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 no consensus.

This discussion is interesting in that it does not focus on one of the standard reasons for deletion (notability, verifiability, etc.). Rather, editors disagree about whether such a categorization of people is at all appropriate or even possible. As usual, I begin with the rough headcount, which is 20 to 14 (41% to 59%) in favor of keeping. Even if a higher proportion of "keep" than "delete" opinions would be invalid for some reason, this would not provide us with the required consensus for deletion.

I must still examine, however, whether there is a "delete" argument that is so compelling that it mandates deletion regardless of consensus (e.g., a copyright violation). I do not find any such argument being made here.

Finally, I must examine whether the "delete" arguments are, in aggregate, so much more persuasive in the light of policies, guidelines and precedents than the "keep" arguments, that I would nonetheless be justified in finding a consensus for deletion. That is also not so:

For these reasons, these arguments do not outweigh the "keep" arguments, or at least not strongly enough for me to find a consensus for deletion.  Sandstein  07:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of former Jews[edit]

List of former Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am nominating these articles for deletion since they seem to me to violate the spirit of several important WP policies. One is neutral point of view WP:NPOV since out of the millions of people in history who have changed or left their religion only a few will ever be listed here, and the ones listed seem to be so (in many cases) to push various points of view. Another is no fringe theories WP:Fringe since it is not at all established that a Jew who leaves his religion is a “former Jew” (most people, Jewish or not, would not say so), or that being a member of a church makes a person a Christian or leaving one a “former Christian”, and Muslims (if I understand correctly) do not consider a person who renounces Islam a “former Muslim” but a lapsed one. Another issue is with WP’s policies on living people WP:BLP. Not everyone on the lists is living but for those who are being listed could cause problems, which is one thing WP tries to avoid if possible. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

List of former Christians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of former Muslims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nominating all of them might be a good idea. I nominated these because they seemed the most "high profile."Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where would you find former AfDs? I know sometimes they are listed on the talk page but I didn't see any for these.Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) Who says what list is high profile and whats not? Thats a subjective criteria. 2) Look again and this time a little bit more carefully: Talk:List of former Muslims. There were 3 AfD's for this page alone. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 17:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"High profile" = "easy targets" ;-) Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And BTW I am smarter than the previous nominators.:-) Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's fairly usual to have pages called 'list of X' with the implicit assumption that it actual means 'list of X which are notable' but without actually stating so in the title - see for example the pages listed at Lists of Jews. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, it is not a list. It is a semi-list. If it were a list none of the comments next to each name would be necessary, yet they are de rigueur. Bus stop (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have none that I can prove. I believe in everything and in nothing. I don’t disbelieve in anything. I mean everything is possible. As far as my brain tells me I don’t believe because I believe that God is justice. The first thing that I was taught at catechist, catechism was that God is justice and I don’t see justice in the world. I see terrible injustice. I saw my mother when on her deathbed, she just died four years ago, she was a great believer and I sat next to her fifteen days while she suffered terribly before she died and I saw what relief she got from believing, from calling the Virgin Mary, from calling Jesus Christ to her help. From calling Saint Anthony of Padua who was our Saint, favourite Saint. It relieved her pain and I use to think what shall I say on my deathbed or who shall I call for help? And I decided that I will call my mother for help. That’s what I’ll say, I’ll say “mother come and get me wherever you are”.

Sorry it's so long but I think it illustrates the problem with these lists. I also noticed on the List of former Muslims many people were minor criminals/terrorists, people not usually noted for their religious beliefs. Who cares if a criminal in prison adopts a new religion? (God cares, but He does not need WP to tell Him.) At least limit the lists to people noted for their faith, but prefer delete all.Steve Dufour (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Well then maybe for the sake of clarity it should be stated somewhere — in the title, or in an introductory paragraph — that the criteria used for inclusion and exclusion are the criteria that are held by Reform Judaism. There is no sense in leaving the reader guessing what sort of guidelines are being followed. The standards of the article need to be articulated somewhere. Bus stop (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except that this is not Wiki-reform-judaism-opedia.Steve Dufour (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Violates WP:NOR, what are "former Jews" EXACTLY since according to Judaism being Jewish is both a religion and an ethnicity. This is also directly similar to violations of Overcategorization: Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference and Overcategorization: Opinion about a question or issue. See also Wikipedia:Listcruft IZAK (talk) 04:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So could you explain your deletion reason there? —Preceding comment added 12:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC) to my talk page. Transferred here. Handschuh-talk to me 12:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not take AfD discussions onto user talk pages. WP:LISTCRUFT may not be policy, but WP:NOT is. These lists are massive and frankly, unencyclopaedic. What possible encyclopaedic use could there be for a list of all former jews/christians/muslims or any other religion? Handschuh-talk to me 12:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:Lists (which is a style guideline as opposed to this WP:Listcruft which is a disputed essay), Lists can have standalone articles when they get big enough. I'm not sure what your "these lists are massive" argument is about. And what possible encyclopaedic use could there be for all the other lists on Wikipedia? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there are other lists that you feel are not eligible for inclusion in the project, nominate them for deletion. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is no reason to keep this crap. Lists can have standalone pages if they warrant it, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This list and others like it violate that policy. Handschuh-talk to me 13:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Give me one example of a list that is OK to you and I'll tell you the reasons why these lists dont violate policy. And no, these lists dont violate any policy. You have failed to point out exactly what policy these lists violate even though I've given you a link to WP:Lists. I've had enough of this "delete these list of religion thing" thing. To deal with this for once and for all, I will create something similiar to WP:Listcruft later to put a stop to this. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not failed to point to a policy that these lists violate. You have just failed to read it. WP:IINFO is violated. I'm not going to go through the project with you, list by list and tell you what is worthy of inclusion and what is not. I'm not the supreme arbiter of such things and I don't claim to be. The lists in question exist in violation of clear-cut policy as defined by a consensus of editors. Handschuh-talk to me 13:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Lists which is a direct style guideline related to lists holds precedence over WP:INFO and WP:NOT and whatever WP you're linking to. These lists are perfectly in line with WP:Lists. Please check that page out and tell me which policy these lists violate according to WP:Lists. I've already rebutted your objection of the lists being 'massive'. According to WP:Lists, when lists get massive, they actually get their own article. Could you now tell me why or how these lists violate WP:Lists? And no, there is also no consensus to delete these lists. Please dont make claims that are not true. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea where you're getting the idea from that a "direct style guideline" takes "precedence over WP:INFO"(which, by the way is not what I cited). Style guidelines, as the name suggests tell you how to format and present an article. Policies, like WP:IINFO, contain information about accepted standards that should normally be followed. Policy has been set by consensus. Your "rebuttal" to my objection to these massive and unmanagable lists is moot, since the point still stands that wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Handschuh-talk to me 14:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As requested earlier, please explain how these lists specifically violate WP:Lists. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They don't violate WP:L. I never claimed that they did. If they did, it would just be a matter of fixing up stylistic issues. These lists violate policy. Specifically, WP:IINFO. That is why the remedy is deletion; because they violate policy. Handschuh-talk to me 15:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In what way? There is an article titled Apostasy in Judaism and the list could relate to that, but be too long to fit the article. ("List of apostates from Judaism" might be better then)--T. Anthony (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bobby, no, I'm afraid you're wrong. I've WP:checked and these WP:specific lists do WP:not violate WP:INFO. Seriously, they do not. Please provide evidence of the specific violation of WP:INFO rather than just linking to the page and making unsupported generalized claims. As you're incorrectly alleging, these certain lists are not "indiscriminate collections of information". Why do you think they are? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how I can be anymore specific than to point out that these lists are indiscriminate collections of information. They simply compile information about apostasy in Judasism without reference to whether or not that information is notable or relevant or has any encylcopaedic value to the topic at hand. In their current form they are incredibly vague with respect to exactly who falls into this arbitrary catagory (as others have detailed above). I don't see what evidence you could possibly expect me to present; you obviously know where the list is found. Anyway, I'm tired of this. I'm going to let the closing admin wade through this nonsense. Handschuh-talk to me 15:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)In my opinion, they don't violate policy. An encyclopedic use: if someone is looking for a notable person whose name they can't quite remember but whom they remember as having been in a particular religion or having converted, they can refer to the list. "Lists contain internally linked terms and thus in aggregate serve as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia. If users have some general idea of what they are looking for but do not know the specific terminology,..." (WP:LIST) People might just be interested to just read the list and add to their knowledge of names they recognize. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Handschuh, if you look at the lists and looked at the references you'll see they're all well-defined. If we cant be sure whether two certain people can be included in the list or not, that discussion belongs on the talk page of the list article. It doesnt mean we should delete the lists. Just because we're not sure where we should put a sofa in the room doesnt mean we just get rid of the room completely. If you look at List of former Muslims for example, that list is well-defined and well-referenced. In some cases there are multiple references. Nice talking to you too. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The criteria used for inclusion or exclusion are never articulated. The more liberal end of the spectrum of legitimate Jewish thinking would guide the list to a different composition than would the more conservative end of the spectrum of legitimate Jewish thinking. Which criteria are being used to compile this list? Bus stop (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's OK. I think that in general on Wikipedia, we go by whether the person has self-identified as being in a given religion; so someone is stilled called a Jew on Wikipedia if they consider themselves to be a Jew, even if some other Jews don't consider them one because they're not following stricter practices. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coppertwig, no name is listed on List of former Jews because they are "not following stricter practices."
And if we "go by whether someone has self-identified as being in a given religion" then why isn't that articulated in the title or in an introductory paragraph?
Criteria have to be articulated otherwise a list like this would seem to be sloppy scholarship. Where are the criteria for what gets included and what gets excluded from a list such as this? Bus stop (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The criterion is clearly stated at the top of the list: "people of Jewish ethnicity and adherents of Judaism who have converted to another religion". Whether someone meets this criterion must be verifiable per WP:V. I was simply stating my understanding of what the usual WP:V criterion is for things like this, for example whether a category such as Category:Israeli Orthodox Jews can be added to a biography; it's not part of the criterion itself, but part of whether the inclusion of the person in the category has been sufficiently verified. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coppertwig, can you please tell me what you are you referring to by "not following stricter practices." Is that applicable to anything? Bus stop (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nick Graves, You say that, "For example, being Christian is almost exclusively a matter of religious identity, while being Jewish is a matter of religious, cultural and/or ethnic identity." My question to you would be, do Jewish children emerge from Christian families? No, they do not, except rarely. So why isn't Christianity an "ethnic identity," to use your words? I am fully aware of matrilineal and patrilineal descent among Jews. But while codified in Judaism, is the phenomenon much different in Christianity? Obviously children follow parents. This is the general trend, regardless of whether considering Jews or Christians. A child of Christian parents is likely to grow up to be a Christian, because his/her upbringing was one steeped in traditions of a "Christian" nature. Why do you consider Judaism an ethnicity and Christianity not an ethnicity? And as for the "cultural components" part of your assertion, — I fail to see how "Christmas," for instance, would not be something "cultural" of particular meaning to Christians. Christians and Jews live side by side and are not unaware of one another's holidays and other practices, and even practice them. But why wouldn't some such entities have specifically Christian significance? Bus stop (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That Christians rarely become Jewish doesn't mean they rarely leave Christianity. And Christianity is not an ethnicity for reasons that should be obvious.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And Jews also leave Judaism. What I said was that a child of Christian parents is likely to grow up to be a Christian. It should be obvious that there are exceptions. Jewish children, like Christian children, tend to follow in the footsteps of their parents. It probably wouldn't occur to me to make a case for Christianity being an ethnicity. But then again nor would it occur to me to make the case that Judaism is an ethnicity. Obviously "religion" is one of several possible components of the concept of ethnicity. I am questioning the above assertion that, "…being Christian is almost exclusively a matter of religious identity, while being Jewish is a matter of religious, cultural and/or ethnic identity." Don't Christians also have cultural components to their identity? Don't the children of Christians tend to be Christians themselves? Bus stop (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, I'm not going to get into the discussion about whether there is an ethnic component to Jewish identity, because it is not directly relevant to whether these lists should be deleted. You may disagree with the example I gave, but the point remains that the differences in the quality of inclusion criteria and sources, as well as other differences in the list subjects, make it more appropriate to nominate them individually. Our disagreement about the ethnicity issue with regards to the former Jews list should be evidence enough that the merits of these lists ought to be considered individually. Nick Graves (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not responding is fine. But the question you are not responding to is a question I did not ask. I didn't ask if there was an "ethnic component to Jewish identity," as you say above. I asked why you didn't see similar components applicable to Christian identity? Again, this was your assertion: "For example, being Christian is almost exclusively a matter of religious identity, while being Jewish is a matter of religious, cultural and/or ethnic identity." Bus stop (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a sample entry: "Bob Dylan - popular musician who converted to Christianity in 1979.[12] He later began studying with Chabad, a branch of Hasidic Judaism,[13] though his current religious affiliation is uncertain." How does that make him a "former Jew"?Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if you investigated a bit and saw Dylan's main article it says he was born in a jewish family and now "Dylan says he now subscribes to no organized religion" (according to a reporter who interviewed him). If you have issues with a certain entry, take it to the talk page as said before. The problem is that you didnt investigate anything. You didnt even read the previous AfDs as I pointed out before. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I plan on working on the articles if they are kept. Here is a link that is supposed to show a person is a "former Muslim": 1. The point being that inclusion on the lists is very sloppy. I also know many Jews who do not subscribe to an organized religion, and everyone thinks they are still Jewish. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Matt57, Dylan need not subscribe to any organized religion, to be a Jew. Most Jews in America and in the world are not religious. That does not make them not Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And where is the evidence that Madonna (entertainer) was ever a Christian or now a "fomer Christian"? Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you're not bothering to investigate anything. For example you could go visit that person's WP page: Wong Ah Kiu says she converted from Islam to Buddhism. If you have issues with Madonnna, take it to the talk page. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Her own family disputed it, as the article made clear but not the list. And WP:BLP says that poorly sourced controversial material should be removed at once, not taken to the talk page. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious right thing to do then is to mention it in the entry. Its clear that she personally converted. The courts also confirmed that. You're picking out a tough entry and using it to question the whole list. Why dont you bring up good names that have no problems too. Be a little fair. The issue you're bringing up applies to the categories too. Its an individual issue as I've said multiple times. Its not a problem in the list itself. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At least one of the people on the list is highly notable for having converted, Sabbatai Zevi, a former messianic figure who converted to islam. i think he could stay. While i agree that we dont serve people well by including them in the list if its a minor fact of who they are, but if they have made a public issue of it, and they are notable, and there is any public discourse about it, then they are important in that category. i dont see an inherent conflict with the guideline. people can be notable in more than one category on WP.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so "At least one of the people on the list is highly notable for having converted," according to Mercurywoodrose. The one cited is "Sabbatai Zevi." Are there any others? Or is it a list of "one?" The guideline says, "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category". If none of the other names are "selected for importance/notability in that category" then why are they on the list, and why does the list exist in the first place? "Sabbatai Zevi" is not a reason for a list. Bus stop (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would also be notable with Ram Dass, Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Johannes Pfefferkorn, Moishe Rosen, Joseph Wolff, and Israel Zolli.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better to list converts by the religion they converted to. Of course a convert very important in the history of his/her former religion (Martin Luther for instance) would be discussed in articles on that faith, but no special reason to list all former Roman Catholics together. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Locke9k, I suggest you raise that excellent point on the talk pages of the lists, as it seems to concern what the content of the list should be, not whether the entire list should be deleted. Based on the guideline you mention, I'm changing my comment above to "keep". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lists are not categories. Please check out WP:Lists which says "Redundancy of lists and categories is beneficial because the two categories work together". --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately other lists are also being nominated, its not just the Jews list. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the most prominent people on the "former Jews" list is Saint Paul(one of two pictures). I've read his letters and I'm pretty sure he never said he left the Jewish faith or was a "former Jew." Steve Dufour (talk) 07:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was checking out some of the deleted Jewish related categories and I saw that I voted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians. I didn't think it was a problem. I thought the category was properly deleted. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should delete even the 'current' religion categories. Why put somoene in the Christian or Muslim category? Are they really one? How do we know? And so on. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A positive list is much better than a negative one. I don't think we need lists like "List of people who don't go to church/synagogue." Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So should List of former Protestants, List of former Roman Catholics, List of former Latter Day Saints, and my creation List of former atheists and agnostics be on AfD?--T. Anthony (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If lists of "former" XYZ are negative then there's also: List of former German colonies, List of former United States senators and so on. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kitfoxxe, if the former Christians list makes erroneous assumptions with regards to anyone's supposed former Christian identity, then that is grounds for improvement of the inclusion criteria, and deletion of particular people whose alleged prior religious identity is inadequately supported by reliable sources. It is not grounds for deletion of the entire list. There are those whose renunciation of Christianity is well-documented, and such information ought to be retained. Nick Graves (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If the articles are kept I plan to go through them and remove anything poorly sourced about living people. It is usually not looked open well if an AfD nominator edits the article while the AfD is still open. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Joyson Konkani and Martin451 seem to be affirming that, "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category," found at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of people when they say that "These lists are useful, but should be limited to people who are notable for their religion, or conversion." Concerning the List of former Jews, that would limit the list to Sabbatai Zevi. I would just like to confirm that I am correctly understanding the intent of the two posts of the above two editors. Bus stop (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How are such lists unmaintainable? It seems clear to me that lists of this type can be quite easily maintained by stating the inclusion criteria (that is, those who used to be a member of a certain religion) and adding or removing people based on whether reliable sources confirm that they fit that description. I've been maintaining similar lists of people for years now, and one of them (List of Telecaster players) is even a featured list. No, these lists are maintainable. Whether one is completely satisfied with how they've been maintained up to this point is a different matter... Nick Graves (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How would you define "member of a certain religion"?Steve Dufour (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, lists are as easy to maintain as any other article. Another funny argument here (by SlimVirgin) was "no argument is ever made as to why such lists would ever be notable", and I pointed out "do lists have to be notable? Really?" to which I didnt get any reply. It looks like people dont know enough about lists or dont see the WP:Lists page. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually "Jew" is a fine word. It's just that in the USA we think it is more polite to use a multi-sylable expression to refer to people. Hence "African American" or "colored person" rather than "black" or, as is sometimes heard, "Caucasian" rather than "white." Steve Dufour (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "Black" is the preferred term. But if someone calls someone in my Dad's (Jewish) family a "Jew", I'd have to consider punching them in the face.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 03:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with "Black." It's just that some people think a longer expression is more polite. Also many Jewish editors here use the word "Jew." I don't think you would find "Jewish person" in many WP articles. (What is funny is a lot of bios saying the person "was born into a Jewish [or African American] family" without saying they are that. Michelle Obama's did this for a while.)Steve Dufour (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2010 (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.
More