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. Consensus seems to be that the article does not meet WP:WEB #1, the only one it can meet, as there is not enough reliable non-trivial coverage of the website, and ought to be deleted. NW (Talk) 00:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Watch[edit]

Wikipedia Watch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A largely non-notable website with a rather colorful history on-wiki. It was cited some years back in a few publications, but has yet to achieve any sort of traction on the Internet in terms of visibility or notability. Furthermore, the owner does not wish to have it featured here, FWIW. Seriously - it simply doesn't meet WP:WEB, points 1, 2 and 3. Point 1 is largely trivial, per provided cites. Furthermore, it's Wikipedia introspection at its worst and is of little or no interest outside of the project. Allie ^❤ 04:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Disclosure: I've "featured" on this website more than once myself. I do not like it, I do not agree with it's rationale and I have seen it cause RL issues for a number of people. Having said that, it needs to go.)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Allie ^❤ 04:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The longest media mention in the article is the zdnet interview, which has a single sentence describing the web site. Per WP:WEB criteria #1 this kind of mention is specifically excluded (a brief summary of the nature of the content) from demonstrating notability. All the other mentions are the site name only, with no coverage of the content itself. This does not come close to meeting any of the criteria at WP:WEB. Kevin (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the interpretation of WP:WEB by Kevin, I do not believe this subject to be notable. JBsupreme (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Commment: How old is this website? It almost looks like an old geocities site.--Milowent (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 13 October 2005, as it says in the article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but I was looking for blinking text myself.--Milowent (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination provides a clear cut rationale which I will not parrot, but which I agree with. ++Lar: t/c 16:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no need to repeat the nomination GTD 17:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the role of this website in the controversies it links to are reasonably documented elsewhere, as is the creator of the site. the site itself, while getting mention in various articles here and externally about the controversies (sssjay, siegen), doesnt appear to have notability. as long as we have included its role in those controversies in their articles, and have mentioned it and him in the article Criticisms of Wikipedia, i think we can safely delete this article as nonnotable. i note some of the references here are the site, which is not proper procedure. a link to the site to establish that it exists, or for verifying website claims that are noncontroversial, such as founding date, etc., but not to show notability. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the nom has said it all. RMHED (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agree wholeheartedly with nom and with Kevin. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Very well sourced and informative article. Most of the arguments for deletion amount to not liking it. It's about a well established website that has received some media attention. It makes the encyclopedia better, and at the worst it should be merged with existing content so the history is not lost. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep And salt the AFD to stop this from coming up over and over. - Hoplon (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you please provide a specific rationale as to why you feel the article should be kept? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Is salting AfDs actually practiced in wikipedia?--Staberinde (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's never done, nor should it be - Allie ^❤ 03:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A self-reference of a kind and one to avoid unless clear notability is established - which it is not. There is much in the suggestion that this article was started to preserve information previously contained in a biography which was thought (accurately, as it turned out) likely to be deleted. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nominator. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WEB #1. Very few of the delete arguments here are actually based in relevant policy but rather rehash aspects of Brandt though without acknowledging that they are doing so. The fact that this is a 5th nomination is also very telling; I had thought this approach to deletion was specifically disallowed -- perhaps naive of me. In any event there is no problem with notability here -- as is apparent in the nom's use of the word "largely". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Kevin, Sam Blacketer and the nom. Let's be honest here; the only reason we have this article is because it involves enwiki. If someone had set up a site called Conservapedia Watch we would delete any related artcle per WP:WEB. I he brags about how his outing of this or that admin "forced us" to delete it then so be it. Let him rant. If you look at this objectively it's an obvious delete per WP:WEB and that's all that matters here. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 09:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on principle. A 5th nomination for deletion is inherently absurd. — goethean ॐ 14:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hardly. We've had worse, and besides, standards evolve and cruft is removed. Such is the way - Allie ^❤ 03:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Please, folks, let's debate the article on its own merits. If this were the fifth nomination over the period of, say, eight months, I'd agree; but it's not. The first AfD was in 2005, about four years ago. More to the point, consensus can change. Therefore, arguments for keeping this article based solely on the fact that it has survived multiple prior AfDs are weak and mostly irrelevant. This article covers a topic on an obscure website with little or no notability. As mentioned above, self-references should be avoided unless the topic is unquestionably significant in real life; this website is mere navel-gazing and nothing more. I agree with the nomination statement and I believe deletion is appropriate. (FWIW, I also have a weak COI with the topic, but it doesn't affect my ability to judge this article in a neutral manner.) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Kevin. Fails WP:WEB. GlassCobra 16:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:WEB. The site itself seems ancient (in internet years), outdated, and no longer relevant if it ever was. Some historical value for those interested in such things, maybe, but not notable enough for a WP article. Priyanath ^talk 16:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not satisfy WP:WEB. Per nom. Astronominov 17:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB.--Staberinde (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This website does not meet our inclusion guidelines and the fact that the article is still here after four discussions is a result of Wikipedian fancruft, in my opinion. It's one of several articles that fall into this scope so we've got to start somewhere. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:WEB per Nomoskedasticity. I realize the project hates Daniel Brandt, but the monthly AFD's of articles related to him, even after a long sabbatical, are thoroughly tiresome especially going on the 5th year at this point, and just because we are supposed to hate someone is a lousy reason to delete info related to them, which is otherwise thoroughly and reliably sourced. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny enough, most of the Brandt haters fell into the 'keep' camp, as these articles are largely here to piss him off, and a slew of them were created at the time. As stated above consensus can change and standards improve & this article no longer meets WP:WEB, if it ever did. Back in the last AfD, which was over two years ago now, Wikipedia Watch had recently featured in the media and it looked like it was on the up-and-up. With two years hindsight, it's patently obvious that was just a flash in the pan, and the site sank into obscurity. Now only Wikipedians care - Allie ^❤ 03:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look, we all know Brandt haters want to make him dead to history, reverse reverse psychology not withstanding. This article clearly meets WP:WEB. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Haters" commentary aside, I'm simply not seeing how WP:WEB is being met here at all. Seriously. It's a niche website that flared up briefly over Siegenthaler and Essjay, got a passing, one-liner mention (if at all. Brandt seemed to be the focus) back two years ago, then disappeared off the face of the earth. We have the article criticism of Wikipedia to catch this sort of stuff already and a stale, useless stub such as this one, serves no purpose. Like I said, only Wikipedians know or care - Allie ^❤ 05:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This website does not meet our inclusion guidelines which are fairly clear for websites. ^Chillum 05:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deletion of a well-sourced article on a web site with criticism of Wikipedia administration would be understood as an example of corruption of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is already infamous for such policy (see Wikipedia Watch for examples of this infamy). It would be self-serving and inethical on the part of admins to deal with criticism of their policies by removing all its traces from the site. Also, the site is obviously notable (this is seen, e.g., from the 12 cites included in the article). I have a feeling that this deletion discussion is motivated by the site's critical stance, and not by its non-notability. Tiphareth -- (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, editors discussing the 4-th AfD nomination of this article have clearly reached consensus that it is notable. I don't think notability could disappear in 2 years: for most criteria of notability (number of sources, etc.), it can only grow with time. -- Tiphareth (talk) 13:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Re: Alison: "Furthermore, the owner does not wish to have it featured here, FWIW", can you provide a link, diff or whatever, if you have one, so I don't have to go on a wild goose chase finding it. Thanks! Sswonk (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• While the correspondence was in private email, which I won't post here, Mr. Brandt discusses it and declares his desire to have it deleted on Wikipedia Review here - Allie ^❤ 04:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not that it matters -- this isn't BLP, and outside BLP deletion policy gives no weight to this sort of request. If Brandt is concerned, he can create (or revive?) an account and post here, where his views can be considered like those of any other. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• But do note that the WP:BLP policy extends to all pages, not just the biog. ones. Not saying it's relevant here, but just drawing your attention that point. As for Brandt, he's unable to participate here, old accounts or otherwise, as he has been banned from the project - Allie ^❤ 00:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The search links above demonstrate that the site is referenced in numerous news sources, books and scholarly papers and so passes our notability guideline. As we have several articles covering this general topic area including Wikipedia and Criticisms of Wikipedia, we might consider merging the material into one of them but that is not done by deletion. Complete suppression of the name as a useful search link would be contrary to policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It does not seem to be an important website in any way. There are no press articles actually about Wikipedia Watch listed, just mentions in articles about Wikipedia. Even Daniel Brandt himself seems more notable. Deleting this is not censorship unless we put the notability bar higher because it is critical of Wikipedia. The last AfD appears to have ended in keep because the nomination was bad. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN...Brandt's claim (supposedly) at Wikipedia Review to desire to have this page deleted has nothing to do with it.--MONGO 05:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources in the article, plus the 20 gscholar hits, about 50 gnews hits and 4 or 5 true gbooks hits are quite enough reliable sources to show that this website is notable.John Z (talk) 05:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is a well-sourced article that clearly meet WP:WEB criterion number 1. This has been cited by reliable news sources on at least two separate occasions (the Seigenthaler and Essjay controversies in 2005 and 2007 respectively) so does not fall under the auspices of WP:ONEEVENT. Notability is not temporary so just because the site has been quiet since then does not mean that we should delete the article - it was notable at the time and therefore it continues to merit an article. Thryduulf (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the nomination arguments do not stand criticism, as laready explained. The owner's wish does not matter: tis is not WP:BLP issue. Mukadderat (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep NPOV applies even to our enemies, and the links demonstrated here are way sufficient. I'd even say that NPOV requires we be extra careful about removing articles about our critics, to counter our inevitable bias. I couldn't care what the owner wants, whomever he might be there is no BLP violation and no libel. We need to decide without considering that, for otherwise it might well be said that we have even less reason to honor his prejudices than we might others. DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, only it's not about what the site owner wants, it's about whether the article meets WP:WEB and in this instance it's clear that it does not. That Brandt is the owner is neither here nor there; it simply doesn't warrant an article here - Allie ^❤ 20:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in agreement with Nomoskedasticity, Thryduulf, DGG. I think the article is perhaps on the borderline of WP:WEB notability, but I also have trouble with the disclosure statement beyond what's in the nomination that suggests WP:IDL, which I can't support. Bottom line is I wouldn't have thought to nominate for deletion if I had read the article prior to reading this page; the story behind the creation of the article and the arguments for deletion don't convince me it's a good idea. Sswonk (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that those who don't like Mr. Brandt would rather have the article kept than deleted. Just sayin' ... - Allie ^❤ 00:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But equally it should be noted that not all those commenting here are expressing any opinion with regards Mr Brandt, either positive or negative. Personally, I don't even have an opinion about him. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am mystified by Alison's note here. Is it in the right place? I have not expressed an opinion of the WW author nor should it matter. Sswonk (talk) 02:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • So am I! :) It was meant to be in reply to User:DGG above. Sorry for the mix-up - Allie ^❤ 02:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Child.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if you take a step and he takes a step, both of you get closer to the objective at the middle of the segment that links you and him. HighProphet (talk) 13:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, setting aside the drama, this has received plenty of coverage and a good article can be made from reliable sources. That it's a drama magnet only verifies its notability, IMHO. -- Banjeboi 14:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong IAR Keep as anything that can be viewed as silencing criticism is not in the best interests of the project. All else aside, there are suitable sources, and if the site owner didn't want to be in the public eye, he should have turned down the interviews cited. We can't put the genie back in the bottle for him. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 15:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those interviews might show that Brandt is notable, but certainly do not show notability for the website. Kevin (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Virtually everything is a passing mention. Furthermore, those passing mentions are more about Brandt than about the web site he used to publicize his research. Powers ^T 15:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on ample coverage in reliable and verifiable sources. We only further demonstrate how Wikipedia turns into a pathetic joke when we allow multiple nominations for deletion until the demanded removal of the article is achieved. When this fails, be assured that the sixth (and seventh, and eighth and ninth, ad nauseam) nominations for deletion will be forthcoming to waste our time and resources. Alansohn (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What's the record? I've seen one with 14 before deletion.--Milowent (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 18th. A troll group. There aren't many that get past 7. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There are inherent random elements in AfDs, the participation in the AfD discussion is quite random (volunteers), there is a random element if a deletionist-inclined admin closes the discussion, etc. Say that an article has a 1 out of 5 (20%) chance af being deleted, the overall chance of survival after seven nominations is 0.21 - if it is 1 out of 3, the chance is just 0.08. Small wonder that few get past 7 nominations. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The website is a joke. It clearly fails notability criteria, as the nominator put very eloquently. I can't believe that this article is still here. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems to fail WP:WEB; no reason to make an exception in this case. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article does not conform to WP:WEB. Nothing else needs to be said. SirFozzie (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article appears with the natural puffery of an article that has survived multiple AfDs while having recieved little mention from reliable sources. In part I think this is because we are concerned with not silencing our opposition, although in this case the owner does not wish for it to be featured here. Aside from all the us vs. them hubbub, the website doesn't meet WP:WEB as it hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in third-party sources. The sources given are only passing coverage and this particular website isn't the main subject of the commentary in any. ThemFromSpace 07:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Multiple independent mention in RS, that's a pass for WP:GNG. Notability is not temporary. Nomination is largely based on WP:IDL, puffed up with imaginary BLP concerns to support or trumph a weak rationale, and irrelevant mention if Brandt would like the article to go. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The GNG requires significant coverage in those reliable sources, not just mentions. Powers ^T 13:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The highly subjective interpretation of that little word is unfortunately the root cause of much discussion around here, sometimes escalating to bitter infighting -- divisive stuff , and always a tremendous drain on energy that could be better spent otherwise. Four prior AfDs found it was significant suggesting that it really is. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That little word "significant" was put there for an important reason, lots of non-notable things get trivial mentions. Consensus can change. ^Chillum 14:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails all 3 criteria of WP:WEB. Has not "been the subject of" (my italics) any "non-trivial published works". Of the 7 independent, non-link-dead sources currently in the article:

• 2 (NYT, SMH) say only that WW is anti-Wikipedia, was started by Mr Brandt
• 1 (TR) says only that WW was started by Mr Brandt
• 2 (IDG, TheRegister) mention WW only as a source of deleted pages
• 1 (Miami Herald) does not mention WW, AFAICT
• 1 (ZDnet) says only that "Brandt ... runs Wikipedia Watch, a sometimes paranoid, sometimes rational Web site that seeks to keep the project honest."

That's all that these sources say about WW itself! In a closely-related development, none of these articles are about WW; they are all about Mr Brandt and/or Wikipedia, with only passing mentions of WW. So the WP:WEB Criterion 1 score is 0.

It doesn't matter what anyone thinks of Mr Brandt or WW: by Wikipedia's rules, WW is not WikiNotable, and the article has to go. Cheers, CWC 16:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Later note: per Robofish, if article is deleted, we should add some info about WW to Criticism of Wikipedia. CWC 09:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable and fails WP:WEB criteria. Paz y Unidad (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or Merge to Criticism of Wikipedia) - the coverage in reliable sources is not significant, as required for WP:WEB and WP:GNG. Working from what we've got in the sources available, a mention of this website in Criticism of Wikipedia or Siegenthaler incident would be acceptable, but there isn't enough to justify an independent article. Robofish (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – My disagreement with these arguments that stress the word significant is that multiple independent sources cite WW as an example of reasons to question Wikipedia's reliability as a research source. Three found quickly on Google Scholar are: [1], a research paper; [2], a patent application and [3], a Feng Chia University student thesis, all formally describing WW as an important source of information regarding challenges to Wikipedia reliability. This leads me to conclude that, as Wikipedia ranks somewhere in the bottom half of the top ten of internet traffic statistics worldwide on several lists, and its use as a research tool is questioned, WW will be referenced in historical discussions of Wikipedia's development in the course of years and decades to come. The individual citations in the article do not tell the complete story. They can be dissected and have their significance questioned, however WP:WEB also mentions "historical significance" for which the site's notability can be secured. I was hesitant to point out the use of WP:WEASEL terms beginning with "largely" in the nomination and the overall WP:IDL tone of the nomination, however these weaknesses in the nomination place an onus on those who support deletion to provide irrefutable evidence that the site is not notable. This has not been done, and therefor the article does not "have to go" based on WP:WEB. Sswonk (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the fact remains that the non-primary sources available just don't cover the subject in enough detail for us to write an article. Aside from "Wikipedia Watch is run by Daniel Brandt and criticizes Wikipedia", everything else has to be sourced to primary sources. That is not a good indicator of notability. Powers ^T 14:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB, Julian, and nom. @Kate (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Google news finds 62 mentions of it. [4] seems to take it seriously. And honestly now, how many times must you try to destroy something, before giving up? Keep now, and forever, notability established. Dream Focus 02:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia has spawned critics, including a website called Wikipedia Watch" and "...says Wikipedia Watch's Daniel Brandt" is the entire mention in the article you cite. Both are excluded from demonstrating notability by WP:WEB, in the first case because it is a brief summary of the nature of the content, and the second because it is simply the name of the site. Kevin (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is an article to bend over backwords to keep even if you have to take it out of the main article space to do it. -- allen四names 03:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you have any policy based reasoning to back that up? To be frank, those opinions that are not based in policy are not likely to be given much consideration at closing time. ^Chillum 14:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that deletion arguments are based merely on guideline and (WP:IDL), whereas keeps (merges included) are based precisely on policy - WP:PRESERVE -- and disagreements over the subjective meaning of significant which is also interpreted as non-passing. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• PRESERVE says "fix problems if you can". If there are no non-primary sources to support the content of the article, then how exactly can we fix that? We can't fix that the article fails our notability standards. WP:IDL is not the basis of the deletion argument and while WP:NOTABILITY may be a guideline, it is one the community takes seriously in deletion debate. The policy in question WP:Verifiability which says "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The subject of this article has only trivial mentions in third-party published sources which in no way support the actual content of the article. ^Chillum 16:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete based on fact-specific analysis of the situation. Over the years, I've come to believe that Wikipedia really can't do a good job when it comes to material personally associated with its critics. There's just too many people who want to take potshots at a critic, using such articles as weapons. Not everyone, of course - but more than enough to cause constant problems. So if, as in this case, the article is marginal (and that's obviously true), and the critic has stated they'd like to see it deleted (which is true here), then the article should go. Anything else is just causing misery for little benefit to anyone. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.