Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bryan.Wade

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  no consensus. Votes are all over the place, and the page in question has been further moved behind a soft redirect, a change with unclear consequences on people's arguments in general (although some editors do specifically acknowledge this change and account for it). Some editors recommended following up with warnings and/or ANI for underlying behavioral issues. signed,Rosguill talk 21:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Bryan.Wade

 * – (View MfD)

WP:NOTWEBHOST. Page itself is misleading, and user apparently edits only to maintain the page - only edits in the last 7+ years are to this page, which was previously deleted. Jayjg (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This has been covered in the past. The awards are not official.  There is no rules about people using these unofficial awards.  Stop messing with people's user pages, regarding fake awards. Bryan.Wade (talk) 06:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment to Per Service awards, there is both a tenure and edit requirement. Do you have 16 years of service and 132,000 edits? If you repeatedly re-add the removed awards, my understanding is that you can be taken to WP:DR or WP:ANI, which have varying levels of authority to deal with contraventions to policy. I don't support deleting your user page, but I do support 's good faith removal of your awards, to which you're not duly authorized to display. --Doug Mehus  T · C  18:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The page here is quite clear https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Service_awards "These awards are unofficial – displaying the wrong one carries no penalty (except possible disapproval from other editors)"  Bryan.Wade (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 18:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough, but the nom of this MfD could still, potentially, take this to a behavioural forum. For the record, I strongly disapprove of your displaying the highest level of award, at least not without some obvious and prominent notation that it is in satire and that you are, not, otherwise eligible to display the award. I also would strongly support a trouting. Doug Mehus T · C  18:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record here, there is establish precedent for the deletion of this page, which is discussed in another thread. Deleting the page would be overturning the establish consensus.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Bryan.Wade/Bryan.Wade I would also say that the awards page literally says the following "displaying the wrong one carries no penalty".  And that either this precendent that is established by the page should be followed, or the page should be clarified.  If there are indeed official awards, then the page should say that.  Bryan.Wade (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record, and can correct me if I'm wrong, but that MfD, which I appreciate you bringing to light late (this should've been disclosed sooner) was for a subpage of your userpage. So, there is no established consensus that your primary userpage should display these awards, and be kept. Moreover, consensus can change so, even if there were, which there isn't, this can change at any time. --Doug Mehus  T · C  18:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am happy to change my page back being a redirect to my other page, if you think that this would make it consistent with the previously established consensus. Bryan.Wade (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would support that on the following conditions that the subpage display, in bold faced and large font your disclaimer that these awards are those that you like but have not earned; that it be a soft redirect wherein the user is not automatically redirected to the subpage; and that you demonstrate that you are committed to editing Wikipedia outside of your userpage. --Doug Mehus T · C  20:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment (was ) I see no WP:NOTWEBHOST violation here. If the editor is misusing the awards in contravention of guidelines, then they should be removed. If the editor repeatedly engages in putting them back on his userpage, then there other avenues for that., this calls for your expertise and rational common sense here. Therefore, while I can't support deletion, in consideration of 's subsequent replies and 's comment, I therefore recommend that the awards to which notes he likes but has not been awarded be:
 * Keep per below, because WP:NOTWEBHOST is misapplied here, and because MfD is for content not conduct, and rename User:Bryan.Wade/Bryan.Wade to User:Bryan.Wade/Wikipedia award templates I like per  below (note to closer:  SmokeyJoe appears to have changed his !vote from "delete" up top, but didn't strikethrough the first !vote, or alternatively, has !voted "rename" under the stipulations listed otherwise his earlier "delete" !vote stands). As to whether the subject editor is a single-purpose account or just an editor in extended semi-retirement who got pinged when his userpage was blanked, I'm not going to express an opinion on taking this to the appropriate conduct forum. However, know that this !vote and rationale is made with the caveat that the editor not revert to previous iterations post-close. In short, it is made with tremendous amounts of good faith and I am extending this rope to . He is welcome to do with said WP:ROPE as he pleases. Weak deleted per WP:IAR, the previous MfD identified by, and WP:CONTENTFORK as an existing subpage  of 's primary userpage already exists (credit to  for identifying this). This seems like the best alternative to deletion that, without leaving the redirect, would force 's userpage to have to undergo pending review again that a deletion would also do, which is what  is seeking, and, at the same time, would allow  to still display the awards he apparently only likes, which assuming good faith, he says with this recent edit. I also strongly support a trouting of 's talkpage at consensus close. --Doug Mehus  T · C  17:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment is eligible to display the Registered Editor service award and, with another ~15 edits or so, will be eligible to display the Novice Editor service award, per his edit counts. --Doug Mehus  T · C  18:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's one thing to display misleading material on one's user page. It's quite another to edit Wikipedia solely for the purpose of maintaining that page. A perusal of Bryan.Wade's edits shows that that is essentially all he has done here since 2009. Moreover, his userpage has been contentious; a number of other editors have blanked it, and argued with him about it, and it was even deleted in 2012. I suggest that the user page does not help Wikipedia build an encyclopedia. Jayjg (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But this sounds more like it's suited for a behaviour forum to which to take, for community censure and/or sanctions. My concern is that seems like an attempt to do an end run around that by having his userpage be subjected to pending review again. I'm not completely opposed to that, but I don't know how effective it will be considering the user could re-create his userpage in compliance with the guidelines, and have it reviewed by a pending reviewer. I think WP:DR, WP:ANI, and/or the WP:VP are the appropriate venue here. --Doug Mehus T · C  18:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep While I greatly disaprove of him showing those awards without earning them, it is not grounds for delating his page. as far as I know its not a webhost violation to only edit that page and show templates on it, hes not using it to host anything that is not Wikipedian related. I would close this if I felt bold enough to, but if someone else wants to, plese do.  LakesideMiners Come Talk To Me! 18:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not proposed deleting the userpage on those grounds. Please review my deletion rationale, and my other comment above. Jayjg (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Edited my commment.  LakesideMiners Come Talk To Me! 19:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete because this is not a conduct forum. I don't know if User:Dmehus is suggesting DRN when they mention DR, but this is not an article content dispute and should not go to WP:DRN.  It is primarily a conduct dispute, but we are not in a conduct forum.  As a paradoxical matter of assuming good faith, I assume that the editor is deliberately lying, because, if they are telling the truth about multiple accounts, they should be blocked for sockpuppetry for illegitimate multiple accounts, but making things up like Baron Munchausen is not blockable.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I meant WP:DR, for Dispute Resolution. DR is always my preferred 1st avenue before going to WP:ANI and I wish it was a requirement for editors, for most editor conduct other than blatant sockpuppetry or threatening behaviour, to use DR. You and your team, which appears to need more DR volunteers, do good work over at DR. Would DR be an appropriate venue in this case, between the nom and Bryan.Wade, who appears to be engaging in "stolen wiki valor"? Doug Mehus T · C  16:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Dmehus - Dispute Resolution isn't a forum, but a procedure that includes multiple fora including the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. DRN, the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, is for article content disputes, and this isn't an article content dispute.  Unfortunately, Dispute Resolution in general doesn't include a way of dealing with conduct disputes that is between discussion and WP:ANI.  At this point, in my opinion, discussion has been attempted and has failed, in that the subject editor has restored the questionable awards.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying the purpose of DR. It's too bad it had no real powers (short of blocking) to compel adherence to mediated outcomes as I think a lot of conduct disputes need not go to WP:ANI. Perhaps we need a volunteer-run Binding Arbitration mechanism? I'm not sure how a BA could be compelled, either the parties could agree to enter into BA, or WP:ANI could be engaged only for the purposes of swiftly punting to Binding Arbitration? Anyway, I'm disappointed by the subject editor's inclusion of the awards on his userpage, though I'm not sure under what policy-based rationale we can delete his userpage, which is why I suggested moving to a subpage of his userpage (see explanatory comments above). I think that would serve the purposes of a community sanction. Doug Mehus T · C  17:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Dmehus - DRN has no real powers, because it doesn't have the power of blocking. The only content forum that has real powers is Request for Comments, where the result after a formal closure is a consensus, and editing against the consensus is considered disruptive editing and is subject to blocking.  There have been frequent proposals for some sort of enhanced dispute resolution, every few months.  I personally have no idea that I consider feasible, but am willing to review ideas.  I suggest that we take the discussion of any sort of enhanced dispute resolution to Village Pump Idea Lab.  Our options here are to delete the dishonest awards, and they are dishonest, not merely questionable, or to allow them, or to require that they be moved (your idea), or to go to WP:ANI.  My own thinking at this point is that the least problematic course is to go to WP:ANI to make the case that User:Bryan.Wade is not here to contribute to the encyclopedia and can be indefinitely blocked, but that is only my opinion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Thank you, User:Dmehus, for causing me to write out my thoughts and come to a conclusion that differs from what I had originally written. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd, potentially, be a supportive of an indefinite block, which is not permanent, of for the reason(s) cited above and assuming the proponent can make a substantive case, but I still can't support a "delete" here as this really is a conduct issue and the editor, when challenged, simply reverts previous edits. Doug Mehus  T · C  18:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete per WP:IAR: This is not a place to handle conduct, but the page is indeed misleading, and all the user has ever done is maintain it, signifying they're probably WP:NOTHERE and are a WP:SPA. Conduct should be brought to WP:ANI or another appropriate notice board. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I am not really concerned about the fact that the service awards are fake. It's all made up and the points don't matter. However, all this user has done since 2011 is edit their userpage and complain about others interfering with their userpage. Given that the userpage has nothing to do with their actual activities on Wikipedia, that makes it a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST in my view. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see a WP:NOTWEBHOST violation here. If there were, this could be speedily deleted, as I understand it. However, while not opposed completely to an WP:IAR "delete" here, I think we have to consider my move proposal to a subpage of 's userpage, without leaving a redirect, which serves the purpose of the nom's nomination. may well be an single-purpose account, which I think is the stronger argument, but as has been articulated, MfD is for content issues (not conduct). So, if this is a "delete," it's an WP:IAR delete, unless someone can cite an appropriate policy-based deletion rationale. Doug Mehus  T · C  18:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * He already has a subpage where he displays these awards - this apparently hasn't stopped him from displaying them on his user page as well. If you want an IAR argument, how about this - the drama generated by this userpage outweighs the benefits of letting it stay. Looking at his talk page history it's nearly all concerns about his userpage, MFD notices, ANI notices... SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks. I've changed my !vote. I still think this is a conduct issue, though, and there are avenues for that. I've cited the previous MfD, WP:CONTENTFORK, and WP:IAR as my weak delete reasons. -DM
 * Procedural Comment Pinging the previous participants in this MfD:, , , , , , and  in light of the subject's updating his userpage to a soft redirect to the subpage and to prominently stating in large and bold text that the awards listed are those which we admires but has, crucially, not earned. Doug Mehus  T · C  22:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, but take the creator's case to an appropriate notice board, as they seem to be a WP:SPA, that only maintains their userpage. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Rename User:Bryan.Wade/Bryan.Wade to User:Bryan.Wade/Wikipedia award templates I like, to remove all possibility of it being misleading, and advise the user it post a short self description on their userpage, the soft redirect to non-applicable awards is not ok. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Even better. Now I have to change my !vote again. Doug Mehus T · C  22:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Rename to User:Bryan.Wade/Wikipedia award templates I like. Doug is quite convincing below, and I will extend good faith here. I think this thread probably served as warning enough to Bryan. Combined with his generally amicable behavior, letting the page be kept but renamed seems an acceptable WP:ATD. Regrettably, delete An SPA editing chiefly their userpage in a manner that doesn't build the encyclopedia? Sounds like textbook WP:NOTWEBHOST to me (The focus of user pages should not be social networking or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration). Or we could go for the WP:IAR version: we do not suffer trolls or technicalities, or any such nonsense. Keeping the incorrect templates around is causing drama, and is not constructive. Lets take a look at this recent revision of the page, which notes that "The awards below reflect the combined edit history and edit time of multiple accounts." That is patently false (unless we have a legendary sock on our hands). The bottom line here is that at the moment, Bryan.Wade is borderline WP:SPA on their userpage. I think deletion here will remove the temptation to be a userpage SPA. They can then recreate it with more appropriate content. I also think that we should give a friendly note to Bryan about SPA, and the issues with his account. I don't think a trip to ANI is necessary, a kind warning will do. There has been enough bureaucracy here.  CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear here, because I am not sure if you were aware, the page in question does not show any awards anymore. Bryan.Wade (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But now its just a redirect to a page...that has all of the awards, so I'm afraid I don't see the difference. It being a soft redirect makes no difference. In that case, perhaps User:Bryan.Wade/Bryan.Wade should be the real target of deletion here. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Yeah yeah, I hate to be “that guy”, well in my case “that girl” but regrettably my take is an immediate delete as I don’t see the user showing any real efforts none whatsoever in building an encyclopedia. The sheer time put into non imperative trivialities such as displaying service awards not qualified for is borderline annoying. Maybe he/she could do better work outside the encyclopedia like maybe create their own website & design meticulously as they deem fit.Celestina007 (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * and, I'm not defending 's original edits, but if we're to assume good faith that he has realized the error in singularly displaying these awards, falsely, on his userpage (even though, notionally, there does seem to be precedent to taking no action), should we not be considering alternatives to deletion like that proposed by myself and expanded on by SmokeyJoe? That is, renaming the subpage, without a redirect, and including a brief biographical statement of the editor or a statement of his status on his userpage? Instead of a soft redirect, he could simply update to include a brief sentence or two about himself or state whether he is semi-retired, retired, on wikibreak, or what have you. From there, he could include one or more links to his subpage(s), including that renamed subpage that would now be at User:Bryan.Wade/Wikipedia award templates I like. I concur with a friendly warning on his user talkpage and that it probably isn't necessary take it to WP:ANI as there appears to be an effort on his part to make amends—which is what we want. , one could interpret WP:NOTWEBHOST in that way, I suppose, but I think that sets a bit of a dangerous precedent/"slippery slope" in terms of being even more restrictive of our userpages. If it's going to be a delete, WP:IAR is the way to go here. However, given what's transpired, unless I'm assuming too much good faith, I see no reason for deletion. Doug Mehus T · C  16:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Considering just how many years this editor has been around almost exclusively maintaining their userpage, I'd think they'd know by now that they made an error. The age of the account brings this, in my eyes, firmly into "I know I'm causing problems and don't care" territory. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But given his efforts to make amends and looking at the fact he hasn't edited for ten years, it seems like he had notifications enabled when someone edited his userpage. When edited his userpage to remove the "stolen wiki valor" in a bold move, he got an e-mail notification that brought him back here. There's no evidence that he routinely edited only his userpage every year for ten years, so it's an unfair leap to make that it's a single-purpose account. I see an undeclared extended wikibreak, semi-retirement, or even retirement here. The editor realized his mistake, realized his argument for maintaining the awards was very weak, and so I really don't see a reason for deleting here. If, however, he reverts to claiming he's received these awards, then I will begin to lose the tremendous amount of good faith and we may need to consider other options. Otherwise, let's leave well enough alone and not bludgeon the guy, especially if the subsequent changes recommended by SmokeyJoe are implemented. Doug Mehus  T · C  18:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I am satisfied that this dispute is being resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment -, , etc. Bryan.Wade is now claiming that he wants to keep the page because they are awards he likes. However, after the previous dustups over this he claimed "The awards below reflect the combined edit history of multiple accounts.", and he left this on the userpage for over six years. He's also tried this "hide it in a subpage" trick before. I find it difficult to take what Bryan.Wade says at face value, and in particular do not see how any of this nonsense (and allowing these pages) contributes to creating an encyclopedia. Jayjg (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My comment I made was based on Policy alone, I do want the page removed, but based on how the policy looks, I feel like hes not violating any policy. Please only ping me if you are responding to a comment I have made or if you think its something I should see. Thank You.  LakesideMiners Come Talk To Me! 20:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment to User:Jayjg - I'm still going to stay neutral, although I am no longer satisfied that the dispute is being resolved. When User:Bryan.Wade says that the awards reflect multiple accounts, the good-faith explanation is, paradoxically, that the user is lying.  (If they are telling the truth, who are they?  If they believe that they are telling the truth, they are insane, and Wikipedia is not therapy..  There is no Wikipedia policy against this particular stupid lie that no one will believe.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've seen that diff to which you refer, several times, from six years ago. However, I see no evidence whatsoever that has reverted to old ways. As I've said above, this is a ROPE extension to Bryan. I'm sure you,, et al., will have his userpage on your "Watchlist" and can duly bring the issue to WP:ANI, to WP:MFD, and elsewhere if he ultimately uses said ROPE to hang himself. As  and others have said, this is being resolved. Let's maintain cardinal rule numero uno:  assume good faith and let this close out as appropriately recommended—renaming the questionable subpage without leaving a redirect, leaving the awards off the main userpage, and closer issuing friendly warning via Bryan's talkpage. Doug Mehus  T · C  21:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Regardless, personally, I think this whole dispute amounts to userpage policing. As noted initially, incorrect display of user awards are, strictly speaking, just guidelines. A case could made that continuing to police the same user's userpage amounts to badgering and that the self-appointed userpage "police officer" is, in fact, not building an encyclopedia. Frankly, enough digital ink has been spilled on this. Let's move on! Doug Mehus  T · C  21:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This was appropriate userspace policing. The user was misleading the community with the content on his userpage.  Now, he has a misleading usersubpage.  The title matters.  MfD serves well in policing these matters.  The user can acknowledge the feedback and comply, or we should delete the pages.  It is not time to move on; this discussion requires closing, and enacting the determined consensus.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough. I withdraw the part of my comment which you reacted to. I completely agree that it's time for closure, which I requested earlier today. Doug Mehus T · C  01:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have struck my statement that I am satisfied that this controversy is being resolved. I don't know if it is being resolved.  I do know that closure of this MFD should be one step toward resolving it.  I no longer want to try to figure out what comes next.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. I like how these awards look, as well. Maybe I do not choose to display them on my own user page, but that's simply my own mishegoss. If someone here does choose to display them, then that is their own mishegoss as well; no more than that. I say we let this editor stay here. it's a free country (and a free website), right? thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Meh. A little obnoxious maybe, but hurts no one and nothing and violates none of our rules. There's no consensus that these sorts of awards shouldn't be displayed undeservingly. Find consensus for that, and we can go ahead and remove them (still doesn't mean the history needs to be deleted). &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Not obnoxious. I personally find it annoying that Bryan.Wade originally chose to display these unearned wiki awards, but at the same time, he rightly noted that there was no policy decision prohibiting him from displaying the "stolen wiki valor." So that's why I, somewhat reluctantly, supported keep here. It's harmless. And, at the end of the day, despite all of that, I managed to get him to move them to a subpage with the soft redirect on his userpage. It was a win-win-win for everyone. So, just so you know, I'm not a total deletionist. ;) Doug Mehus T · C  23:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Or I suppose move to User:Bryan.Wade/Wikipedia award templates I like. I'm invoking WP:Asshole John rule. I've mulled this over for about 24 hours, and in the end cannot agree that it's harmless. It involves WP:WIKILAWYER and WP:GAMING and WP:BUREAUCRACY and WP:NOTHERE and WP:NOTRPG and WP:CIR and WP:ENC and various other interrelating things: this stuff isn't conducive to collaborating on an encyclopedia, it's intentionally or negligently disruptive (if minor) interference/distraction. The point of these antics can be interpreted as being just to say "nanny-nanny-boo-boo, you can't stop me, because there's not a rule against this, so I'm going to irritate the community you until you make one to force me to stop." (Why else are we here talking about this? Why would a legit editor not just stop?) It's not why we're here, and we should not entertain b.s. like this, for reasons explained at WP:DONTFEED and related pages. In short, it is not required that we go have an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Service awards to come to a conclusion to add an instruction to the page to not use awards you don't qualify for, this is already inherent in their nature, and we already know what the outcome of such an RfC would be.  It's a WP:Common sense matter.  While MfD is not a disciplinary venue, and this does have a behavior element to it, so do many things that come up here and get deleted (cf. some presently-concurrent MfDs against a troll-glorification pseudo-cabal page, and a necrophilia-advocacy userbox). We have better things to do that permit users (I won't call them editors) who are just here to try to get a rise out of people. Show them the door, and start by deleting their "advertising".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not going to offer a !vote as I consider myself to be somewhat involved; I answered regarding whether there was any consequence to displaying service awards which had not been earned. When I answered, I was unaware of the full context of the question. I believe the intent of the statement displaying the wrong one carries no penalty (except possible disapproval from other editors) is in regards to displaying a singular service award which has not been earned. Had I been aware of the full context, I would have been much more clear in my response. I would advise Bryan.Wade that he could link directly to the images rather than transcluding all those templates, but such a display that was created could definitely be misleading. — Jkudlick &#x2693; t &#x2693; c &#x2693; s 02:54, 2 February 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.