Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zenia Kotval


 * 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 Weak Keep. No consensus to delete this article, and a consensus that it just about meets WP:PROF#C3 (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Zenia Kotval

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. No real claim of notability in the article. MB 01:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MB 01:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. MB 01:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MB 01:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 *  Delete Keep I concur with nom. Does not satisfy WP:GNG, WP:BIO or WP:NPROF. I have engaged repeatedly with its original author since its creation but they have not attempted to expand it to meet the above criteria other than to strip out the original WP:COPYVIO to satisfy the CSD I placed on it. They promised User:DoubleGrazing and I more, so we gave them time to improve — DoubleGrazing provided sources to satisfy the BLPPROD I had placed on it, but the original author brought no more to the table. A Web search on the name of the username of the original author and the subject doesn't inspire confidence with regard an undeclared WP:COI, especially given the original bio copy and paste WP:COPYVIO of the initial version. WP:BEFORE? All I have seen so far is the glimmer of possibility in the paywalled "Book Review: Recycling the City: The Use and Reuse of Urban Land" in Economic Development Quarterly. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I changed my vote based on David Eppstein's comments regarding WP:PROF and the status of the American Institute of Certified Planners. _Independent_ reliable sources would be preferred but are not necessary to satisfy WP:PROF. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Dear all, I made the changes to the page as required by both Lopifalko and DoubleGrazing, following their guidance, as I am not an expert in these subjects of wikipedia. Mentioned that, with time, I would add more content. But, can't dedicate many hours per day to this task. Assumed that I and others will end dup populating the article with more content. Elisabete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisabete A Silva (talk • contribs) 05:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Draftify Regrettably, as it currently stands, this probably does fail WP:NACADEMIC. However, rather than deleting the article, I would prefer to see it moved to drafts, to allow a bit more time to investigate and demonstrate notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We should be able to judge from here whether the subject satisfies WP:NACADEMIC. It is a straight forward definition to compare them against. To my reading they do not. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not disagreeing. I just thought that draftifying rather than deleting would be a less drastic move, for now. Is there any harm in that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sympathetic to that view in general. My preference here is to cut the chase, so we're not back here again soon, if it's possible to see that the subject doesn't meet the bar. I believe the author has been given ample opportunity and assistance to describe in just a couple of lines why the subject has a credible claim of importance or significance. I'm not sure draftifying is even an option at AfD — we can delete without prejudice to the article being recreated in future. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Draftify or Keep The induction as a Fellow by the American Institute of Certified Planners a part of the American Planning Association should satisfy criteria 2 of WP:NACADEMIC as it would be on the scale of the Association of Computing Machinery or other Professional Fellowship recognition. Just be cause an academic profession intersects with applied work it does not make it less notable. Additionally across disciplines what constitutes a contribution to the field vary thus the 100+ books in the planning field probably is in higher regard than peer reviewed publications. Thus Criteria 1 is partially met as well and with a little more investigation and probably expertise in the subject could be a better judge how criteria 1 is met. I disagree with the position that content should be deleted rather than made a draft or kept as a stub for future improvement. I speak from my personal experience that I'd rather take a single line article the expand upon that has one or two sources than have to start by establishing the same facts to start. It is like growing sugar crystals, a slight imperfection allows the greater structure to grow.  Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My argument has been based on my impression that the American Institute of Certified Planners does not satisfy WP:NACADEMIC criteria 3. However if I am wrong then I will change my Delete to Keep. How do we judge whether it is so? I don't see any independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC criteria 1, only a lot of primary sources. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Dear all, I am not sure if I am suppose to say something more (I will declare an interest as I was the one creating this page). But just to add to the Discussion:
 * To be a Fellow of the American Institute of certified Planners it is a VERY prestigious award. At the Level of the UK Royal Society, etc, etc. Very few people get that award/distinction and even fewer are women. So in this point Wolfgang8741| is absolutely correct.
 * The world of Regional Economics has very few women again, and someone that links economic development to the subject areas of inclusion and community participation has even less people - particularly academics that are also practitioners and that implement that in practice - i.e. they see economic development not just a profitable enterprise but link it with community improvements,
 * To have a Full Professor, a Fellow of the American Institute of Certifies Planners, a woman linking economic development and community development, that is also part of the 'Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) communities' in a top position in the USA it is even more unusual,
 * Publication in planning is demanding and double-blind peer reviewed. An H index of 5 is considered very good for promotion in may Universities across the world. Articles have dozens of pages and need to have robust theory, methods and results, so in planning it is not easy to publish and even harder to publish in top peer review journals, top Publishers, etc.
 * Finally I would like to express my disappointment at the comment "I believe the author has been given ample opportunity and assistance to describe in just a couple of lines why the subject has a credible claim of importance or significance."
 * I agree that I was given good feedback from Lopifalko, and I have been trying to make the changes, but I don't seem to be given the time to implement them (and that I am starting to find it very bizarre). I am doing this as a voluntary action to improve the visibility of areas that I consider are missing in Wikipedia. I am not paid to do this work and have nothing to win with it, besides increasing the visibility of key subject areas...after all we live and work in cities that are studied, managed and planned by planners...nevertheless there are very few pages about those doing the research and the project work to make those cities function.
 * I am surprised by this immediate deletions of Lopifalko, as I think I am following the guidance and when compared with other pages online that need more content people seem to be given weeks/months, not just days. I was hoping to see a page as a live evolving articule where many people (not just me) would add content and expand. I really can't work one entire day in one page, albeit I would love to do that.
 * For those not being (or wanting) to be paid or being able to working full time on this, just wanting to make sure that key people and research areas are highlighted and given proper recognition, this seems a bit unfair.
 * But I think you have more experience and clearly are more knowledgeable in these areas, so I will wait for the next developments and your decision.
 * I only felt that I had to clarify a couple of points as, we all have different knowledge about different areas, and while I fully recognize your expertise in Wikipedia, I think after 25 years of work in the field of urban planning I also have a bit of knowledge about key people and key fields in urban spatial analysis and planning.
 * Regards, Elisabete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisabete A Silva (talk • contribs) 20:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts, you are most welcome to make them here. Notability in this case boils down to only whether the subject meets WP:NPROF or some other subject-specific criteria, or has 2 or more independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. No-one else is getting paid here either. I respect what you wish to bring to Wikipedia, to flesh out where it might be lacking. In terms of respecting the Wikipedia process, new articles are subject to review, which is what I did to this article when first published a week ago. Biographies of living people need to pass a certain bar if they are to exist in article space, otherwise they should be worked on as drafts until they do. It was not I that put it forward for deletion here. A Wikipedia article can indeed be an evolving work in progress, but the basic claim to notability needs to be satisfied first, and that is what we are doing here. Hopefully this process here will give you more of an understanding of how Wikipedia works, and help you in expanding the encyclopedia, rather than put you off. I am always happy to help. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 08:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant criteria 3 above and I understand your point. Given my limited exposure to the Planning field, I'd say the clearest answer would be to reach out and ask a few academic Planning department chairs of their perception of the Association's and Institutes notability though I think Elisabete's insight should be admitted as support too. Reading the history of American Planning Association (on their website) which is the parent of the Institute and the linked Archive at MIT it has over 100 years as an association which I'd grant as being established and notable legacy which should satisfy criteria 3. As the association also publishes the Journal of the American Institute of Planners (since 1935 if you account for a name change). It reminds me of ASIS&T and other professional associations that intersect with applied research which is my area of research. Based on these I'd say the organization clearly meets criteria 3 of WP:NACADEMIC.
 * Thank you for the input on the notability. If you are not aware there are multiple routes to creating an new article that let you work in a sandbox or draft space that won't receive such quick deletes or other on of these is the Article Wizard and are outlined on the how to which also incorporate a review workflow to help get feedback before reaching mainspace via the draft process. It might provide what you are looking for. I am with you that too few female academics get the recognition they deserve and it is one of the reasons why I made sure to take a closer look at this deletion proposal.

Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 10:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

>>>>>> Elisabete: Many thanks to both. I will try to answer to your comments in the following points:


 * Many thanks for your comments and for realizing Prof. Kotval clearly qualifies to be added to Wikipedia as it fully satisfies criteria 3, bot in terms of the research areas innovation, the ACSP and also the PAB. Very few people are considered for those nominations and awards.

Please see the new link to the PAB - in the link of the PAB members: https://www.planningaccreditationboard.org/index.php?id=105 that there are 9 members that accredit all programmes across all the USA...from what I could see, only two are female. And I would say that, independently of being male of female, to be given such a responsibility is an award in itself.

I will also link to other pages. While thinking about other pages realized that one more person in the more qualitative realm of spatial planning are also missing (Note: just found Arnstein page in the Wikipedia search and added the link). Sherry Arnstein that in 1969 proposed a key paper for our areas -a ladder of public participation' is missing and Prof. Kotval and other working in community participation build on her work (so I will add her to the list of people I would like to build a page) but I saw that Prof. Patsy Healey has a page created https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patsy_Healey. Kotval brings those ideas of both Patsy Healey and Sherry Arnstein to regional economics, etc. But in this more qualitative are of spatial analysis and planning it is still very obvious that the Wikipedia world of Urban Planning, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Architecture, Urban Economics, etc …. it is still mostly a men's world. As said to one of your colleagues DGG, I think those men certainly deserve to be in Wikipedia, but it is such a pity that women are very, very underrepresented and minority groups are almost non-existent.

When I started this I decided to select form my list of aprox. 20 one man and one woman, assuming this wouldn't take much time and I could do one or two each time... it is obviously proven to be a bit difficult so if these end up being successful I think I will do one page each time. Two articles take a really huge amount of time to research and build arguments.

But for the Clarke page and answering to DGG I built the following argument that I now copy-past here just as a way to explain. How these areas are underpresented in Wikipedia as very top/top people don-t seem to be considered:

ES answer to DGG in Clarke's draft page: "Elisabete: hi DGG many thanks for this help, I has already included a link in reference 3 to his wikipedia page and now I made it more clear in the page (H-index statistics tend to be dynamic, but I don-t know ho to create a 'live' link to e.g. a googlescholar page that upates numbers if the stats chnage, if you know how to make this and could let me know I would be very thnakful). I did some work some time ago on H-index accross subjects in my area and I found that they vary a lot depending if it is an very specific area of a more generic area, if its is more quantitative or if it is more qualitative. For instance, in some areas of Urban Planning, Civil/Environmental Engineering linked with urban planning, architecture, urban economics, etc the more qualitative areas tend to have lower H-index while Quantitative areas tend to have higher H/index. Nevertheless, if people are in a quantitative area with a very narrow scope they tend to have lower H-index too. In the Social Sciences and Humanities I realized some time ago that an H-index of 5 tend to grant Promotion across areas, but if people are in key quantiative areas, that number increases. To have a 30 H-index is to be a outstanding researcher. The gap between these numbers and a H-index of 60 as Prof. Ckarke has is a very big jump, that I would consider stellar resercher (of there wer nobel laureates in our area these people would have it). To have a i10 index of 152 as Prof. Clarke has I would say it is 'stellar-stellar'. There are very few people in that group, and I would like to do the pages of those missing. In this group, so far I didn't find one single woman that has a Wikipedia page, so far I only found men and they all deserve these Wikipedia articules, I saw a small reference to a female researcher that I keep citing but doesn't have a Wikipedia page (so I plan to do an article for her - she did the first article on CA during the 80s calling the attention for a new modelling approach) and I don't seem to see any references to two more women in Europe that were pivotal in urban computation spatial analysis/planning and two more women in the USA seem to be also missing. At that time this was mostly a men's world, but there was a group of women doing very good work too, so I plan to their articles. I hope I understood your request and answered it. I hope this explanations help a bit more. Once you ok my changes I plan to delete this answer as it doesn't make sense to have it in the page. "

I will change the Kotval page to include your suggestions if I miss something can you please let me know.


 * Many thanks for your suggestions. I am also doing the second article of Clarke in the draft section following one suggestion from RichSmith that moved the page to the Drafts.

This has been a bit of a difficult start for me, and things can happen so fast that it is difficult to address all issues, but I think I am starting to understand the system a bit better.


 * Follong your requests I added more references to the reference list now with 10 references, I added more links to Wikipedia pages from 4 links I think there are now 8 being that two of them are of key researchers in the field. I think from your and Wolfgang8741 comments and logic argument criteria 3 is answered "Based on these I'd say the organization clearly meets criteria 3 of WP:NACADEMIC."

Therefore, can I please ask you to confirm that all is well now and this discussion is closed and the scheduled for deletion is removed. With time I think more references, Wikipedia links, etc will be added by me (and by others in the field), but for now, (and when I compare to other pages) I think this articule seems to have more references and links information than many others in wikepedia. Can you please let me know if you concur with me, that we are all ok with this and are able to close this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisabete A Silva (talk • contribs)


 * The discussion will be closed at the appropriate time by a Wikipedia administrator who judges the consensus of the discussion regarding whether the article passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It is not closed yet, and cannot be closed by participants within the discussion. However, in its current state, none of the so-called "references" in the article meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, which should be properly-published documents that are independent of the subject and cover her in-depth. In particular, we have (1) MSU faculty profile, not independent, (2) Fulbright scholar listing, not in-depth, (3) Google scholar profile, not published and (because curated by the subject) not independent, (4) AICP fellows listing, not in-depth, (5) duplicate Fulbright listing, (6-10) publications by Kotval, not about her and (because not independent) not even usable as sources to describe her research contributions, and (11) board member profile, not independent. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the feedback on how to open/close discussions. I wasn't aware.

Regarding your question about Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, that I am not sure if I understand as the same page seems to point to:

"What counts as a reliable source Further information: Wikipedia:Reliable sources The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: The piece of work itself (the article, book) The creator of the work (the writer, journalist) The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press) All three can affect reliability. Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form".[7] Unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine. If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in topics such as history, medicine, and science. Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include: University-level textbooks Books published by respected publishing houses Magazines Academic journals Mainstream newspapers Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. See details in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Search engine test."

In this listing here from Wikipedia that I just copy-pasted, I think the two articles I created fully classify and report reliable sources. For the arguments exposed in my answers above.

As we are both academics, I think we both can trust top peer review papers, top publishers, organizations with more than 100 years. Otherwise I would worry very much.

In that point, we both need to agree that we disagree in what we consider as a reliable source - at least in Urban planning related fields.

Four us in urban planning a double blind peer review paper is reliable source, a Journal Citation Report about a journal is reliable, institutions that accredited degrees are reliable, and research published in those contexts is reliable. But I don't know about Computer Science so I will not try to argue that is the case in Computer Science, but in Urban Planning it is.

In urban planning a newspaper articule will never be considered as a reputable source of research or the indication that a person is a good researcher (while I can understand that newspaper articules can be good for politicians' Wikipedia webpages, but these are Academics Webpages). In urban planning a conference paper is less important than a journal paper and a book, etc, etc. I accept that can be different in Computer Science, but the landscape in Urban Planning is what I described. Nobody will be promoted or made a job offer because he/she has many newspaper articles about her/him. The same goes for conference paper, nobody will be offered a job or be promoted because he/she has many conference papers, but zero peer review papers and/or zero books. Those sources are not reliable and would be completely disregarded in a committee or jury.

As stated this happens in Urban Planning, I don't know what happens in Computer Science, but these are articles about Urban planning people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisabete A Silva (talk • contribs) 05:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Elisabete A. Silva
 * This is not about me and it's not about computer science. It's about Wikipedia having and maintaining its own standards for what information its editors believe to be reliable, in a way that is intended to work even when those editors do not have professional expertise in the subject they are discussing. Your disagreement with Wikipedia's standards for reliable sourcing is noted, but we can't have individual standards for each academic discipline — it's difficult enough just getting Wikipedia editors at large to respect the standards for academics and not try to apply the same publicity-based standards they use for actors and businesspeople. However, this is supposed to be a discussion about whether the subject meets the Wikipedia standards, so the main effect of refusing to engage with those standards is likely to be causing your opinions here to be discounted. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. AICP lists being a fellow as its highest honor for members, and out of roughly 17k members only 636 are fellows , 3%-4%, which is in the same range as other scholarly societies for whom we consider membership to pass WP:PROF. I think those numbers also demonstrate that it's a major society. I imagine that most of its members are working urban planners, not academics, and the breakdown of fellows by nomination category in the linked document shows that actually a much smaller of them become fellows for their research accomplishments, so I'm inclined to accept this as a significant honor. The Fulbright is also suggestive although it wouldn't be enough for notability by itself. The citation counts on Google Scholar aren't enough to convince me of a second pass of WP:PROF (in contrast for instance to Silva's higher numbers) but that isn't a reason to delete the article, just a block of a second path to keeping it. The keep is weak because the sourcing for the article is still very weak, though. But the AICP fellow and Fulbright are not in any doubt, and we do also have a cv  which while not usable for evaluative content (like the significance of her research) at least better covers the basic facts of her education and career. Her co-edited volume also has multiple published reviews   , which don't really add to notability (because edited not authored) but are enough to say something about it in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

>>>>> reply to: David Eppstein: Thank you very much for the clarification about who/when the discussion will be closed.

Regarding your comment "your disagreement with Wikipedia's standards for reliable sourcing is noted,"

I don't disagree with Wikipedia David, I disagree with you and your understanding of what Wikipedia is stating.

My view is that: my understanding of what wkipedia page is stating in the copy-past I made and your understanding of what the wikipedia is stating in that same copy-past seems to be different.

Therefore, and given some of what I read so far, I think it is time to let Wikipedia decide on the two articles I created and the arguments I built.

As stated I think the subject of spatial analysis and planning is under represented in Wikipedia (and cities are important for all of us). And while this seems to happen for both genders, the number of female researchers is very, very small - and in my view, that is a pity a true shame.

Elisabete
 * Weak keep The sourcing could stand to be improved, but I think there's a decent case for passing WP:PROF. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

>>>>> Edited reply to : David Eppstein: Just read your reply David. I am not sure if I agree with the 'weak keep- but many thanks for the improvement on the views. I was starting to be a bit shocked/worried. I agree that you don't know ACSP, PAB, AAG, APA, etc. but these are really big, old organizations - to be a Fellow there is an AMAZING achievement. Regarding my publication list and H-index, please have in mind that in m case, as in the case of Keith Clarke, Mike Batty and others we are all in a more quantitative analysis of what could be called urban computation in spatial analysis while Kotval is in a more qualitative area. For instance in promotion committees we need to be very careful with that when trying to compare people in very multidisciplinary field. I will wait for the final decision, I feel that there isn't much I can do I think I put my argument forward and I am thankful to those that helped. If these articules are accepted, with time, I can populate with more information and I am sure others will do that too and these are to people in their respective fields. Sincerely, Elisabete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisabete A Silva (talk • contribs) 06:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak keep as per the argument put forward by David Eppstein. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I feel like there's a bit of WP:BLUDGEON going on on this page to be honest. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've not read the whole discussion, just the article. But she appears to meet WP:PROF if nothing else.  The GNG claims are weak IMO. weak keep Hobit (talk) 08:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

== Contacted by Prof. Kotval that requested the page to be removed
 * Dear all,
 * This is a small world and questioning 100 year old Associations, without proper research done and without knowing the field, can hurt those involved
 * Prof. Zenia Kotval just contacted me stating that she was made aware of this discussion and after reading the comments she felt that this discussion was unacceptable and wanted no part in Wikipedia, asking for a speedy deletion of the page I created
 * I agree that these behind-the-scene discussions are obviously/necessarily very public and it is important to be careful with questions that seem like statements without supporting evidence, and that are obviously wrong
 * I will therefor delete her article and will ask the managers to please close this discussion

Elisabete A Silva (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Elisabete A. Silva
 * I got my PhD from MSU and work just down the road from her. She could reach out to me via Wikipedia mail if she wishes to and we can discuss things.  But basically here are the options:
 * She can request that the page be deleted. A way to do that is to use the e-mail at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_subjects.  She could use the e-mail in that link to request deletion under WP:BLPDEL which basically says that people not regarded as "public figures" may request deletion of their own pages.  She will have to prove who she is (control of her MSU e-mail account would likely be enough, but I don't know the process).
 * She can ignore it. That's what I'd recommend.  Wikipedia's "back room discussions" can be a bit rough on the subject of a BLP.  And yeah, it's a lot of clueless people discussing things, but with the power of the Internet we can figure out if our policies for having an article on a subject are met.  In her case, she does.  I think it's good for her, her department, and MSU to have more faculty have Wikipedia pages.  But at the end of the day, it's her call (assuming there is consensus she isn't a public person, which I can't imagine she is not).
 * Good luck to the two of you. As I said, she's welcome to reach out to me if she wants to know more--either via my talk page or e-mail. Hobit (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's also an option to blank this deletion discussion page after the discussion is closed. The discussion would still be reachable via the history but that way it would be less likely for random people browsing the web to reach it. I think it might be a good idea in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per WP:NPROF C3. If the subject contacts Wikipedia through channels and requests deletion, then I'd support it, but I'd counsel the subject not to do so.  This discussion will not be prominent for long. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2020 (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.