|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The article was improperly deleted under A7 - the subject has received significant reliable independent coverage, making it notable (which makes it significant). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Recently (on 5 October 2020) User:Newslinger moved the article II-VI Incorporated to Draft:II-VI Incorporated and then he deleted it. On the discussion page at User talk:I-Supotco he wrote that the article was a copyright violation. When I created the initial version of that article (probably around June 2019), I made sure that it did not contain any copyright violation. I think that at that time, also the overall article was written in a reasonable way. Afterwards somebody else mad changes where he removed most references and added the text which might be a copyright violation. So instead of deleting the entire article, I think it would be better to restore it to the last acceptable version. (Previously I used the username User:I-Supotco but I lost the password for that account, so I am now using the new username User:I-Supotco-new.) I-Supotco-new (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
While WP:NOTVOTE is really important, the cross-wiki norm is to prefix comments with {{support}}, {{oppose}} etc., which indicates the general sense of your comment. I learnt this on enwp many years ago, and still use the templates regularly on Commons and elsewhere, so when I say {{support}} here and then realise that it didn't work, it's quite annoying. It's particularly annoying since the accepted alternative is to say Support etc., which is the same thing except you have to remember the syntax for bold fonts rather than using the template. Please can we restore these templates? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I was looking for hyperlinking concepts today and from Tumbler (Project Xanadu) I got pointed to the Purple Numbers concept. To my surprise (as well as others) it just links to the Douglas Engelbart's biography that contains no information on the concept itself as of [3]. In the meantime I have found some more information about the concept itself, including one more implementation at https://github.com/eekim/purplewiki. I have restored the previous version of the article to work on it, but I would like to avoid an edit war there, therefore opening this DRV. Sure, it is an obsolete tool today, but it was a subject of at least 3 software implementations and a research paper describing a now-defunct MediaWiki extension. I have some trouble following the AfD discussion that "redirect is better". Neither at the time of the AfD process nor a year later (arbitrarily picked timeframe to "allow editors to merge information") there was no mention about this concept and its implementation. « Saper // @talk » 14:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC) Edit: Here is more formal objection to the AfD decision: The decision was to create a redirect. The (very limited) discussion mentioned selective merge as a possible outcome. WP:ATD-R lists redirection as a valid alternative to deletion, under condition that the redirect is not inappropriate. The resulting redirect is unfortunately totally useless, and it could be fit for deletion according WP:R#DELETE, as there is no information on the _target page about the subject. As far as integrating the content into the biography one editor raised an WP:UNDUE argument which still stands in my opinion - this is a reasonably written biographical article and it should not be expanded with details of "purple numbers" implementations done and discussed by others, expanding on Engelbart's work. I find referring the issue to future "editors" is not the right way to do solve the problem of very poor quality of the article. I have tried to improve on the article by removing the redirect first and this got reverted. I'd like to be able to improve on the old content in the easiest possible way, preserving old revisions, which I believe can be done best by simply editing Purple Numbers. « Saper // @talk » 23:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
It was speedy deleted recently when I created. The AfD is very old. I put that as I found it in the talk page when I created it. It was tagged as promotional and I sought help for changing the content further if required but no one helped me. The software is a very old(since 2008) and popular diagram making tool. It has references in books, journals, reputed news sites like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. My article had more than 40 references but it still got deleted. It is very frustrating to see an article getting deleted which is truly notable. It needs a lot of time and effort to write something from an article with 50 references only to see it getting deleted. Please restore the article. Hareshamjadu (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This nomination was closed less than 10 hours into the discussion while discussion was happening and consensus had yet to emerge (though, granted, was heading in the direction of keep at that early stage). I believe the close was improper on two grounds: First, none of the speedy keep criteria were met and thus the discussion should have been allowed to run its course and closed as normal at the end of its week. Second, the closing statement is an argument for keeping the article and not a summary of the discussion. Posted as a vote, it would have been a valuable contribution to the discussion, but posted at the top as a closing rationale, it is a "super vote". El C has kindly offered a more detailed rationale on the AfD page, but I believe this to be incorrect as well, as it focuses on a procedural question (a red herring in my opinion; re-nominations are clearly allowed and there is no requirement to consult the closer of the previous discussion, especially after two years) but ignores the question of whether an article that meets the GNG can or should be deleted if it falls foul of policies such as BLP, and whether that is the case here. I and other editors have discussed this with El C on their talk page and they have respectfully declined to re-open the AfD so I'm seeking a review with the aim of overturning the close and re-opening the AfD to allow it its fullseven days for a proper discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Requesting the page be undeleted due to significance to wiki member Johnny Bacolas. Juliusbear007 (talk) 02:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
request to have the article reinstated in Draft space. I also have an issue with the way in which the article was deleted ; initially it was labeled as possibly not notable - but was ultimately speedily deleted for being a 'puff piece'. Should I have added a stub label to it ? in any case I'm willing to work on the problem areas and have it reviewed prior to being added back to wikipedia. In this era of rare diseases and viruses such as covid a large cap company such as Ultragenyx would be an asset to wikipedia.Grmike (talk) 04:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)grmike
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Per WP:BADNAC. With the prevailing consensus to delete, the non-admin closer User:Zeke, the Mad Horrorist instead flipped it to keep without any sort of legitimate reason given. Even with the articles added to it during the course of the discussion, it still fails WP:SMALLCAT. The close was more like a !vote than an actual summation of the arguments. One of the only keep voters was the category's creator, who has made many spurious categories. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
It have mentioned in some newspaper in google, see here StayC, Bae173 and music fans [ My contributions | talk to me ] 10:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
|
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Speedy deletion was wholly in appropriate: this is long standing notable software with coverage in all major trade magazines (and presumably things outside of trade magazines). There are 177 articles on it in Sound on Sound (a print and online magazine) alone. The article's content wasn't great, but it also wasn't written in an overtly advertising voice, so a cleanup tag would have been in order. Scott.wheeler (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I am in no way advising that this page is suitable for inclusion (I was the guy who PRODded it), but this page was deleted per G1, and that does not apply, as the text of the page was not nonsensical or incomprehensible, it was simply unencyclopedic. Please note that my PROD did not expire, the page was deleted a few hours after I added my PROD. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 22:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
As the former lead announcer with the Voice of Russia World Service and the first and only person with full permanent political asylum in the Russian Federation, years before Snowden and Assange, it is a would be a crime against any proper recording of history to delete this person's page. As WikiPedia is a source of information for millions deleting such pages because of the reviewers political bias or because the reviewer does not "like" the person is an egregious crime and dirties the reputation of WikiPedia. The claim was made that John is unknown which is untrue in Russia. John has also been a WikiLeaks media associate and although you may not have heard about him is famous in Russia and certain geopolitical circles. Revising history and deleting people someone wants to be "unpopular" is not what WikiPedia is about. Per WikiPedia's instructions we contacted the person who closed the discussion and they said they can not help us. John is currently and has been the ONLY American with asylum in the Russian Federation and perhaps the world. Again the claim was made that John is unknown however he is quite famous in the Russian Federation and frequently appears on television as an expert on geopolitical issues. There are thousands of his articles all over the internet. We ask you to please undo the deletion. Thank you. Interceptor369 (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I simply wanted the page on John Robles restored as it was brought up to date and added to with citations in keeping with your policies but was deleted anyway. Did not want to get into some discussion about what an encyclopedia should be but in my opinion an encyclopedia should be full of as many facts as possible and not omit factual information that the public has the right to know but given the state of information warfare we have all been forced into I understand the massive attempts at censorship, political labeling and revisionism by omission that the corporate entities in the West are engaged in to support the demonization, marginalization and eradication of entire peoples, as a native American I deal with that daily. However I did not expect a supposedly open source encyclopedia to have become dead set on my erasure. Censorship is the issue here I think, and truly and honestly if it is allowed to stand it will be simply a matter of time when they come for each of you. I am not attacking anyone here, I merely protest the public erasure of an individual whose suffering and persecution has been beyond the pale. Have a great day and May the Great Spirit Bless You all. We had hoped (the team here at jar2.com) that you would simply restore the page which had nothing controversial on it except some tertiary facts on an individual. Very sad that WikiPedia is now engaged in such censorship. I used to recommend it to my students. Again no offense to anyone intended, just trying to get my thoughts on this across to all of you. Cheers and thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interceptor369 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
We have nothing further to add. Your outright open censorship has proven our case. Thank you and have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interceptor369 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Is it possible to undelete the page? Or do I have to make a new one (as a draft)? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interceptor369 (talk |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Your political bias, open censorship and outright revisionism of history and the falsification of facts which are inconvenient to your so-called editors has been made perfectly clear by your actions. Thanks for that. We will take this to another level. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interceptor369 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The reason cited by the closer was WP:GNG. The Monday Morning page had SIGCOV from The Hindu, a newspaper of national repute. Also, it has a paragraph about it (close to SIGCOV) in another national newspaper, The New Indian Express. It also has an article in Careers360. Now, all these sources along with it being one of the largest student newsletters in India are pretty much the best a student newsletter can do. When Wiki pages of student newspapers like 'The Doon School Weekly' exist without a single issue listed, I see no reason why the Monday Morning page was deleted even after having 2 Keeps and 2 Deletes (that's a tie). Please look up Wiki pages of student newsletters, they don't even seem to have a single external media coverage yet they exist on Wiki (many of them as stubs). Compared to them, this particular page of Monday Morning is both extensive and cites at least 3 reputed sources, of which at least 2 pass GNG. I request a better discussion and expect people to support student newsletters. Not even asking for relaxation as the topic has at least 1 SIGCOV from The Hindu and another from The New Indian Express. Parzival221B (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
At the time of discussion, there is a lot of article is not properly categorized under the Category:China_Shipping_Group. For example, a lot of ships that owned or operated by China_Shipping_Group's subsidiary CSCL: "China Shipping Container Lines" (see also Category:Ships of COSCO Shipping). So, are the reason still valid for "empty" cat that only contain "few" article? Matthew hk (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The article has been (re-)draftified by Itaubrspxxx three times and un-draftified by Discospinster twice. Because of this, I think that the draft should be moved back into mainspace for the third (and hopefully final) time, and then the article should be move-protected from move-warring and the AfD re-opened. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
XfD is not a vote, not much reasoning was given by parties vying for redirect, the AfD was relisted a third time without a substantial justification for doing so, and Asleep Next to Science, a sourced article which can be merged into the band page, still exists. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Requesting this article to be revived in light of changes related to the topic, such as this page https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4365/228/1/9 which mentions this particular object in Section 3 which I believed has not been mentioned in the discussion (with this article being deleted for allegedly not being mentioned by the author), as well as this link https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.03222 that mentions this object as well in connection with the previous link, establishing weight about its notability. SkyFlubbler (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for those who are out of context. By the time this was written, the article doesn't exist yet. I've decided to edit a draft version for it so that if there would be a decision here, it would just be accepted and be good to go. However, the draft was accepted way too early, and it already got its article. I would move the page back to its draft form, until a decision here has been made. SkyFlubbler (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Few days ago User:Rorshacma expressed concerns to me regarding this closure: "After its initial 7 days of being listed, it was relisted, despite there already being a pretty clear consensus not to keep. But, sure, there was not a whole lot of participation, and there wasn't a clear consensus to Delete or Redirect, so I can understand that. The relist was then just kept open for two days, enough time for several "Keep" votes to appear, and then closed early, by the same user that relisted it, as a "Keep". This is what strikes me as odd, as none of the previous "Delete" votes were given a chance to look over and comment about the suggested sources (which are all pretty terrible, honestly), and as the comments coming in after the relist were clearly in contrast to those before, it seems like this should have at least gone on for the entire full second week to allow more discussion.". I suggested they take this here, but they have not replied, so I am doing this myself before this gets too stale. This was closed as keep despite the vote tally being 3 delete, 1 redirect, 1 keep or merge, and 3 keep. I concur there was no good reason for this to be relisted, and then it was closed too quickly before a proper consensus could have emerged and/or discussion held. This should be at the very least relisted so that we can have a more throughout discussion (as I concur with Rorshacma that the sources provided are unlikely to be sufficient, and not enough time was given for most people to notice the new votes and react to them). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
More information has come to light since this article's deletion and does indeed pass the notability test (WP:BIO). Actor has appeared in more projects (via his IMDB) since originally stated by User:duffbeerforme and User:RadioFan. He has also been written up twice in HappyMag (1 and 2) and once in Sora Music Review for his music. He also has appeared on a notable web series (via his IMDB as well) called "React" as part of the FBE YouTube channel which is quite notable (they have their own wiki). He also has a Google Knowledge Panel I would have contacted Admin User:Cirt, but they have been blocked indefinitely for puppeteering. When restored, I intend to work on this page. Cactusdillinger (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
"The result was delete. Consensus is sourcing is short and voting to keep on other grounds needs a policy basis to count"--"Consensus is" is not true. Also, I cited GNG, which is a policy. My argument concerning the three sources which qualified the article as meeting GNG (Christian Science Monitor, New York Times, and Atlanta Daily World) was not rebutted by anyone. Plus, the votes were evenly split between delete and keep, with three on each side. Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I've blanked the copy-pasted comments from the previous DRV for another article, from an IP who was trying to set up a DRV and failed. I'll close this if the IP doesn't add a rational for disputing the outcome soon. But I'm inclined to be forgiving to IPs trying to figure out how to use templates and such. WilyD 08:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Article was deleted without an AFD nor a speedy deletion request, and can be redirected with history to Gemmy_Industries#Sister_company. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Giorgi Danelia (Youtube personality) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
The page was drafted by a known person of mine who works for a PR company based in Hong Kong. I'm hoping the page deleted to be undeleted and moved to draft, as it may let me review before really moving to mainspace or doing anything (e.g. suggesting him to edit more/add more reliable sources, etc.). Of course I will add the related COI tags. 1233 ( T / C） 12:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
*Question - Should this be here at Deletion Review, or is this a Request for Undeletion? Do we need to make the call because this was a U5? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Endorse - The correct close of the AFD. Filing editor appears to be trying to game the system and to confuse the reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Endorse trivial company. refs are PR. DGG ( talk ) 09:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The page was drafted by a known person of mine who works for a PR company based in Hong Kong. I'm hoping the page deleted to be undeleted and moved to draft, as it may let me review before really moving to mainspace or doing anything (e.g. suggesting him to edit more/add more reliable sources, etc.). Of course I will add the related COI tags. 1233 ( T / C） 12:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
article was deleted on a false assumption that I was asked to do so by other parties (COI), and was non-neutral? now firstly the article was never created on behalf of the ACL - why would I do that, I don't even know them, nor spoke to them prior to this 'incident'? - I was trying to find info on Martyn on the web and found it in other wikis, then went to the ACL page on wikipedia which linked to Marty, but the link from ACL to Martyn's page was gone. - a mistake imho, so it needed to be put back imho. Seems NickD made up a narrative, I have no idea why he had no respect for me a writer to discuss this or even ask if I had an association (which i didn't, and dont)? I didn't even know ACL before I posted it (and dont' associate directly with them now), then i reached out while it was a draft stage - isn't that the right thing to do when you post something publically about an organisation or person? I assume that is what any ethical human would do? The mod got their wires crossed here. I do not know Martyn, I do not have an association to ACL. I am a Christian - that is the only link, other than ONE, at most TWO phone calls with ACL AFTER the article was posted (NOT BEFORE, NOT SINCE) - I have also been told "You will be blocked from editing if this ever occurs again" - what is that? To ban a new user who wrote an article about a prominent figure, without feedback, talk - the only reason I am asking this to be reviewed now is that it really upsets me and I can't get it out of my head what a injustice has been done here. I DESERVE an written apology from NickD for the defamation of my character. I'm sure he's a valuable character here in wiki, but his unverifiable assumptions in this case undermine that. He assumed: he was wrong, then abused his power to double down on that terrible decision. The haste in this is something that needs to be reviewed also, not verifying his assumptions, instead just acting, and getting it completely wrong. I'm not going to let this go (i have strong reactions to injustice), this is just wrong and it needs correcting, for the sake of integrity if nothing else. Dawesi (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The article was closed as no consensus which I believe is the wrong decision. It should have been deleted. They're was no reason per WP:N for to remain, yet administrative bureaucracy allowed it to remain. The article references were comprehensively examined against the WP:NCORP notability standard and were found to be completed broken and flawed. Not a single reference was available to establish WP:V, outwith those that were paywalled. In a conversation with User:Black Kite, the editor has stated that if they start[ed] examining the quality of the sources and closing the AfD on my judgement of them, then that's automatically a supervote. This puzzles me. I thought the whole purpose of the closer was to examine all the discussion, particularly any examination of the sources, particularly if they have been show to be so badly flawed. Essentially, references are the article per WP:V and WP:N. Without them, it is a block of unverifiable text. References are generally the whole reason that articles are taken to Afd in the first place. They are absent or present. If they are present, they must be verifiable and be able to be asserted on a specific notability policy. This is not happening. It makes a mockery of the whole notability standard and the purpose of references. What is point of them, if they are not going to examined. Its like a catch-22 situation. scope_creepTalk 13:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Robert McClenon (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
@HighKing: I worry that you're starting to take this too personally. Lashing out at anyone who disagrees with you while calling them disruptive isn't going to help you make your case. WP:AGF and start a discussion at the pump where there's a chance we'll actually make some progress on this issue, to the benefit of the encyclopedia. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
| ||
|---|---|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. | ||
|
There are substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion. The page was relisted twice on November 8, 2020 and November 16, 2020 to obtain further discussion and a clearer consensus. No further discussion was generated after more information was added to the page on November 17, 2020, and a clearer consensus was not achieved. AletheaJavon (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC) — AletheaJavon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
| ||
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |