Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Bauer (2nd nomination)

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. --bainer (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barbara Bauer

Barbara Bauer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Page was delete as an attack page in June 2006, overturned for AFD at the first deletion review. That AFD discussion came to a clear keep discussion. Shortly after she filed a lawsuit against several parties including the Wikimedia foundation (and the article was updated to reflect this), it was deleted again as "per WP:BLP article is a bloody disgrace. Full of 'allegations" of who said what on message boards . No mainstream media interest." Another deletion review was started and aborted to wait to see if the foundation/WP:OFFICE would take official action. When it was stated that they would not, at least for now, a third deletion review was started, and came to a clear overturn decision. There was enough concern about notability raised that the article is coming here for its second deletion review. There is quite a bit of discussion about reliability of sources in both of the two most deletion reviews. This is a technical nomination on my part, I have no opinion. GRBerry 23:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Very strong Delete utterly not notable - no mainstream media interest. She got a bad write-up from a writer's guild? So bloody what? And look at the text "There have been a number of complaints on internet message boards ... Bauer is also alleged to have made legal threats ... especially on web sites. Reports of this behaviour are usually found on sites maintained by people who claim to have received such threats. She is also alleged to have caused". 'Alleged', 'alleged', 'claimed' 'usually' 'reported' - it boils down to who said what on message boards. All on-line tittle-tattle, there is a great lack of real facts here, and nothing approaching verifiable notability. This is just not what wikipedia is.--Doc^g 00:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I have now cleaned up the language, which was using unnecessary weasle words. The article now directly reports the allegations, including who (among others) made them. JulesH 08:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. SFWA is a reliable source; Teresa Nielsen Hayden is a reliable source. The statements in this article are properly sourced, and deleting it in response to a frivolous lawsuit would set a bad precedent. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The statements are all about allegations not facts, and the 'reliable sources' point to nothing notable. Keeping this in response to a frivolous lawsuit would set a bad precedent.--Doc^g 00:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. Not worth the trouble either. --Tbeatty 00:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No real value is added to Wikipedia by having this; not notable and not worth the trouble. --Benn Newman 00:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete There is no RS for the matter at issue. The SFFWA site does not show anything except the inclusion of her on a list. Similarly for the NJ courts--the complaint would be a RS, but the site shows only the name on a list. This is not suitable under BLP. I think she is N, and I think the threat is N, and I think a well-thought of blog can be a RS for some things--but not for BLP. And there's no reason to think her N otherwise. There are still a few days for a source to appear. DGG 01:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment The SFWA site makes general statements about all the names on the list, including Bauer. Those statements are quoted in the article, and are the basic source material. The Writer Beware blog is also a reliable source, being another publication of the same organisation, and supports the assertion that Bauer regularly makes legal threats and that her actions were involved in the (albeit temporary) closure of Absolute Write. These two sources are reliable and are adequate between them to support almost all of the information in the article. JulesH 07:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Suing WP alone makes her notable these days ... and as long as people don't do it to make themselfes notable enough for an article here, that is enough for a keep vote for me. Also, see the previous discussion. -- John Smythe 01:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Suing WP only makes her notable, if it indeed gets her noted. Where is the media interest? Where are the secondary sources? Being notable to the Wikipedia community internally doesn't count. Anyway why would suing WP make her any more notable than suing any other comparable organisation?--Doc^g 02:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's possible (though I don't think it's happened yet) that the suit will indeed make her notable through coverage in the media; not necessarily due to the Wikipedia/Wikimedia angle alone, but because of all the other defendants; if any of them put up a big fight it could throw off lots of sparks. The writer community will probably be interested in the outcome of the case against SFWA, for instance. *Dan T.* 02:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And at that hypothetical future point, she might be worth an article.--Doc^g 02:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. She was notable at the last nomination and is notable now. Lawsuit against Wikimedia Foundation, Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, Teresa Nielsen Hayden, Ann Crispin and other notable people and organisations can only make her more notable. JulesH 07:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Some reliable sources and notable lawsuit. --J2thawiki 11:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• delete Close the computer and read real newspapers. Being distantly affiliated with Wikipedia does not make you notable. Samulili 13:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Once papers are served news of this suit will most likely hit the mainstream media. The SWFA is a reliable source, and so is public record of a lawsuit. St jb

WP:NOT for things that will 'most likely' be notable later. We wait till they are. We don't break stories.--Doc^g 15:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Abstain. I can't really venture a definitive vote opinion one way or the other. A previous AfD found her (barely) notable enough, though it's fairly marginal. The lawsuit may increase her notability, but this hasn't yet actually occurred. There's a decent chance that the article will some day need to be resurrected if deleted, but we're not a crystal ball. However, she does have some degree of notability / notoriety, so keeping the article isn't a completely bizarre choice now either. Any deletion now should be without prejudice, given that circumstances may (even quite soon now) necessitate overturning such a decision. *Dan T.* 15:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Utterly unnotable. There is no indication of notability present in the article. Blog mentions are not basis for notability, and according to WP:BLP are not reliable sources and should be removed from the article altogether. A lawsuit that has no coverage by any secondary sources is not even remotely sufficient to make her notable, or we'd have to include every single person on the planet who has ever filed a lawsuit. The fact that it was made against the Wikimedia Foundation is meaningless. There are people who have sued far more important organizations and companies than the WMF who don't have articles. The top twenty listing does not in and of itself make her notable; in fact I haven't been able to find articles for any of the other 19 companies listed. If policy is followed and the information cited to the blogs is removed, than the only information remaining would be the mention in the top twenty listing and an nonnotable lawsuit. That doesn't even come close to warranting an article at all. If she becomes notable in the future than that is a different story, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Nor should it be.--Dycedarg ж 17:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, her lawsuits seem to make her notable even if only mildly so. Gateman1997 18:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable, article has reliable, verifiable, persistent sources. Edivorce 19:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per JulesH (though I predict the lawsuit itself will wind up pretty much being a non-story). --Calton | Talk 02:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - nothing has happened since the last nomination to make her less notable. Js farrar 03:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Question: Can someone please list what published works, other than self-published blogs, have this person (or her agency) as their primary subject? Kla'quot 05:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• The SFWA is not a "self-published blog". --Calton | Talk 20:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I know, but the SFWA's article doesn't have Bauer as its primary subject. The article is a list of 20 agencies, each of which has some unspecified subset of a set of problems. With so little information in reliable sources, this is a perma-stub. I vote to delete until more sources are found or unless a suitable merge target is found. Kla'quot 03:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The page was created for the purpose of repeating the unverifiable claims made by by one website. In addition to being based on claims from one unverifiable website rather than "a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources" the article has been in clear violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for many months because of reliance on blogs and other rumor-laden websites; "Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used". Wikipedia does not exist for the purpose of repeating and amplifying unverifiable negative information from other websites. --JWSchmidt 14:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The lawsuit makes her notable. When she's not notable then delete. Davidwr 14:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Lawsuit is totally non notable event. Bauer is even more non notable if thats possible. Nuke this and lets all move on to bigger and better things. Thanks, --Tom 20:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Very Strong Delete The lawsuit is a direct result of Jules H. writing this article in the first place. It's defamatory on its face. He used Wikipedia for his personal crusade against non noteable literary agents who haven't legally defrauded anyone to date. That may be a small point to a partisan, not not in the law. This is all about blogland, Internet writing forums and cliques of users who want to score points with blogging editors at publishing houses under the guise of ridding the world of scammers who charge fees and perform badly in the business. This just isn't a crime or a notable person in the way Amanda Urban is a notable literary agent. My protests have been steadfast on this issue alone from the beginning. I was blogswarmed by this same blogging group. Jules H. has left me a warning of being blocked for reverting the page to the warning tag. That'a exhibit A of just how far he is willing to go.

"Can someone please list what published works, other than self-published blogs, have this person (or her agency) as their primary subject?"

None Marky48 20:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• The SFWA is not a "self-published blog", no matter how you spin it.
• The lawsuit is a direct result of Jules H. writing this article in the first place Uh huh. Your evidence for this is what, exactly? Unless you're Bauer herself, how is it that you know this? --Calton | Talk 20:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Because I predicted it from the start. Look at the history of the article. Same players saying the same things, yet it's in court isn't it? Yes it is. Marky48 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Mark, I know you don't like me, but could you please try to keep your comments civil? You know nothing of my motivations, and to suggest that this was done to "score points with blogging editors" is borderline on being a personal attack. The warning I left on your talk page is standard procedure when a user blanks the content of a page without consensus for that to be done. In this case it was aggravated by the fact that there was a notice at the top of the page specifically instructing editors not to blank the page while this discussion is taking place. Added to the fact that this is not the first time you have removed content without an apparently clear consensus, and I think the sternly-worded warning was appropriate. JulesH 23:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Is that so? No it isn't. The editor protected the article because of the lawsuit. You got wind of it and Calton reverted to showing thre article. I reverted to the authoritative version. Only a fool would advocate this in the face of a lawsuit. You're liability to Wikipedia. Strong language? You haven't seen anything yet. Stay away from me.Marky48 02:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Just for everybody's information, it should be noted that Marky48 vandalized the article under discussion, and was rude and threatening when warned about this behavior. *Dan T.* 23:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Source for "worst agents" is a writers' organization, not a "blog". --SarekOfVulcan 20:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The SFWA has been around for over 40 years. Writer Beware is their Committee on Writing Scams. Here's a non-blog link. [1]St jb 21:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Writer Beware operates as a blog and is Internet based only. There is no physical office and that isn't spin. It's two writers in their homes, one in Amherst, Mass and the other in Maryland.Marky48 21:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

So they telework. Highly commendable, if you ask me. The use of blogging software as a medium of publication does not automatically rule out the use of the site as a source. It is process that matters, and Writer Beware are meticulous with their fact-checking processes. JulesH 23:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Nor does it make a reliable source on its face and since it's a volunteer job, it's not an actual business with telecommuters. It's a vanity effort, no matter how valuable and just. The fact in contention here is notability. Bauer is a small time agent with no clientele of note in publishing. Therefore, she is not notable. You saying she is doesn't make it so. Maybe Jimo Wales will thatnk you for getting him sued? By the way, these are all the very same players as before on the keep side. Expect more because they'll bury everyone else with their partisan club. It's a number game really, and all of one mind from the home office in Brooklyn. Wikipedia doesn't stand a chance. Marky48 00:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - We decided as a community to keep her before, and the only reason for this second delete attempt is the lawsuit. If anything that makes it more notable. --Shinto 23:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not impute motives to other wikipedians. I originally speedied this article, and as I've eplained before, it had NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY LAWSUIT.--Doc^g 23:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You speedied it (despite it having already been kept after one AFD) immediately after news of the lawsuit became public, and you expect us to believe that it's a coincidence? Js farrar 00:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do. It is called assuming good faith - which proper wikipedians do. And, since I've told that I had no knowledge of the lawsuit when I deleted it, then your alternative is to call me a liar, which is a personal attack, and not what proper wikipedians do. You choose.--Doc^g 15:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The very strong implication that someone is not a "proper Wikipedian" could also be considered a personal attack, and is (in my opinion) unworthy of an Administrator. In any case, assume good faith only applies as long as there has been no demonstration of bad faith, and I personally consider the speedy deletion of an article which has already been kept at an AFD is acting in bad faith, as it shows an utter lack of respect for the AFD process. Others' mileage may vary, of course, and I lay out the facts as I see them so that each individual may make his own judgement. Js farrar 16:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

A proper wikipedian may well have disagreed with my judgement and action, proper wikipedians often disagree, sometimes strongly, and that's OK. However, a proper wikipedian would not have stooped to calling me a liar.--Doc^g 09:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Which "improper" (presumably) Wikipedian called you a liar? It certainly wasn't me. Js farrar 16:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The person who indicated that I couldn't "expect us to believe" what I said. But, If you are now willing to believe me, I'll take that as an implicit retraction.--Doc^g 20:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It is quite an incredible coincidence that, very shortly after the lawsuit got mentioned on Wikipedia project pages and the wikien-l mailing list, the article suddenly got speedy-deleted. *Dan T.* 21:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. And? --Doc^g 21:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Folks, can we please end the sniping here? If Doc says he did not notice the mention of the lawsuit when he speedied the article, then a protracted argument over what happened, when and why is irrelevant to the issue at hand (i.e. whether the article should be kept or deleted on the basis of notability, WP:RS, WP:LIVING etc.), and needlessly pushes the boundaries of WP:CIVIL. That also goes for arguments about why it was written in the first place. Clearly, there is room for reasonable, intelligent Wikipedians to strongly disagree about whether the article should exist, and what it needs to make it acceptable if indeed it is retained. That's plenty to deal with without dissecting each other's actions and presumed motives. Thanks! Karen | Talk | contribs 21:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, that's precisely why we have WP:AGF.--Doc^g 21:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I said no such thing. I asked if you were expecting us to believe that; I did not state that you could not expect us to believe that. Please don't misquote me - it's easy enough to check up the thread to see what I actually wrote. Js farrar 00:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. - as others have mentioned, Bauer was considered notable in the first AFD, and since then the article has improved considerably, with more balance and reliable sources. The most important source is SFWA's Writer Beware site, which although it has an official blog as an outgrowth is not a blog in and of itself. The fact that Bauer has sued WF, SFWA and others is part of her notability, since her reported past attempts to suppress unfavorable attention with threats of legal action were what originally set her apart from the other agents on the Twenty Worst list. I suspect it is early days to expect mainstream coverage of the lawsuit, and I understand that we cannot decide on the basis of a prediction of future press attention. However, the sources already given in the article should be more than sufficient to establish notability. As for much of the article being negative, it is nevertheless scrupulously sourced, stated as neutrally as possible, and offset by as much positive material as could be reasonably found. WP:BLP is not, I think, intended to require that no negative material ever be mentioned under any circumstances. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 00:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable lawsuit -Mschel 00:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hail Hail the gang's all here bla bla bla...Oh yes Karen it's oh so neutral. Just like Jed Clampett's observation on the LA River: Pitiful, just pitiful.Marky48 02:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Js_farrar And you expect us to believe you aren't a sci-fi wannabe like the others hoping to impress Teresa Nielsen Hayden one of the litigants? Puleeze.Marky48 02:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope the rest of the flood of comments you've made (mostly in the wrong places, natch) have more basis in fact that this ridiculous diatribe. I'm only here because I get pissed off when admins start speedily deleting articles that have already been kept after AFD, as it makes a mockery of the system Js farrar 04:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Dan T want to see rude? GFYSLF. I vandalized nothing. I'll tell you what though, I'm going to nuke this SOB once and for all. Consider this administrative actionable. Like Doc said some Wikipedians are idiots. You qualify.Marky48 02:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

As per policy: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest All of these supporters are part of the cummunity in question. It's a pet issue and Wikipedia is being played for forum fodder.Marky48 02:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Exhibit A as provided in the above link bears repeating in this light: "keep deleted. The Barbara Bauer article was one of several articles created on Wikipedia in May 2006 by User:JulesH for the stated purpose of, "I just feel that the information about them provided by the SFWA should be disseminated more widely". The sole basis for these articles (the others have been deleted) was a list on a website that does not provide data to back-up their claims, thus making it impossible for Wikipedians to verify the website's claims. This one website source is not the basis for posting rumors about a living person on Wikipedia, even if the claims are true. I do not understand all the "inside" talk (by Wikipedia editors who know the parties involved in real-world disputes with Barbara Bauer) on the Talk:Barbara Bauer and related pages, but it is clear that there is a group of editors who have collaborated to keep negative information about Barbara Bauer on Wikipedia, using only blogs and other unreliable internet sources in their citations. These "owners" of the article have been repeatedly challenged by other Wikipedians who pointed out that use of unreliable sources is a violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The original attempt to delete the Barbara Bauer article was held off under the condition that the article would be built using reliable sources (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Bauer), however the unreliable website sources were retained. The only reason this page exists is to repeat the claims of an unreliable website source that does not provide evidence for its claims, only a set of conclusions. There is no reason for Wikipedia to repeat these conclusions other than the desire of a few Wikipedia editors to use Wikipedia as a mechanism for amplifying the conclusions of the other website. This is not a basis for building a Wikipedia article about a living person, even if the claims are true. This has nothing to do with responding to "spurious legal threats". There are thousands of webpages that make unverifiable claims about living people. Wikipedia is not here as a mechanism for amplifying those claims. In my view, the link to "Writer Beware" at Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America should be enough coverage of this issue for Wikipedia. --JWSchmidt 18:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The stated purposes of wikipedia is to collect information from reliable sources into a single work to make them more readily accessible. The fact that the reason for creating this article was to include some particular information from a particular reliable source is reason to delete it how? Again, I repeat my comments from the deletion review: Wikipedia does not require its sources to provide hard data. It only requires them to have checked the data themselves and be reputable and trustworthy. The condition you mention was not actually imposed as a condition of the previous AfD discussion: the result was "keep" not "keep pending improvement of sourcing". JulesH 15:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Others in the series created in the wake of the Absolutewrite forum shutdown alleged to Bauer were the reason Jules here did this. Others in the series have been deleted. Gee what a shock. I can't imagine why? In fact there couldn't be a better illustraion of why democracy can't work in its pure form. Consensus in science means something. Here's it's just friends voting for friends. What a sad joke and frankly the reason most professors don't allow Wikipedia as a source. That IS well-reasoned. This is why.Marky48 03:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as NN.     This is easy: I read the discussion here, and thinking this is a big deal, then I go read the article. I read it and the result is "Why is this here?" I think, no, wait, there must be a reason. So I click on "What links here". 40 links, only one of which is not from a talk or project page, and that is from a disambiguation page, Bauer. In other words, this page is of absolutely no use to the encyclopedia. Not even enough notability to be linked to from any other article? Shenme 03:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

See anyone familiar here? Talk:PublishAmerica It's a pet project too of the same groups. I'm against them too, but I mean really, how much more proof of life on this one nore samba do we need? Marky48 03:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Previous AfD said keep, previous DRV said keep, the article's been improved since then in response to criticism, and now we're supposed to delete it? Hey, whatever complaints are left, try fixing it instead of blanking or deleting it. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 04:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Just thought editors here might like to know that User:Marky48 has been blocked for one week for vandalism and incivil behaviour. JulesH 20:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable enough, and sufficiently sourced to keep the srticle. I see no reason to delete. -- Eugène van der Pijll 09:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Does pass BIO notability requirements, easily enough for a short article . - Denny 17:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, I think being in the SFWA's top twenty worst agencies list is sufficient notability. The article looks like it's well-sourced too. Bryan Derksen 20:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per the above. --69.33.181.2 06:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep references provide enough depth to back this. I've personally heard of her referred to as "satan in a skirt" in conversations during NANO. That makes her pass my personal bar of notability. She also appears to pass our WP:BIO guidelines.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't see how this person meets any of the standards set out in WP:BIO. Inclusion on a list does not establish notability. Filing a lawsuit does not, by itself, establish notability. While some of the references used are reliable (a college alumni magazine, for example), they don't establish notability. The simple fact is that literary agents are not generally notable unless they've been the subject of articles. There are twenty entries in the "Writers Beware" list, and I don't think anyone would argue that we should have articles about each one. This person has only been the subject of blog entries that aren't reliable sources. Regarding a comment by user:Crotalus horridus, I dispute his contention that Teresa Nielsen Hayden is a reliable source. She is an expert on the topic of editing, not on the topic of literary agents. Furthermore, she has used Wikipedia as a soapbox to disparage some people in violation of WP:BLP (See Roger Elwood [2]) and to promote others, including herself and her husband, in violation of WP:COI. For those reasons we should be very careful about using Nielsen Hayden as a source or a judge of notability. -Will Beback · † · 18:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm afraid I don't see the relevance of somebody's past infringements of Wikipedia rules (presumably due to ignorance of them and a simple desire to improve Wikipedia: the content I see introduced seems not to be disputed by anybody, only the lack of sourcing is inappropriate) to whether or not something they have published externally to Wikipedia is an acceptable source. JulesH 20:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Blogs are not normally considered reliable sources. Some folks, here and elsewhere, have asserted that Nielsen Hayden is an exception and I disagree with that assessment. Her agenda-driven behavior on Wikipedia mirrors her blog writing. While her blog is certainly a good reflection of her opinions, it should not be used as a source for objective truth. And the fact that she has written about this subject does not, by itself, make this subject notable. -Will Beback · † · 21:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable, controversial person. Yakuman (数え役満) 06:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, this article is why we have NPOV. It is, like the Essjay article prior to the AfD, a recollection of a negative event, and it in my opinion fails BLP as not presenting a balanced biography. Decency and common sense, please. Daniel Bryant 05:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, violates WP:BLP and is far from NPOV. The sources are mostly unreliable or are irrelevant, as well. --Coredesat 05:42, 7 April 2007 (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.