Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Zachary Jaydon (3rd nomination) - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sander.v.Ginkel (talk | contribs) at 13:13, 21 November 2016 (Undid revision 347182364 by Sandstein (talk)Courtesy blanking, history blanking, or oversighting should be rare, and should be performed only after due consideration. No indication of a discussio). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:13, 21 November 2016 by Sander.v.Ginkel (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 347182364 by Sandstein (talk)Courtesy blanking, history blanking, or oversighting should be rare, and should be performed only after due consideration. No indication of a discussio)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 and salt as an elaborate hoax. I also blocked the hoaxer TragedyStriker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely.  Sandstein  14:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Zachary Jaydon

AfDs for this article:
Zachary Jaydon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article has been nomiated for deletion twice before, but was kept, as there were "sufficient assertions of notability". However, I believe there is a greater problem - the article is a hoax or fraud. This ANI thread may be of relevance. As regards Jaydons musical career, which asserts he has written many songs, I can't find a single mention of a "Zachary Jaydon" in any of the references provided relating to his music-writing career(, , , , , , ). Verdict on songwriting career: fake.

As regards his acting career: IMDB is not a reliable source, as it is created by submission (this ref uses the IMDB list as its source, and still only lists Z Jaydon as an "uncredited extra"). The only references on the entire list of article references that actually mention Zachary Jaydon as an actor are his own MySpace site, and IMDB (which is unreliable). And not even these mention his purported "writing of songs that have sold over 30 million copies worldwide". The two references that thoroughly chart the Mickey Mouse Club, The Wonderful World of Disney Television: A Complete History, by Bill Cotter. New York: Hyperion (1997) and Disney A to Z: The Updated Official Encyclopedia, Dave Smith, Hyperion, ISBN 0-7868-6391-9, do not mention a Zachary Jaydon, at all - very surprising if he was in all seven series, as the article states. Verdict on acting career: fake.

There is a sketchy and hard-to-get hold of reference to a "Substream Music Press", which has no ISBN number, and only seems to exist as a MySpace page and on a (again user-submission-created site), smartpunk.com.

I have a very strong feeling we have being BS'd by a hoaxer/self-publicist/fraud, and a bunch of people at AFD have previously fallen for it. Recommend strong delete. I would ask those participating to not just make a judgement based on what the article says, and to please try and check the references for themselves, and see if they can come to a different conclusion than I did, which is that a self-publicist is abusing Misplaced Pages. Neıl 龱 14:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Have found following things that need looking at in regards to this , , . I'm not "voting" either way just yet but, thought I'd bring 3 hits from Google here that weren't IMDB or Wiki for people to look at and make their own minds up. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I've had a look at both previous AfDs. His credits should be easily verifiable off wiki by checking the credits in the Television shows, albums, etc that is being used to claim notability (it doesn't have to exist on the web to be verifiable). I'm going with a Weak Keep although the article is in desperate need of cleanup and whomever wrote it needs to understand that just because something they were involved in won an award it doesn't me they won the award (if that made any sense to people). Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Of those 3 links you give, the blogspot and sharetv ones are by definition unreliable - blogs are obviously not reliable (and that blog is actually about how the subject is a fraudster), and sharetv is, like IMDB, user-submitted. The NMEtv one could prove that, at some point, Zachary Jaydon once played with a minor band (and note that the band, Close To Home, don't even warrant a Misplaced Pages article), but note NMEtv is also user-submitted content. As regards the TV credits, Zachary Jayron does not appear in the television credits of any movie or TV show, ever. He does NOT appear on the Mickey Mouse Club credits, and all the IMDB references even state he is "uncredited" (deliberately so, I believe, so it can't be verified he was ever in them). Neıl 龱 15:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Gave the blog because it accuses him of being a fake and thought I'd try to be neutral in showing sources and such. I never claimed them as reliable just as existing (or that I knew what was or wasn't user submitted). Just trying to give everyone a decent chance to look at things. The first AfD was a delete (so I can't look at the original article to compare versions or I would have done that). Please read what I wrote initially again. You will see that I was just pointing at things for people to look at. Personally, I say weak keep so the article can be cleaned up and looked at later. Or an admin can look at the two different versions of the article and see what was added that made him all of a sudden meet the notability criteria.Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I am an admin. There are a lot of assertions, which, if taken at face value, would make him meet the notability criteria. Unfortunately, they all appear to be made up. Arguing to keep an article so it can be looked at later is ridiculous - we are looking at it now. I trust the closing admin will assess your argument based on its merits, of course. Neıl 龱 16:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, is there someway to know if people are admins? I take it you looked at the original article then? What do you want from me? I looked at everything available. I chased around on the web. I made a judgement call based on what I found at the time just like everyone else here. I'm just trying to help the project. If it makes you happy change my weak keep. I could care less about the subject of the article anyway. I'm just saying that it is reasonale request improvement of the article while it is undergoing discussion (happens all the time around here afterall). Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to answer the first question - any user can check which people are admins through a) Misplaced Pages:List of administrators, b) Special:Log/rights, c) clicking here, d) Special:Listusers/sysop, e) Using Category:Misplaced Pages administrators, f) clicking on a user's userpage - alomst all admins mention the fact on their userpage, or g) seeing who the bossiest users are :) Neıl 龱 12:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The ASCAP source may be valid, but it doesn't carry over to Zachary Jaydon, nor does it make Jaydon D. Paull notable. A Google search for Jaydon Paull songwriter doesn't turn up anything of value either. BradV 16:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • (ecx2) Actually, it seems there is a performer by the name Zachary Jaydon who has, according to ASCAP, performed some of Jaydon D. Paull's songs. ASCAP also says that Jaydon D. Paull did write Be There with Justin TImberlake. I've found some mentions linking the two names, but they're all on user submission pages. So, essentially, something screwy's going on here, and I'm honestly not sure what. Is someone trying to usurp the name of Jaydon D. Paull as part of a hoax, or is Jaydon D. Paull using another name for some reason to ply a second trade as an actor with, well, no career to speak of? *confused* Tony Fox (arf!) 16:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Interesting, this - of the three songs on that ASCAP list that were "recorded" by notable artists, we'll pick one as an example. "Be There", as an example, is listed as being released by NSync. I can't find any song they ever released entitled "Be There". The RIAA reference given in the Jaydon article has no mention of such a song (even if you plug into their search engine). NSync did have a B-side on called "Are You Gonna Be There" on No Strings Attached ('N Sync album), but this Google search is telling: - Jaydon certainly didn't write that. Neıl 龱 16:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Good catch, Neil, and very convincing. Strong delete as blatant hoax/self promotional attempt, and block the creator for extensive disruption. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
A further note on ASCAP: according to its membership page, it costs $25 to become a member, and it looks like submissions to the song database can be gamed - looking through the site, it doesn't appear there's a lot of fact-checking going on with their database. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. While I'm still willing to maintain a degree of good faith about the editors who added the content, the fact remains that there are some severe shortcomings with verifiability. The evidence just isn't there to demonstrate that "Zachary Jaydon" is a notable individual; as a result, there shouldn't be an article about him. —C.Fred (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The article claims the he was in an episode of Kyle XY sourced to his IMDB page, his page lists the credit as does the page for the episode. So I went to the 'ole Tivo and watched the episode. Not only is there no Zachary Jaydon (or Jaydon Paull) in the episode credits but the character he claims to play (Allan Stevens), does not appear at all in this episode. L0b0t (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The results of the research into the ASCAP listing, combined with the inability to reliably tie Zachary Jaydon to Jaydon Paull, pushed me off the fence.Kww (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and Salt The gap between the assertions and the results of good faith efforts to verify them are insurmountable. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Carl Sagan once said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Such is definitely the case here. It seems to me that if the article were 100% word-for-word true as written, we'd be absolutely awash in solid mainstream reliable sources. I have no idea whether this is a hoax, an exaggeration, a synthesis of two different people, or something else entirely, but I do know it can't stay on Misplaced Pages as is unless some rock-solid sources show up soon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Missed this first time around, but I totally agree, there're some pretty big claims being made here that, if true, would be easy to find reliable sources for. As is almost every source is either unconfirmed or contested/unreliable. Rehevkor (talk) 12:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Trying hard to get something into wikipedia is usually a sign that it really doesn't belong on wikipedia. I've read two of the fraud-claiming blogs, and read what people have said here. AGF can only go so far. – sgeureka 19:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment: One of those blogs belongs to User:Thegingerone, and she's been trying to expose this hoax for a while, also here on Misplaced Pages. Check out her contributions to the last AfD, such as ths one and it looks like she was right all along. BradV 19:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


  • Strong Keep

There seems to be confusion as to the relation between Jaydon D. Paull & Zachary Jaydon. They are one in the same. A large percentage of performers/artists don't go by their legal name. Any notability no matter which of the two names they are credited under are still assertions of nobility under either or both. Many people are eliminating anything that can be user uploaded or changed. I agree with the principle of this in general, however, videos, magazine scans and the such are irrefutable proof of events or facts no matter where they came from. If there is a video of Mr. Jaydon playing with a National Rock Band, you can't say that because it was put up by a "user" that the fact doesn't remain.

While every sentence of this Wiki Article isn't strongly sourced, it doesn't mean he doesn't meat notability requirements for an article. I have scanned and uploaded quite a few of my sources at: http://zacharyjaydonwiki.blogspot.com/

Also, the following was taken directly from WP:N#MUSIC:

Criteria for composers and lyricists

For composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists: 

  1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.

Jaydon has written material on several Multi-Platinum records, including *NSYNC, Craig David, Ryan Cabrera and others. These WERE songs that were included on these albums. They weren't scrapped, or obscure B-Sides. These were songs included on official releases by MAJOR artists. He obviously has notable talent if these artists are choosing to work with him. This is obviously an arguable issue, but given the success of the albums his work has been featured on, it seems at the VERY least, notable. These credits are easily verifiable here:

(, , )

The 3 above sources are all from www.ASCAP.com which is one of the most trusted sources used on Wiki for Songwriter Credit Verification.

() also shows from a VERY large, Fortune 500 companies website with information on Close To Home and confirming Mr. Jaydon's Songwriting Credits. This website would be considered reliable on any front, and also independent of the subject himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TragedyStriker (talk • contribs) 22:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability is a guideline, not a policy. Please read the policy on verifiability. None of those sources you have listed are "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." BradV 22:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you can explain why this song doesn't seem to, y'know, exist. As noted above, the ASCAP stuff seems to be user-submitted, with little oversight, so can likely be gamed. Nothing you've provided is verifiable. Show us real proof, please. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Managing and writing a couple of songs for a non-notable garage band is pretty much all that can been reliably proven. Zachary added some scans to his blog, but they are of a magazine article about the band, not Zachary Jaydon (who is mentioned only in passing). ASCAP is not a reliable source, as it can be fooled by anyone willing to pay $25. Neıl 龱 23:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and Salt - being an "uncredited extra" is not a claim of notability. Blatant WP:COI isn't helping anything either. Zero reason to suspect any relationship with Jaydon D. Paull --T-rex 23:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Before making assertions or claims about ASCAP, maybe doing a nominal amount of research would help. Lazy accusations run rampid, and are grossly misleading in this articles AfD. Yes, I am specifically pointing a finger at you, Neil. You make incorrect assumptions, and hasty accusations with ZERO research on the things you speak of. You are an admin, and I'd expect MUCH more from you than other "common" editors whom look at this article or AfD in passing. ASCAP (The American Society Of Composers Authors and Publishers) is one of America's LARGEST and OLDEST performing rights organizations and represents over 70% of ALL professional songwriters/composers. The $25.00 "fool" fee is a completely bogus and ludacris comment. ASCAP recently began charging $25.00 as an application fee to songwriters wishing to be considered for ASCAP membership. It doesn't open a door to user editable databases that can be fraudulently edited by anyone. ASCAP also collects ALL songwriter royalties and submits to the American Government VIA the IRS and others of income. There is no way to "fool" them, as everything is done via Social Security or Tax ID Numbers. Every time a song is played or sold on an album, it is reported to ASCAP and then the royalties are paid out to the songwriters/composers/publishers. Publishing company information is provided on SEVERAL of Mr. Jaydon's credit pages, and if you are so concerned about the legitimacy of the claims, maybe making a simple phone call would settle your worries a bit? I am waiting on a couple of faxes from both labels and publishers regarding Jaydon D. Paull and the tie to his stage name Zachary Jaydon, so that will settle that argument.

As far as your assertion of Close To Home being a "Non-Notable" garage band, They are the 2008 Celebrity Spokesgroup for Sexy Hair Concepts, as well as receiving a large amount of press coverage in Magazines, Newspapers as well as on the web. Their album has been a staple in the Independent music world for months, as being released worldwide. Links to ALL of this information has been provided, but has apparently been overlooked, Neil?

I would also like to point out that even though the magazine articles aren't specifically written exclusively about Mr. Jaydon, they DO mention facts that were used in this article which would be the entire point of citing such articles. If an article about Timbaland mentions his work with Justin Timberlake and points out the fact that Timberlake has sold 80 million albums and is touring all summer, would the information contained become irrelevant just because the article is more geared toward Timbaland? I hardly think so.

If ANYONE would take a moment to do more than read half-assed comments left here on this AfD, you will easily find useful information. If you can't find what you are looking for to satisfy your curiosity, a simple comment on the original writer of the article's talk page could be in order? That is a normal course of action when information is being questioned.

Skyler Morgan (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Zero research? Okay, I will take just one example - from the research I have done. Jaydon is described as having written a song for *NSync entitled "Be There". What album did this song appear on? Or what B-side? *NSync have never released a song entitled "Be There". The song is described as having won gold and platinum certification from the RIAA, and a link to the RIAA page is given as a reference, but no mention of a song entitled "Be There" is anywhere on the RIAA website. Where is this song? Answer - it doesn't exist. The deception carried out by whoever created this article has been caught, I'm afraid. Neıl 龱 00:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

When a song is written and submitted to ASCAP, it often has SEVERAL titles. Songs are commonly rewritten MULTIPLE times before being finished, and included on an album. RIAA certifies Gold and Platinum singles AND Albums. Just because a song isn't listed as a Gold Or Platinum SINGLE, DOES NOT Mean it did not appear on an ALBUM that went Gold or Platinum. The VERY SAME argument is valid with Craig David's release of "Key To My Heart." The song itself was not a single, but was a part of a project that sold over 8 million albums. Are you going to discredit him for this project also? IF ANY 1 thing that is mentioned in his article is true; only ONE of those things would qualify Jaydon for an article, based on the guidelines provided above. I think you are trying to make it sound like AfD is some sort of evaluation process, which it isn't.

Skyler Morgan (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Another one - the article states Zachary Jaydon co-wrote "Key To My Heart" with Craig David. "Key To My Heart" was written by Craig David, Kowan Paul, and Jeremy Paul.. Some of the lists say J Paul, which Jaydon has lied and said it means him - but the J Paul who co-wrote "Key To My Heart" is actually Jeremy Paul! This is a complete and utter hoax. I am starting to think Skylar needs to be blocked for deliberate and wilful deception and hoaxery. That blog (Google "Zachary Jaydon") was right. I feel sorry for the band he's currently snowballing by telling them he wrote songs for *NSync and Craig David. And yes, AFD is an evaluation process - an evaluation process of whether an article is suitable for Misplaced Pages. Self-aggrandizing lies are not suitable for Misplaced Pages. Neıl 龱 00:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What I love, is that people keep claiming that I AM Mr. Jaydon. Please give me some proof of this, Neil. That must mean that you are ANYONE that you write about on Wiki, correct? Obviously. Skyler Morgan (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There's about as much evidence that you're Jaydon than there is that he's Paull. You do look an awful lot like a WP:SPA, though. Is there any good reason why we shouldn't WP:SNOW this now? Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete -- The sources in the article that mention Jaydon are either tremendously unreliable (self-submitted or user-edited) or trivial, and the reliable sources don't mention Jaydon at all. No indication of notability via reliable sources. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment : At best, the one possibly reliable source could be that a "Zachary Jaydon" wrote at least one song on an album by the band "Close To Home" -- but the group is non-notable (spokespeople for hair products != notability), the album is non-notable (worldwide release doesn't mean album sales), and writing songs for a non-notable band's non-notable album doesn't grant notability. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt. Almost everything about this article is contested, with little proof of any notability (being an uncredited extra does not establish notability, and even has doubt). In my eyes some of the evidence has been proven to be lies too, all very suspicious, so delete. (Due to the dubious nature of this whole thing I have changed my opinion to include salt.) Rehevkor (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: The validation of the source for the Mickey Mouse Club membership has just been confirmed as a sock of TragedyStriker. Note that he cannot claim that he just accidentally failed to log in, because in this edit, he claims the anonymous IP was a different editor. I would have no objection to putting a little salt on this article, either. Kww (talk) 03:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, block the creator for his shenanigans and let's close the book on this. JuJube (talk) 04:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. Im currently not very decided yet, but I think its going to snow soon, Im going back on what I voted in the first AfD and Im going to go for a weak delete. Until TragedyStriker can come up some reliable, third-party, non-blog sources I will vote as a weak-delete. Fattyjwoods 05:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, given the details of falsehoods/misrepresentations engaged in by TragedyStriker and referenced above, how many more failed chances to reliably source this content do you propose he be given? Jclemens (talk) 05:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
If he wants to add reliable sources now would be the best time to do it – (before the AfD closes would be ideal.) As for chances – he can get as many as he wants before the end of this AfD. But looking at his accounts of sockpuppertery and edit warring, I wouldn’t object for his account to be blocked. Fattyjwoods 00:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I encountered this article awhile back because of another dispute with this editor and another user. Before this article was recreated, the editor who recreated this article canvassed a few editors with a rough draft of the article along with the references. Long story short, I told him/her then that I felt the article wasn't up to par and the references were pretty weak (needless to say, they didn't respond back). I was surprised when it was recreated and passed a second nom, but I figured someone was doing more digging than I did and found out the subject is legit. I'm guessing this article is nothing more than a hoax or at the very least, a person who is real but is non-notable. Either way, it should go. Pinkadelica 06:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and Salt I.told.you.so. Thank you guys. I was just looking at this the other day and looking at the references (the same ones that had been here all along) and could not believe Wiki was letting him get away with this. I mean myspace, smartpunk, imdb...literally just looked again and not one of those 36 refs are either reliable (I could edit or anyone could) or not related to him (ex: Craig David sold so much, but no mention of Jaydon's name(s)...) Added thought: his scans will be legit Im sure (CTH crap) BUT as their 'manager/lawyer/street team leader/PR person' I can say without even looking at those scans he provided the information himself, on himself. So just because I can get a magazine to take me at my word doesnt make me true. None of his scans are top level publications known for fact checking. Keep that in mind. I would like to know why it took this long. But good job. Now please make it so he cant do it again! Under ANY of his aliases (Zachary Jaydon, Skyler Morgan, Jaydon D. Paull)!!! *waits for Skyler Morgan to attack her* --Thegingerone (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Question and comment: Does this blogspot page belong to Thegingerone? If so, I have to comment that the editor has a vested and ongoing vendetta against this Zachary Jaydon/whatever-other-name and any submission from Thegingerone regarding this deletion should be considered very carefully in terms of objective evaluation of the facts in this situation. I believe the tone of the above opinion sheds light on these facts. Gloating isn't very becoming and I find the "I.told.you.so." intro offensive and inappropriate. However:
  • Delete. While I have to admit that I was willing to give the ASCAAP credits credence in the 2nd nomination, and I still have doubts that ASCAAP membership can be faked, given deeper criteria by the organization for acceptance of membership. However, I don't see that membership and songwriting credits automatically give notability. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    (put here so it doesn't spoil your "however", but in response to the upper paragraph) Frankly, given The gingerone has been right all along, and has kept reasonably polite despite a lot of shouting, I rather think we owe her an apology. But yes, please keep the gloating to your blog. Neıl 龱 09:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete There is just too much crap flying around about this one for it to be 100% legit. I'm afraid if the inappropriate stuff was removed from the article we wouldn't have enough left so am saying dump the lot. The apparently single purpose account needs to find a way to contribute contructively to the project away from this subject. My apologies to anyone I may have offended with my earlier comments. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    I don't think you offended anyone, Jasyn, don't worry. Neıl 龱 09:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and Salt As per all of the above. Nice Batman work there to search for the infos. Samuel Sol (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and Salt Other have done a good job of establishing this is a hoax. Edward321 (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
That was my first thought, but here's the challenge: find a reliable source for any of those awards that you can tie to the name Zachary Jaydon with any reliable source.Kww (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Question Can we close this now per wp:snow or speedy it as a hoax? We've wasted enough time stroking this hoaxer's ego and participating in this farce. L0b0t (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
    I concur. Time to close and delete. The uploads of evidence to his blog stopped, and only included sourcing of the non-controversial (and non-notable) claims. No reason to believe that hell will chill down during the week.Kww (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
    You know he's going to take it to deletion review no matter what, so that's not a particularly good reason to let it run its course, either. Jclemens (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2008 (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.