Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taquan Air

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 keep. Listed for 21 days with only one editor supporting the nomination. Looks like another "white whale" for Beeblebrox :( Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Taquan Air

Taquan Air (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Another local airline in Alaska. All sources used in the article are the subject's own website. Nothing any better found in a search. This airline operates 8 small planes in Southeast Alaska, which has lots and lots of little local airlines like this because there are few roads in the area. Fails notability guideline for businesses as there do not seem to be any independent reliable sources that discuss the subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - Unlike some of the other Alaskan air services that have been put through AFD, there does seem to be a bit more on this company although not enough for me to say keep. A 2007 air crash ([1], [2], [3], [4]) generated coverage but really its news about an air crash rather than about the company. It gets local coverage, but that doesn't really establish notability. The most significant sources towards notablist are [5], and [6] where the company is used as a case study or example for entrepreneurship and small businesses. -- Whpq (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. You can book seats on this airline on Expedia. The air accident also shows that Taquan Air has been in the news. More work needs to be done to the article but I think it is a keeper.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 01:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - The fact that you can book tickets does not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

And the argument that one crash confers notability doesn't convince either. Such crashes are pretty common in Alaska, there are a few dozen every year. There are a few thousand small planes up here, flying in some very harsh conditions over rugged terrain with few opportunities for emergency landings. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Delete. Just found this reference which says that the airline is no longer in business: [7]  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 19:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Comment - Being defunct is not a reason for deletion, just as much as being able to book tickets is not a reason for inclusion. -- Whpq (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I called the phone number listed here and here, and got a recording identifying themselves as "Taquan" and saying flight schedules were on their internet site.  The BBB page says, "The phone numbers the BBB had for this company are disconnected..."  So I don't think we should rush to press based only on the BBB page.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Keep  Passenger airlines in the US are not lacking for being noticed, especially since 9/11.  I had no trouble in adding two references and adding interesting material about this airline.  I found a logo installed for the Russian Wikipedia and plugged that in.  Plus they have been around since 1977.  This is an ideal slightly obscure, referenceable, and notable topic for Wikipedia. I found a report from the US government about a crash of one of their airplanes in 2007.  This particular accident seems to have worried the Ketchikan tourist industry bringing 900,000 cruise ship tourists to Ketchikan.  So clearly this accident is of interest to US citizens who fly airplanes, tourists with the resources to take cruise ships to Alaska, the cruise ship industry, and the tourist industry of Ketchikan, as well as the air tour industry in Alaska.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • comment - Perhaps airlines in general my not lack for notice, but this one still does. A report on the business being sold in a local paper doesn't establish notability, nor does an NTSB report after an aircrash. -- Whpq (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

reply On the one hand, you will be looking at the fact that this company employs eight people ref with annual revenue of $2.5 million.  But I see multiple elements here that widen the scope of notability.  As a citizen of the US who has flown in an airplane, I note that such air travelers have a personal safety interest in that their government regulate public air transports.  Under policy, the NTSB report has status as a national media noticing this company.  This report has the names of five people that all concurred—the safety practices of the company are a target of the report, that the company's safety practices were not being adequately regulated by the FAA.  In citing "ineffective FAA oversight of air tour operators' adherence to required weather minimums", the report draws attention to another government agency, the FAA, with a duty to notice and regulate this airline, that is not currently otherwise referenced.  Another unexplored avenue in the article is that the name of this airline comes from native people ref.  There is also the company Kootznoowoo Inc ref started four years before the founding of their airline, such that there is 27 years of history missing.

Previous reviewers in some Alaska-airline AfD nominations have put forward the idea that there is an inherent notability that comes from being a public transport.  I agree.  To give the force of reason for this view I have looked at the sociology concept and article [institution].  This article leads to [public service], which states, "Even where public services are neither publicly provided nor publicly financed, for social and political reasons they are usually subject to regulation going beyond that applying to most economic sectors".  I think the newspaper article draws attention to this status of Taquan as being an "institution", My main concern is to keep the jobs in Ketchikan and keep Taquan going, Salazar said. Taquan Air is a long-established brand name recognized for meeting the demands and expectations of Southeast travelers...  Unscintillating (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The applicable guideline in gauging notability for a company is WP:CORP which specifically states that there is no inherent notability, so this position put forward in other AFDs has no basis in current guidelines and changing that is outside the purview of this AFD. That the company has 2.5 million in revenue is not an indication of notability, nor is the fact that it employs 8 people. Especially when referenced from a directory entry. Nor is the age of the company. As for the NTSB report, we look to reliable sources for notability as they exercise editorial judgement of topics to cover. The NTSB is mandated to investigate every US civil aviation air safety incident. The fact that the NTSB has a report on this air crash is not because of editorial judgment, but because they must do it. So I fail to see how this establishes notability. And local press, is still local press. -- Whpq (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Whpq, There is more I could say, both in agreement and mostly disagreement (while acknowledging that you have more experience in these issues), but I want to reply on just one point.  I believe that WP:Notability is just as applicable or more applicable than WP:CORP, and states that topics must be "notable, or 'worthy of notice'."  This is the fundamental guideline, virtually any criteria may be applied to define "worthy of notice" that we as editors agree as applicable.  Likewise any criteria may be applied upon agreement by the editors to decide that an article is NOT '"worthy of notice", even though the guidelines may suggest that the topic is notable.  As I see it it all falls back to the force of reason and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

With respect to general notability, we don't use "virtually any criteria". General consensus as documented in WP:NOTABILITY that we use "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to establish notability. Both general and corporation specific notability guidelines are relvant, but I don't see how either is met at this point. -- Whpq (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you are missing my point.  Earlier you said, "...this position put forward in other AFDs has no basis in current guidelines..." But, WP:N says,

1. "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." 
2. And WP:N states, "Article...topics must be notable, or 'worthy of notice'."
3. Reading on, WP:N states at the end of WP:GNG, "A topic for which <the WP:GNG> is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice (emphasis added).  Here it is clarified that the fundamental guideline is "worthy of notice", and that the WP:GNG is one example of satisfying the fundamental guideline. 

The point is that it is not necessary to change policy to consider at AfD that public passenger airlines are in the sociological group called institutions, are part of the public sector regulated by the US government, and that each public passenger airline has status nationally.  Just how and how much this influences other criteria, I'm not prepared to say, nor given the continuing stream of new sources I've found (Taquan was on the cover of Anchorage-based Alaska Business Review magazine in 1997) do I expect that there is a need to do so, but I think that this consideration should be on the table, and that this consideration should be available to related AfD discussions.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no inherent notability for airlines. Period. Full stop. Notability requires verifiable evidence and not just assertions that being an airline means they should be notable. If you've found such sources, please bring them forward for consideration. I'm always open to changing my mind, but this is the last I will say on this matter on notability guidelines as it seems we are going around in circles. -- Whpq (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep references look fine to me. While a crash doesn't make an airline notable the attention the airline gets from reliable sources because of the crash, does. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Just in general response to the whole notability discussion and which guideline to use: at many discussions of this nature in the past users were making up arbitrary criteria out of thin air, based on number of planes, government contracts, etc. There were calls for the relevant wikiprojects to establish a sub guideline. A series of conversations were held on the subject and the result was this guideline, which as you can see establishes that there is no "magic bullet" for airline notability. The idea that it is "public transportation" and therefore notable is illogical, all of these little airlines are open to the general public. Ketchikan also has water taxis, land taxis, an airport ferry, and city bus service.[8] This airline is but one small part of the transportation infrastructure in the area. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• The nominator supports the nomination with the statement that this carrier has "8 small planes", and here he states "...arbitrary criteria out of thin air, based on number of planes".  I didn't need to go to a Wikiproject discussion to suspect that the criteria that might be suitable for this AfD would be more specific than what might be suitable for a policy discussion. This is because this is an AfD discussion specific to the US, and policy/guideline discussions at this stage in Wikipedia's life must be more general than how to apply criteria such as the 125 carriers in the US that are "certificated".  Even if some participants in an AfD choose not to agree that it is relevant to the discussion, having standing as a "public sector institution" is a form of being noticed, and applies under the fundamental guideline, "worthy of notice".  We now know that this particular carrier was at one time one of the largest in the state, the largest floatplane operator in the world, achieved FAR part 121 certification, and according to Google, 80 books have taken notice of the topic.  Local, state, and federal governments all take notice.  At the federal government we have the president, the senator from Alaska, NTSB, FAA, DOT, Forest Service, NOAA, and agencies I've not even heard of doleta, fbo, and bts to name three, and there is also the US Mail which is now private independent.  State of Alaska has files concerning pollution cleanup at the old Ketchikan Air site, court cases, and Gravina Bridge access studies (the bridge to nowhere), local government ketchikan.ak.us for example lists this. Taquan has been on the cover of the Alaska Business Monthly (Anchorage), covered by the Alaska Journal of Commerce, covered by non-local newspapers at Thorne Bay and Sitka, nationwide coverage for the 2007 accident such as foxnews, usatoday, and msnbc. The accident was important enough that it is now part of aviation history. I don't agree that US citizens don't have editorial control over the NTSB, I think that we choose that they take notice of airplane accidents, and they don't have a guaranteed job.  This was a matter of importance to the safety of cruise ship tourists and economics involving 1,000,000 passengers per year to Ketchikan.  Even if my vote as a citizen didn't count, there is a strong bias in our government that because decision makers take public air transportation, they prefer safe public transport airplanes, and take notice of public air transports.  I'm not personally aware that water taxis get federal attention; however, the attempt to obsolete that airport ferry has been a matter of considerable nationwide political debate.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of the bulk of that remark. From what I can gather you are asserting that tight government oversight of airlines confers notability onto those airlines. I don't believe that is the case. If a bus crashes through a guardrail and plummets into a river, the NTSB will likely file a report on that incident as well, that doesn't mean that the owners of the bus are automatically notable. I'm not sure what you mean about the president, there is nothing about any presidents in the article. Senator Stevens was involved in anice photo-op where he presented an award to this airline that was also presented to six other airlines that fulfilled the criteria of that program. You are mistaken to say that the U.S. Mail is a private enterprise, it was, is, and continues to be one of the Independent agencies of the United States government. I'm also not sure what your point is about the bridge to nowhere, which is a separate issue that achieved a much higher level of national attention. And you seem to have completely misunderstood my point about the airline notability guideline. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The "bulk of that remark" reports "significant coverage" in "reliable" "sources" "independent of the subject" = WP:GNG.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Regarding "confers notability", no, I'm not asserting that "notability was 'conferred'", the words don't even make sense.
2. whpq already referenced a book in which the owner of Taquan went to Washington to meet the president.  To the extent that it is relevant, WP:CORP states, "Notability requires only that these necessary sources exist, not that the sources have already been named in the article."
3. I'm saying the same thing about the Gravina access studies as I said about the pollution analysis, these are some of the many documents in which the state of Alaska takes note of Taquan Air.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm sorry that this seems to be getting caught up in semantics. Government oversight of the airline industry is obviously a notable topic. That does not mean that every enterprise that is subject to that oversight is automatically notable. That's what I meant by saying "government oversight of airlines confers notability onto those airlines." Since I gave a comparative example I'm not sure what was so nonsensical about that, but I think I've clarified it sufficiently now. Likewise, the President of the United States is obviously a notable person, but literally thousands of people meet the president each year. One person involved with an a organization meeting the president does not confer notability on that organization either. If the president made a speech that was largely about Taquan Air or some major national level policy decision was clearly influenced by this one crash of a small airplane that would be different. That the state of Alaska noted that Taquan Air was one of the airlines that would be impacted by the Gravina Island bridge also does not confer notability. Every other airline, cargo service, pilot, and passenger to fly in or out of Ketchikan would be affected as well. I can see that you are endeavoring on good faith to improve the article, which is great, but a lot of what you are saying here is not sound. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

We seem to be dealing with some basic concept or concepts of notability beyond "worthy of notice" and "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject".  But repeating the phrase "confers notability" and giving examples of something that from my viewpoint only exists as your idea of what I'm thinking, and projecting that concept onto me even after I have told you that it does not represent my viewpoint does not move the conversation forward (sorry). 

Here is a simple example of a non-trivial statement.  The publisher is Division of Coastal and Ocean Management (State of Alaska, Juneau), reporting about the Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Ketchikan Coastal Management Plan.  It states, "Peninsula Point Seaplane Base.  The State-owned Peninsula Point Seaplane Base has been abandoned for nearly ten years and is not currently maintained for aircraft use.  This facility has a concrete ramp and one hangar.  Rocks and debris at the entrance to this facility impede floatplane operations.  Taquan Air leases space at Peninsula Point for aircraft storage."

So here we have an example of the State of Alaska noticing Taquan. This is a reliable independent source providing significant coverage about Taquan Air's use of the hangar at Peninsula Point Seaplane Base. Also note that the name Taquan Air is so well known in the context of floatplanes in Ketchikan that the agency doesn't need to give any more identification than the name.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You call that a significant non-trivial mention? One sentence in a planning document? That is an absolutely terrible example and the very definition of a passing mention with no depth of coverage. I am honestly flabbergasted that you would put that forward as an example of your idea of "providing significant coverage." I don't know what else to say except that your idea of what constitutes significant coverage is badly out of step with Wikipedia norms if that is what you choose as a representative example of such. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I expect that you are aware that the civility of your response goes against those very norms that you claim to be representing.  The word "insane" in the edit comment was not, I felt, a good choice to represent the norms, either.  Please don't misquote me like you did twice, I said "significant coverage about Taquan Air's use of the hangar at Peninsula Point Seaplane Base."  I'm not claiming to be an expert, but something that I see here is that you are having difficulty in fitting this example into notability policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where I have misquoted you in that remark. In fact I copy/pasted the only quote from you in that remark directly from your previous remark. I don't think you have to be any kind of a Wikipedia policy expert to see that for what it is, a brief passing mention that does not actually discuss Taquan Air itself at all. We don't need anything beyond WP:GNG on this point, certainly: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." So, yeah, I'm having trouble seeing how this example satisfies that policy, because it is excruciatingly obvious that it does not. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I also note that the article now repeatedly cites this: [9]. I would not consider the website of the Peninsula Clarion to meet WPs definition of a reliable source. The Clarion is a free weekly paper that is basically a bunch of advertisements with a few brief, poorly researched stories thrown in to make it look like a real newspaper. I realize that is not something that would be immediately obvious from a web search, but I think if we took it to WP:RSN for review the answer would be that it falls far short of what we expect from a source. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I see no documentation to support the assertion that this newspaper's articles are "poorly researched".  The article about Taquan Air has an Associated Press byline, who as far as I know have a good reputation.  The idea that a free weekly newspaper in Kenai has a reporter 750 miles away in Ketchikan doesn't make sense.  As for the newspaper itself, the page identifies that it is a division of Morris Communications in Georgia.  According to this webpage the paper moved on from the weekly edition in 1978.  As to whether or not the paper is free, this page shows a subscription price of $9 per month.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well something's not right then. It is available for free once a week at locations around the town where I live, and it is mostly comprised of advertisements and stories of local interest only. I don't get it. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I went and got a copy to try and clear this up, it seems the free edition I see around town is something called the "Clarion Dispatch" and is not the main "real" newspaper. from Kenai. Therefore disregard my remarks about the Clarion. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I have corrected the article to show that the paper in based in Kenai, rather than Ketchikan, which is 750 miles away from Ketchikan, and added that AP is the author.  Please analyze the relationship of this article/reference/source to (1) WP:N "worthy of notice", (2) WP:GNG, and (3) WP:CORP.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Well, if the entity is notable, there would be an article about in the Anchorage Daily News. And there isn't. There are some articles the mention the entity, but if I read WP:CORP right we are looking for coverage, something like at least a short feature on the entity itself. And if the Anchorage Daily News doesn't care about the entity, why should we? On the other hand... gee, it's a nice enough article. Someone went to to the trouble to dig up 27 refs and do all that writing, and you hate to just toss that away, and WP:CORP is just a guideline, and its not like the article is spam or anything like that. I know, we're not supposed to pay mind to article quality, but you kind of can't help that sometimes. I don't really know what to "vote", it seems on the bubble, but given all the discussion above then a no consensus to delete close would seem reasonable to me. Herostratus (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

[Insert begins here]

I think you are reading too much into WP:CORP.  WP:CORP states,

Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product."...A company...is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources.

As per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage" cannot be based on "trivial" coverage.  WP:CORP helps with examples of trivial mentions:

• sources that simply report meeting times, shopping hours or event schedules,
• the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories,
• the season schedule or final score from sporting events,
• routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel,
• brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business,
• simple statements that a product line is being changed,
• routine notices of facility openings or closings (e.g., closure for a holiday or the end of the regular season),
• quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or
• passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization.

"Significant coverage" cannot be based on "trivial" coverage, but anything beyond trivial (such as IMO the disputed AlaskaCoast document above) can contribute toward "significant".  I also suggest looking at WP:GNG for this AfD, as this is an alternate criteria for deciding that a topic is notable.  See also, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

[Insert ends here]

I agree this is a bit thornier than some of the other Alaska bush airline AFDs we've had recently. That an AP stringer in Southeast wrote an article that was reprinted on the Kenai Peninsula is better I guess just a local paper, but the Clarion is another local paper. I do not agree that the sheer number of refs are particularly impressive as many of them are actually Taquan's own website and several more are rather mundane government documents. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines/Notability, did you state, "it is not acceptable to make up criteria out of thin air just to "win" at AFD. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)"?  It appears to me that "rather mundane government documents" takes the form of "making up criteria".  Is it not true that government documents fit under existing policy and don't need made up criteria?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Coverage in Juneau Empire, and comment regarding Anchorage newspapers.

Anchorage is 750 miles from Ketchikan and in a different time zone.

Seattle is closer than Anchorage and is two time zones away in the other direction.

Berlin and London are by comparison 580 miles apart.

Juneau is 205 miles from Ketchikan, and the Juneau Empire provides coverage. I tried searching for AirOne which only lasted for a year, and found 16 hits (AirOne provided a nonstop connection between Juneau and Ketchikan).  Searching for "Taquan Air" yields five pages of hits starting in November 1997, here and here. I think that these references from Juneau Empire alone satisfy (1) WP:N "worthy of notice" and (2) WP:GNG, and for good measure (3) WP:CORP is also satisfied.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Reinstate my keep vote as a result of all the good work made by editors after my initial comment.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 13:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment  Here is an example of a "trivial mention" for Taquan Air.  It fits with the example "passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization."  Unscintillating (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep This page has lots of good infomation in it. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - There does seem to be enough coverage from multiple sources to pass WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment  Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Notability states, "This page is an essay on notability. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects...This advice is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, though it may be consulted for assistance during an AfD discussion...In particular, the following types of topics will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify:..."All airline companies."  FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment  I have listed on the Discussion Page forty-six (46) refs from the article excluding those from taquanair.com.  The text itself of these 46 refs is 22,000 bytes, in an article of less than 40,000 bytes.  I also note that no one has disputed that the references from just the one newspaper Juneau Empire satisfy both WP:GNG and WP:CORP, either of which would establish notability.  FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. We can cover all cases of commercial air transport without it hurting too much. The length of references indicates that someone really wants it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I am concerned that the ref-bombing is causing WP:PUFF, but that's neither here nor there in this conversation. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2011 (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.