not by Mass Media, e.g., NYT, WP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin.ashcroft (talk • contribs) 18:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I (Roger Burlton) am an original founder of the BPM field and have taught process improvement classes since 1991 and am President of Process Renewal Consulting Group a company that teaches process methdodologies. I am the author of "Business Process Management: Profiting from Process" published by Sams Publishing a division of Pearson Education. We use TRIZ and Southbeach Notation in our consulting practice worldwide. The approach and notation have been taught to over fifty companies including Samsung in Korea, Export Development Corporation in Canada, Bureau of Labour Statistics in Australia and Mars Inc. in the US. In addition it has been taught in numerous seminars and conferences around the world for three years with great acceptance. Our clients have found it to be a well formed standard that is based on a sound framework. We urge you to keep the listing of the notation as it is rapidly becoming a tool of choice for Innovation and process improvement projects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.55.153 (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)  — 81.156.55.153 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment So what? That you use it does not make it notable. That you claim that the EDC of Canada, the BoLS of Australia and Mars, Inc. are using Southbeach Notation also does not make it notable.Mtiffany71 (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment My understanding is that evidence of something being used and talked about in the world is a good measure of notability and inclusion in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithh (talk • contribs) 07:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you understand wrong. Notability depends on verifiable references to the subject at hand made by disinterested third parties, which you are not. Don't care to take my word for it? Then don't Notability. Mtiffany71 (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Okay, great, it appears to be a subset of UML. Fantastic. So what? A couple of big name, notable companies are purportedly using it. Again, so what? Big notable companies may be using it, but notability is not inherited, nor contagious, in this specific instance. What's the novelty of this particular brand of UML diagramming that's so breathtakingly revolutionary and more to the point who's reported on it? What tech-oriented blogs/magazines/niche compu-geek tv programs/cable channels have covered it? Also, two of the articles cited are little more than marketing press releases sent out from the company behind Southbeach Notation and "published" by BPTrends.Mtiffany71 (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Not sure why UML was raised. Southbeach Notation is not a subset of UML. It is not related to UML in any way. It is a perspective based notation for situational improvement.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithh (talk • contribs) 07:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment - Mtiffany71 seems to have misread the article, which does not say that Southbeach is a subset of UML but rather contrasts UML to Southbeach Notation because UML diagrams represent an objective model of a system whereas Southbeach Notation diagrams represent a subjective model of a system - that is to say, elements of the system are each categorised as useful or harmful according to what people's opinions are rather than acording to what the facts are - as whether something is useful or harmful can only be judged from a certain perspective of what you want to use that thing for or how it affects your solution, job or life. (This is clearly evident in humanity's history - its why we vote, argue, debate, have wikipedia processes for determining the notability of things, ...) It is the collection of multiple models from different perspectives that is one of the features that makes this different to methods like UML. The point is that Southbeach provides a mechanism to get concensus between people who disagree about something... perhaps we should create a Southbeach Notation model for whether to keep this page! Once you can see that people with different values or beliefs, or people in roles with different goals, view the same thing differently - one thinking it is harmful and the other thinking it is useful, then you can use decomposition within Southbeach to understand WHAT about it they see as different - thus breaking the system down into smaller and smaller parts until agreement is reached... e.g. a car is useful for travel but it also creates pollution and hence damages the environment, so is undoubtedly also harmful... once the different aspects of a car are broken down within a Southbeach model, clarity is created about HOW and WHERE to improve the system - rather than arguing about whether we should have cars at all we can discuss how to minimise their pollution, noise, etc. This comment also addresses a point above questioning what is different about this technique —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbonline (talk • contribs) 10:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is that Southbeach provides a mechanism to get concensus between people who disagree about something... perhaps we should create a Southbeach Notation model for whether to keep this page! There is more chance of me sucking off a pit-pony. We work this out according to policy and wikipedia guidelines - currently the article doesn't have a single reliable source that is not by one of the creators. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Another tech site reference I don't see this as a subset of the UML, but as a problem defining, analysis and solving tool. Argey (talk) 04:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a wiki, not a reliable source. If you have any links that meet the guidelines, or any policy- / guideline-based arguments, please air them.
 * I think this is borderline and a matter of interpretation. The list of references is not insignificant.  Argey (talk) 06:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please review the references at the wiki you cited&mdash;they are by the author of the system, and hence not independent. Bongo  matic  06:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The wiki entry referenced is nothing to do with the authors and if you look in the history page for that article you can see it was created by a sysop at that site. Mbonline (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The article on the wiki is not a reliable source&mdash;period. That article (which itself fails to demonstrate notability at all) cites two references. Those references are not independent of the subject, and cannot be used to establish notability. Bongo  matic  10:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Not sure why UML was raised. Southbeach Notation is not a subset of UML. It is not related to UML in any way. It is a perspective based notation for situational improvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithh (talk • contribs) 08:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)  — Smithh (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. It appears that many of the editors who have opined here are closely related to the subject.
 * has the same initials M. Burnett and has edited solely on similar topics.
 * has only edited to opine here.
 * has a username that makes it appear quite possible that it could be H. Smith and has edited only on related topics.
 * claims to be Roger Burlton and has only edited to opine here.
 * appears to have edited predominantly on topics involving a nexus of Peter Fingar, Ronald Aronica, Martyn Ould, and this topic. These individuals appear to be assocated with BPTrends and/or one another (Fingar / Aronica, Smith, Fingar.
 * Their comments appear to reflect conflicts of interest or at least lack of independence from the subject and should be discounted accordingly. Bongo  matic  10:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Since Bongomatic appears to have so much fun trying to guess people's names, even when they openly state them here and in profiles on the Web, I wonder if Bongomatic could openly say who he/she is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithh (talk •  contribs) 14:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment I've looked and this again and cut it back to the sources used - and frankly they are rubbish I've been asked to clarify this statements - 'Rubbish' in terms of helping determining notability as we consider it rather than any statement about the individual merits of the works as documents --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC) - every single one is by Howard Smith, one of the inventors of article subject. There is not a single RS in there. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there is little fun in trying to figure who all these editors are--who all appear to be saying the exact same thing, who have all been working on similar topics, etc. Asking Bongo to reveal their identity is a silly remark. Either way, the closing administrator will, no doubt, see these different, or not so different, votes and voters for what they're worth. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Its clear that the article needs to be revised to make it less like a manual however you have also removed much of the text that explains how this topic relates to other topics, and in what ways it is similar and different. Rather than getting into a debate about that, it seems more pertinent to close the discussion on whether there should be an article at all, which presumably is why you cut the text down. (Is that standard procedure? Should that not have been something that was discussed in this page? I have for now added a single additional reference in which is an example of how Southbeach Notation has been used in the world, citing a news article published by a number of independent members of another organisation working in another field. The PDF in the citation is a report they produced on ways in which the Australian Water crisis could be addressed, summarised as a Southbeach Notation diagram showing the useful and harmful factors at play in Australia's Murray-Darling basin and the potential interventions they could make to reduce the impact of the crisis. The challenge they have there is that people are using water from the basin in ways that they consider useful as it nourishes their crops, but the long term effect is actually harmful as the water that once stretched to the sea does not even reach now and is drying up, resulting in crops failing due to people taking water out of the ecosystem faster than it can be replenished. The reason Southbeach Notation is so relevant there is that it provides a way of combining different points of view to help gain concensus on solutions that could help everyone - e.g. many of the solutions were to do with how to water farms more efficiently, or prevent evaporation of water from the soil around crops rather than simply preventing farming. Do you think this citation is the kind of material people are asking for here? Mbonline (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Added an additional viewpoint from the same article that provides a more balanced view, stating that critics of situational modelling techniques believe that actions are more important than abstract models. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbonline (talk • contribs) 17:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you think this citation is the kind of material people are asking for here? no it's trivial and while it has a diagram, it says absolutely nothing about the system or provides any sort of notability. We need reliable sources of the sort described at WP:RS not more... puff. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Here is how I regard the 'debate' taking place here. The carefully prepared and substantive content, with references, citations and notability has been reduced and modified by 'Wikipedians' to the extent that it no longer represents an accurate and sufficient description of Southbeach Notation. If left here, it will be perpetuated through license and distort the good reputation of Southbeach Notation. Entirely calm, neutral and unemotional attempts to enter into a debate with 'Wikipedians' about the content, who seek to delete the page, have led to little more than:
 * 1) Inappropriate language directed at individuals well intentions points, including direct insults and vulgar language - contrary to the rules of Wikipedia and verging on libel/slander
 * 2) Inaccurate conclusions drawn about calm and reasoned contributions to the content
 * 3) Irrelevant statements against third party experts trying to contribute to the debate
 * 4) failure by 'Wikipedians' to abide by their own rules of conduct despite setting out reasoned comments and trying to enter into the spirit of Wikipedia
 * Therefore, I no longer have the time or patience to be insulted here or for colleagues to be insulted, and will not be contributing further. I fear more insults and a resource-intensive never ending process. Smithh (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Smithh (talk) 10:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithh (talk • contribs) 19:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is getting a bit out of hand. MTiffany, there is no need to yell at the opposition. Opposition, flooding the AfD with non-reliable references and marshaling what appear to be accounts related to the creators of the topic, that always gives off a bad smell. And please don't throw around terms like "libel"--this is not the place for that. As for policy: if "mass media" like the NYT haven't reported on it (as one of you said), that's a pretty good indication of lack of notability. Given that the only sources for the article (and I am disregarding the many, many non-notable or unreliable sources provided above) are closely connected to the creator of the subject or are not reliable (the "Circle of Blue" document), we have no choice but to conclude--based on policy!--that the topic is not notable by our standards. That doesn't mean that the topic isn't great, or won't be great, of course. But it fails Wikipedia's standards, for now. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment AYFKM? Yelling at the opposition? Please... First, 'the Intertoobz is serious bizness.' Second, I raised a perfectly valid point that the sources cited for Southbeach notation appeared to be press releases written by the makers of Southbeach notation. That's not notability, that's self-promotion. Rather than refuting that point, Smithh starts whinging about 'libel/slander' (and for the record, Smithh, slander is spoken), and how unfair (and I love the scare-quotes) 'Wikipedians' are being because some of us don't think his new invention is notable enough for inclusion in WP. Mtiffany71 (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to put on record in the history: The original attackers of this article used Web searches to find associations between people who were trying professionally to add content to substantiate the claims, as requested by Wikipedians. They then used these implied associations to cast aspersions on people's professional integrity. When we suggested the 'editors' should be equally open about their identity, I was threatened with removal of my account from Wikipedia. 'Editors' then had comments I made deleted. so, its one rule for 'them' and another for 'us'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithh (talk • contribs) 10:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Google searches with wiki mirrors eliminated produce almost entirely sites that are trying to promote Southbeach. If it takes off in the future, and gets proper independent coverage, the article can always be recreated. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Commenters above have adequately shown, IMO, that the topic lacks sufficient real-world coverage. The article seems to be puffed up with business-ese that doesn't say much concrete. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It does not say much now. But it did. Look at history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.157.203 (talk) 09:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope&mdash;even in the 36k version, the lede is pretty much the same, and the lede is what I was referring to. "Innovation" this, "inventive" that, it just sounds like business speak to me. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 13:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, business and innovation, I think that was what created Wikipedia :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.157.204 (talk) 18:42, 1 October 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.