Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 April 7
2007 April 9 >

8 April 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Wikipedians who support Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|UCfD)

This was supposedly deleted as inflammatory under WP:SOAP. The argument was that it sets a dangerous precedent to allow it. Delete that page, and you need to delete Category:Wikipedians who support the United States, Category:Wikipedians who support Western Saharan independence, Category:Wikipedians who support the United Nations, and Category:Wikipedians who oppose the Iraq War, among many others. In fact, almost every article at Category:Wikipedians by politics would have to go. Unless the consensus is that any category expressing support for a country, region, or political movement needs to be deleted, this category needs to be undeleted. To leave all the rest and remove the Israeli one only reeks of Anti-Semitism Oren0 00:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment - from deleting admin. From my deletion message; " (WP:CSD#G6 content was: '{{db-xfd}}{{cfd-user}}Israel')", you can see that it was marked with a header for speedy deletion and that it was listed at WP:UCFD. You can see the closed UCFD entry here, where it states that the almost unanimous decision was to delete the category. The UCfD was not closed by me, nor did I vote in it. I've no interest in the category other than being the janitor who got the job of deleting it. Thanks - Alison☺ 00:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse deletion there was clear consensus, no process violations, its over. If another user category is inflammatory, propose that it be deleted too. --Iamunknown 00:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You all seem to be taking for granted that supporting Israel is inflammatory. May I ask why? Is supporting the United States or any other country less inflammatory? Oren0 00:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consensus did not exist solely based on the category being inflammatory. Have you read the discussion? There was the suggestion that this category is overcategorization and unhelpful to the encyclopedia because "Collaboration may be better among Category:Wikipedians in Israel and Category:Israeli Wikipedians, though these do not include non-Israeli Wikipedians interested in editing Israel-related articles." There was also the suggestion that "We don't want to see a "support" category for every country, do we?" With those two comments I agree and endorse the deletion. --Iamunknown 00:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The category being inflammatory was the primary reason for deletion. There were 7 votes for deletion. 1 didn't give a reason, 1 only gave WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and 3 said it was inflammatory. I think the counterpoint about non-Israeli Wikipedians who support Israel (which would include me) is a valid one. So I ask again: why is it inflammatory? For those of you who support this deletion, would you support deletion of all categories of the form of "Wikipedians who support X" where X is a country or political movement? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oren0 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
        • Sigh. No, the category being inflammatory was not the primary reason for deletion, it was the primary reasoning for deletion. They are other equally legitimate reasons. That they were not mentioned as reasoning or were in the minority of the comments is irrelevant. We simply do not categorize users by any whim that you would like. Does this category help build the encylcopedia? No, it does not; Category:Wikipedians in Israel and Category:Israeli Wikipedians do, and they are not being deleted, so your accusation of antisemitism is baseless and moot. --Iamunknown
  • Endorse deletion; consensus was reached in the UCFD, so I see no reason to overturn. The nom is advised to assume good faith and not make unfounded accusations of antisemitism. I will switch to overturn if the nom can list one, just one, encyclopedic benefit of this category. Picaroon 00:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • First off, the reason this was deleted in the first place was in retaliation to a category supporting Hezbollah being deleted. I'm just saying that deleting this category while supporting categories about other countries would be anti-semitic. I'm not accusing anyone of anything beyond that. As for encyclopedic use, it helps collaboration in Israel-related articles and furthers these articles. It's just as encyclopedic as all 131 categories in Category:Wikipedians by politics. Oren0 00:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      First off, why aren't you trying to get the Hezbollah deletion overturned? (I could accuse you of antishi‘ism right now, and I'd have as much backing as you did in accusing Alison and the UCFD partipants of antisemitism, but I'm not that much of a dick.) Second, none of the rest of those categories are remotely encyclopedic either. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:FISHING. Third, opposition to Israel isn't antisemitism. I'm no fan of the Great Wall of Concrete, but I have plenty of Jewish friends. (You should feel free to debate me on those first two here; if you really want to tussle on the third, email exists.) Picaroon 00:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do believe that the Hezbollah deletion should be overturned. If that's put up for undeletion I'll support it. I had nothing to do with that and wasn't even aware of it until this debate. I only saw this because I was in the category and noticed a red link on my user page. I'd appreciate if you'd refrain from name-calling. I'm not accusing anyone of Anti-Semitism, I'm just saying deleting only this seems fishy. As such, I nominated Category:Wikipedians who support the United Nations for the same reasons stated here. I trust you'll all support the deletion here. Oren0 01:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - It was a valid UCFD. I'll have to nominate the "Wikipedians who support the United States" category for deletion, as per my comments about us not wanting a support category for every country. VegaDark 03:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suggest to someone to put all the categories listed above for deletion. Jimbo Wales once made a statement that user boxes of a political nature are not conducive to building this encyclopedia. Allowing Wikipedians to categorize themselves along lines of "I support this country" and "I support that movement" etc creates conflict and emnity between editors. Please, I urge deletion of such politicisms. It only creates bias and disharmony and we already have too much of that for our minds to bear the burden of. Khorshid 03:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment one possible solution is to merge all the "Wikipedians who support X" and "Wikipedians who oppose X" categories into "Wikipedians interested in X". I'd definitely support this, but I'm not sure if DRV is the correct venue. --Iamunknown 03:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd support this. What is the proper venue to discuss such a thing? Can we have a general discussion or do we need to propose each merge individually? Oren0 04:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I question whether it is necessary and whether we want a Wikipedians interested in X for each and every country. That aside, I think that you could just create the category ... it certainly is distinctly different than this one so I don't think it would be subject to speedy deletion. --Iamunknown 04:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete for the time being - the article was deleted as a WP:POINT by someone who apparently supprted Hizballah and opposed Israel. Therefore I have more of a problem with the deletion process than actually support the template. Moreover, if this category should be deleted, then so should all the others like it, therefore it stands to reason that this one can be deleted only in an organized CFD including all similar templates. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 09:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a personal attack and I think you owe User:Alison an apology. Picaroon 01:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Though the ucfd might have been done to make a point, it was still done in process. Keep deleted as well as delete similar categories as they have the potential to be detrimental to the project rather than enhance it. —Ocatecir Talk 09:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't even know Israel had a team. What league do they play in? Guy (Help!) 13:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Large print Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Large print Wikipedia was a project that was called both humorous and nonsense. Yet it was a supposed to help the elderly. At least where I come from many of these people have poor vision and usually do not have a computer so they must go somewhere else like the local library. Many of the Web Browsers in these places do not have the text-zoom feature and thus a larger font Wikipedia is needed and I made it . It took a long time to get the project started and rewrite its two articles and write the instructions for creating a large print article. Neither this comment or Large print Wikipedia were written as jokes. Thank You very much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by P2me (talk • contribs).

  • Endorse deletion given you included several <big> tags without appropriate closes the page renders as a total mess. Regardless such a project would need to exist in the Wikipedia namespace, not the mainspace. And there are far easier ways of doing this (such as a modified monobook.css) or if it is a serious issue getting mediawiki modified to do it. --pgk 15:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - There are much, much simpler ways of going about this. A nice idea, but it's up to the libraries to change browsers. Hawker Typhoon 15:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I'd like to know what browsers are being used that don't allow text size to be changed; both IE and Firefox do this, and that function seems to work fine with Wikipedia (it won't work on some pages that use fixed text sizes in their HTML). Creating duplicate articles with different HTML tags is a bad idea. But despite all that, there was no justification for a speedy deletion. This should go through WP:AFD (for the mainspace article) or WP:MFD (for the article moved to the Wikipedia: namespace) and be deleted there. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Noble idea, but fatally flawed, as noted above. On this (Mac) the double big tags render the text as all overlapping and utterly unreadable. There might be some merit in offering logged-in users a large-text css, but most of them will be unable to use any website if they can't use Wikipedia. And yes, you really do have to laugh at the idea of a "large print website". Back in the day I used to get people complaining that sites looked different on 800x600 and 1024x768; the answer "yup, they do" did not satisfy frustrated graphic designer wannabes. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Avant coast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Received notification that page was marked for prod delete, but was traveling and never had the opportunity to address the errors. I have no idea what the problems were, but worked very hard on that page and would like the opportunity to at least review the page so that I can avoid the errors in the future even if I can't rescue this entry. Im not the guy 14:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Liam Mcleod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The AFD nomination of this article was frivolous, and was created by a vandal (see [1], for example). The article was deleted against a majority of established users who favored keeping it, without any explanation whatsoever. If we are to invoke the theory that "AFD is not a vote" in the deletion of articles, then surely the closing administrator should provide an explanation as to why the article was deleted. John254 14:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment if you want an explanation, I suggest you ask the deleting admin as indeed the instructions on this page say you should before listing here (in nice bold letters). I also note you haven't informed the deleting admin of this request for review. The entire text of the deleted article is "Liam McLeod is a football commentator on Sportsound for BBC Radio Scotland. He is currently largely an online commentator, although can occasionally be heard on the Radio Scotland Frequencies. Liam was born in Aberdeen but now lives in Glasgow", which would appear to me to be an A7 deletion. The keep comments really didn't actually address why this should be kept. --pgk 14:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being a "football commentator" for a national radio network could well make Liam McLeod a notable public figure, and thus constitutes a non-frivolous assertion of notability. Insofar as CSD A7 is extended beyond its literal terms, it should only be applied to articles in which an assertion of notability is clearly frivolous. John254 15:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmm, I'm confused – is this about me closing a deletion discussion, or is it about the nominator being a now-banned vandal? I'm willing to explain my decision (which falls within the bounds of admin discretion) if this small point can be clarified. Bubba hotep 20:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both factors are at issue here. John254 03:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, well, first of all, the nominator didn't appear to be a vandal when they opened the AfD and I had no reason to suspect that they had any ulterior motive. Secondly, the given reason coupled with Ng.j's was sound; one "keep" comment said they were "well-known" – a fact not substantiated in the article itself, and goes on to provide an argument which I saw as within the bounds of WP:INN, and the other "keep" offered nothing more whatsoever. Therefore, the deletion argument was stronger. I wouldn't say substantially stronger, but enough to make a decision on. As a side issue, because this is not AfD part 2, I agree with what pgk said above in essence. Bubba hotep 10:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn; I'm not impressed with the arguments on either side of the debate (such as it was). While the keep argument was weak, it would seem sufficient to counter the only valid delete argument (that notability was not asserted). While I'm not convinced the person is notable, I concur with Jon254 that notability (of a sort) was asserted, at least sufficiently to preclude A7. I find it hard to see how this could be closed as anything but "no consensus", but I think relisting would be more appropriate. Xtifr tälk 01:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A tough call; leave deleted or relisting would be plausible outcomes. Frankly, if there is real notability, recreation in a substantially better form (with a source, for example), would be pretty much trivial. So I come down as endorse deletion. GRBerry 15:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per GRBerry's above suggestion of recreation with a source, I have done so. Englishrose 11:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Doba (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Nonsensical result, not within closer discretion. If Quarl thinks that, despite clear consensus to delete on an afd, specific, non-notable company names should be arbitrarily redirected to their type of business, thereby doing spammers' work for them, he should express that opinion on the afd just like anybody else so that the argument can be refuted as the idiocy it is. —Cryptic 12:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn redirect and relist. Am I seeing a consensus to delete here? No. Is there a consensus to keep here? No. Does the redirect make sense? Not at all. A relisting where a few more eyes can see it makes sense here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete consensus for deletion seems quite clear. --pgk 12:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Why it needs a redirect 9or an article at all) is beyond me! Hawker Typhoon 15:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or relist. In as much as the debate showed anything it showed that informed (as in informed about policy) opinion holds that they fail the primary notability criterion, but there were few enough !votes that reopening and relisting would not hurt. Guy (Help!) 16:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete This is simply spam in disguise. Rec'd AFD. --LeroyWilkins 01:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. We have no precedent of redirecting company names to their industry - nor can I think of a good reason for starting that practice. It's not a compromise that was proposed during the discussion. The bulk of comments clearly challenged the notability of this company. No evidence was presented either in the deleted versions or in the discussion demonstrating that the company meets the generally accepted inclusion criteria. Rossami (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Relist or Delete; I mostly agree with badlydrawnjeff that it's hard to see a consensus in the debate, but have to concede that Guy may have a point as well. If relisted, I would probably argue for deletion, but that's neither here nor there. Anyway, redirection is clearly not consensus! Xtifr tälk 02:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete per consensus of established users in the AfD. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-13 05:00Z
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Füritechnics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was speedily deleted as possible advertising. As it happens, I wrote the article and really don't know much about the company, so I used their web page as one of my main sources. Considering their signature product is endorsed by a major American TV chef (Rachael Ray), would it not be prudent to at least restore it and put it through AfD rather than speedying it? It seems like it could be rewritten to not look like advertising. Haikupoet 03:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Canadian Heritage Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted by an administrator, who cited BLP concerns. I believe this was an overreaction. The offending sections could have been removed, and proper citations added for the rest of the article (indeed, much of the article was already sourced). The CHA is a noteworthy far-right organization in Canada, and its article should be restored and improved. CJCurrie 00:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn speedy-deletion and nominate to AFD. This is an article about an organization, not an individual. BLP does not apply to organizations. I'll also admit that I am unable to find any specific claims in the article that fall afoul of WP:BLP. But if there were any, that would be solved by editing them out (and maybe deleting specific edits from the pagehistory), not deleting the entire article. Nominate to AFD because I'm not sure that this particular group meets our notability criteria. Rossami (talk) 02:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Rossami said what I would have. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important: the WP:BLP concernes were not in respect of the organisation, but the individuals named in the article as being associated with or leaders of a white supremacist organisation, which claim was uncited, and at least one of the individuals states categorically that they were never a member. I would be very strongly against undeleting this article as the lead states something which is unverifiable, stated to be false and considered defamatory by its subject, and that sets the tone for the entire article - in other words, I don't trust a word it said. The (few) sources for the article were all polemical in nature and I think that if this is a genuinely notable organisation we can and should write a far better article than this, per WP:FORGET, which would not contain what appear to be defamatory falsehoods. So I endorse my own deletion without prejudice to a rewrite from credible neutral sources, for which purpose I am more than happy to email the content to any editor who wishes to work on such an article. I don't think I need repeat what Jimbo has said about the desirability of sitting back waiting for sourcing on negative material about living individuals, this appears to have been hijacked by people with an agenda and if there are good, interested editors I am confident we can do better starting from scratch. Guy (Help!) 16:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Material I followed the evidence (the public stuff), and it seems to revolve around Melissa Guille, who vehemently denies being a white supremacist, and the sourecs for it are not at all credible [2] (quote from deletion log/JzG). Although, a quick search turned up the London Free Press calling her one of few female white supremacy organizers. Looking through the deleted material, most other things are sourced to this paper. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 18:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's about it. Guille may or may not be a member of the Canadian Heritage Alliance, which is not, as far as I can tell, a white supremacist group, although the Heritage Front was; it is asserted that Guille was a leader of the Heritage Front (she denies any involvement with that). I can't see any disinterested sources calling Guille a white supremacist, and there is a preponderance of anonymous edits wherever this claim arises. Whether someone is repeating in good faith what they believe to be true, or is deliberately promoting guilt-by-association, I can't tell, but I do know that the sourcing was patchy and did not cover many of the claims made, and Guille was most unhappy about it. If someone is a prominent racist, like Nick Griffin, it is usually trivially easy to find substantial dispassionate coverage of that. If a group is a prominent white supremacist group, that, too, can usually be verified trivially easily. It may indeed be that CHA is a relaunch of HF in an attempt to clean up their image, but I haven't yet seen a dispassionate source for that. Much of the article was looking to establish guilt by association, through use of names of living individuals. It was not a good article. We can, if the group is genuinely significant, do a lot better. Canadian editors please step up to the plate here. I'm not against documenting a hate group, if that's what they are, but not by reference to polemical sources, please - www.canadiancontent.ca is an interesting website, but it's not what I would call a credible source for claims that someone is a white supremacist. That's dirty talk, and you have to be sure of yourself when you put it in Wikipedia.
Note that the London Free Press thing says "One of the few female organizers in Canada's white pride movement, and a potential national leader, is to appear today on charges she violated Canada's Human Rights Act." - I can find no evidence that she was actually charged with anything, or convicted of anything, or that she is in fcat a leader of a white pride movement. If I could, I would have included it. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to say endorse deletion then based on Guy's evidence. BLP is very important in wiki. I would say recreate it without the guilt-by-association add-ons is a good idea. About that one paper, the website slogan is "thoughts and rants from the inside out". No chance it passes RS. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 02:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. That was my principal concern with respect to the Guille case in general: the sole source for her links to the documented white supremacist organisation seems to be that one site, which is also the sole source for the links between the two organisations. That plus the fact that there is very little input from known editors, raises red flags for me. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response I believe that Guy may be misinformed on some important points. Guille's affiliation with the Heritage Front may be disputed, but her membership in the Canadian Heritage Alliance is emphatically not: she's been identified as its leader by the mainstream media, and for that matter by other far-right organizations in Canada. Her legal difficulties have also been reported by the mainstream media, and, indeed, the CHA website contains detailed information about Richard Warman's complaint against her before the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Finally, while Guille may deny being a white supremacist, it's surely of some significance that groups like B'nai Brith and the London-area police believe otherwise.
    • I can accept the possibility that some of the information formerly on the CHA page was unverifiable, but I still don't believe page deletion was the correct course of action. CJCurrie 23:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no doubt in my mind that Guille is associated with CHA, the problem is that this article stated that CHA is a racist organisation because it includes Guille, who it asserted was a former leader of the Heritage Front, something she vehemently denies. Its perspective on the group and its history is largely defined by this assertion, for which no reliable source exists. That's why I say we can do better by applying WP:FORGET and rewriting from reputable sources, because this article looks to have been part of a deliberate smear campaign. Guy (Help!) 12:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturnthese are editing questions. BLP can almost never be a reason to delete an article about a subject, because individuals need not necessarily be mentioned. The above presentation of the reasons is totally besides the point--the questions discussed are editing questions. DGG 02:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. Leaving defamatory material in the edit history is not really a good idea. Plus the entire article appears to be, as I noted above, a soapbox. We can do better starting from scratch. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. If this group is notable enough to have an article, there will be news items about it in major newspapers and we can start a new article from scratch, based on those items. If they're not notable, we shouldn't have an article.
    Comment. The difference between White separatists and White supremacists may seem quite minor to you and me, but the people involved see huge moral gulfs between them, and we should respect that, no matter how we feel about those people. CWC 13:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC) (Added "in major newspapers" 23:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment If anyone wants to see the article before it was deleted, it's still available at answers.com for now (I'm not sure how old it would be). The article on Melissa Guille is also there. Although I'd say this has more to do with important policies like BLP as opposed to some inclusion policy. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 23:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per CWC. GreenJoe 23:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as stub. When you read the arguments of people who are saying delete they actually favor restarting the article from scratch as a stub that doesn't mention white supremacy or the Hertitage Front rather than not allowing an article on this subject. I've created such a stub from authoritative sources and I hope this will be accepted. I've been directed to this argument by friends on wikipedia so I hope my comments are accepted as a well intentioned suggestion from an outsider. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by White Rose Remembered (talk • contribs) 12:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong overturn - Obviously important article about a white nationalist, white supremacist and far right movement in Canada --Mista-X 20:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_8&oldid=1138429018"