Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 10:18, 3 March 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< 2009 October 1
2009 October 3 >

2 October 2009

[edit]
  • Bullshido.net – closure endorsed by default. There is an abundant lack of consensus in this deletion review, and an associated lack of consensus in the AfD it discusses. No consensus to remove this content can really be divined from either discussion, and hence in line with policy we default to retaining it. This should not necessarily be taken as an endorsement of the present form of the article - there's clearly a fair amount of original research still present, and a potential merge somewhere seems reasonable. I'd suggest work continues on sourcing the article and potentially merging, and would discourage a further renomination within the next few months - this has been discussed quite enough at this time, and it's clear nobody agrees as to the correct course right now. That may change, but I suggest a period for it to settle down first. – ~ mazca talk 20:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bullshido.net (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I believe that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination) should have been closed as "delete" instead of "no consensus". The "keep" arguments were mostly per WP:IAR. None provided compelling reasons to keep the article, whereas the "delete" arguments were well-grounded in policy.

Throughout the course of this discussion, no reliable sources were found to establish the notability of this website.

After contacting the closing admin, the closing admin responded, "To be honest, Cunard, I would tend to agree with you, but I am not sure if the balance of things heads to delete rather than no consensus. Listing it at DRV might be a good option here; I won't endorse or oppose the close and will allow the DRV community to decide it. Therefore, I have listed this article at DRV. Cunard (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • EndorseBullshido.net survived two AfDs in one week. This is getting to be ludicrous. It's clear that there is not consensus over the deletion of the article can we leave it long enough to let editors make good faith efforts at improving it please? Simonm223 (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete — virtually none of the "keep" !votes were based in policy. They all amounted to claims with no evidence to back them up, bitching about the number and/or frequency of nominations, or citing WP:IAR. Since it is supposed to be a discussion and not a vote, these should have been disregarded in favor of Cunard's very detailed analysis of how this article does not remotely meet our inclusion standards. *** Crotalus *** 21:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the de(p)letionists are winning. I lack the energy to keep up with the repeated AfD/DRV/AfD/DRV cycle. JJL (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse There were differences of opinion over whether the substantial coverage in reliable independent sources was sufficient to merit inclusion. There was no consensus. The repeated noms and efforts to delete the article are now becoming abusive. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The articles you claimed to be substantial coverage were all quoted by User:Cunard, and none of them seemed to exceed one sentence. You didn't provide any further response.--Otterathome (talk) 10:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - as was my stance in the AfD, and I saw consensus to delete (based on the strength of arguments on both sides). For illustrative purposes, I copied the article to User:Kelapstick/Bull to show what I could make out of the article using the only reliable sources in the article. Should this not move forward with the deletion of the article (frankly I am getting apathetic about the outcome) it should be pared down to what is actually verifiable using reliable sources. In fact it probably should be pared down right now, I would have, however I thought it would be inappropriate to do dramatic removal of content to an article currently at AfD.--kelapstick (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kelapstick, as an experienced editor I'm sure you are aware that DRV is not AfD #2 (or 3 in this case). Was there something wrong with the close? Other editors assessed the sources and coverage differently than you did, and there was no consensus. But by all means feel free to pare the article down as you think appropriate. We are a collegial and collaborative encyclopedia. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes as I said, in my comment, I saw consensus to delete, and I was explaining why. I know other editors assessed the sources differently than I did, and as I said before, I can accept that, but that doesn't mean that I have to agree with them, or the close.--kelapstick (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Since the closing admin is not endorsing xe's own close, I feel justified in ignoring my own rules and not deferring to it. My re-reading of the AfD convinces me that the delete side has the better of the argument. Disclosure: I !voted to delete at the AfD. BTW, Cunard, you forgot to notify me. Tim Song (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse 2 AfDs and 1 DrV in the last couple of weeks. The discussion had no consensus to delete and bringing it for a third time is getting silly. Hobit (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The close was fine as there was no consensus to delete. Cunard's disagreement over the quality of the sources is insufficient reason to keep raising this as this is a discretionary value judgement not a mechanical rule. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I see nothing wrong with the close. I !voted to delete in the last AfD but I can't see how the closing admin could have possibly closed the AfD as anything other than no consensus. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse it was closed as 'no consensus' for a reason - because there was no consensus. the admin made the right choice in closing it as such. wp:iar says: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." i believe that those who voted with wp:iar in mind did so with the best of intentions for the encyclopedia - improving the encyclopedia. btw, wp:iar is a legitimate policy, not just an essay, and therefore is a valid form of policy-based reasoning. Theserialcomma (talk) 06:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that, if you can't explain persuasively why retaining this article "improv[es]...Wikipedia", a naked appeal to IAR is not very different from WP:ILIKEIT. And the "best of intentions" part does not come into play here - no one is arguing that the keep !votes are in bad faith. Tim Song (talk) 06:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Before anyone comments further, please take a look at the discussion on the closing admin's talk page, where it was explained that two editors (Kelapstick and DoriSmith) also disagreed with ChildofMidnight's interpretation of the depth of coverage. The other "keep" votes did not agree with CoM's analysis, but instead concentrated on IAR.

    Theserialcomma (the endorse vote above) wrote at the AfD that the strongest argument to keep was WP:IAR. If IAR is the only reason to keep this article, shouldn't all articles, regardless of whether or not they pass Wikipedia's guidelines, be kept if they are useful to Wikipedia?

    The "keep" and "delete" votes were about 50/50, so the closing admin should have interpreted the discussion by weighing the strength of the arguments. Is IAR a valid reason to keep this article? Or as I said in the AfD, is removing information that is comprised mainly of original research a better rationale? For what the article would like with all the original research removed, please see kelapstick's page at User:Kelapstick/Bull. Cunard (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Also of note is that the closer does not endorse or oppose his/her own close, and would prefer the DRV community to weigh the arguments at the AfD. Cunard (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - I find several things interesting here: firstly, that some editors are simultaneously saying "I'm shocked! Good heavens, why on earth would anyone want to continue to debate this—it's against all precedent!" and "I think we should keep this article, and my basis for this is WP:IAR." Sorry folks, but I just can't see how you can be both for and against IAR at the same time.

    Personally, as I said previously, I think that an article needs "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself," and this article simply doesn't have that.

    I took a look at User:Kelapstick/Bull, and found that (imo) it still had more in it than could be supported by the sources. Consequently, my draft is at User:DoriSmith/Bull, and it backs up my opinion that when you try to base this article solely on WP:RS, you're left without much of an article. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 08:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and delete Poor close we are not improving the encyclopedia by allowing a mob to impose their own idea of notability on a specific article. Please can the closing admin discard all the IAR votes and concentrate on policy. Policy is that notability needs sources and you cant IAR your way out of that. Spartaz Humbug! 09:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete it's the third AFD so editors have been given plenty of time and warnings to get the article to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. They failed that and have instead resorted to bad arguments including: 1. It was already nominated! 2. It has lots of members and is listed highly on forum stats site! 3. It's been mentioned in the media. 4. The nominator did bad things. All inbetween those lines. User:Cunard has noted and shot down many of these types of arguments. Then again the closing admin may have noticed this if he/she spent more than 60 seconds reading it.--Otterathome (talk) 10:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Arguments based on policy, like WP:V, were not addressed. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant endorse, though I !voted "delete" and would do so again. Rightly or wrongly (and I think it's wrongly), what we have here is a local consensus to suspend policy in the case of this one particular article. And local consensuses can do that. This is exactly what IAR means.

    I think this material should be deleted, but I'm prepared to accept that the consensus is not with me; it's time to move on to something else.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia policy pages are like scripture: you can find support for any position if you look hard enough. I'm quite sure there are all sorts of places that say "IAR doesn't apply to this, this, or this", having been edited by people who don't like IAR. I'm afraid that doesn't change the basic fact that IAR is a policy with the power to suspend other policies. If there's consensus to invoke it, then it's invoked, and in that debate there was a fairly strong consensus to invoke IAR.

    The "no consensus" outcome does permit early relisting, Cunard, and I think that's probably a better way forward than trying to use DRV to force a deletion against consensus.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consensus is not based upon the number of votes in a discussion; it is based upon the strengths of the arguments. No one has been able to explain how applying IAR with this article would "improv[e]...Wikipedia".

    S Marshall, if this DRV does not overturn the deletion, I will not bring this article back to AfD with an early relisting. I have relisted the article once and have refuted all of the points raised by those who voted "keep". Two debates have been closed as "no consensus". If I were to bring this article back to AfD within the next month, I can foresee another "no consensus" close. Cunard (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Three AfDs and 1 DrV in 3 weeks would be a new record I suspect. Hobit (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Squidfryerchef: By this logic, we can dispense with "AfD is not a vote" and instead start shouting "IAR keep" and "IAR delete" instead. After all, these are arguments based on "the most important policy" that trumps everything else like WP:N and WP:RS, which are merely guidelines, right? Tim Song (talk) 07:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but decisions to keep or delete should be based on being a good steward of the content of the encyclopedia, not because we love policy. N and RS are only guidelines. V, OR, and BLP, those are policies. Squidfryerchef (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite true. Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia that must be followed. As argued in the AfD debate, this article fails WP:V because it lacks coverage in reliable sources and primary sources. Cunard (talk) 07:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. To be honest, I'm starting to think that this is a marginal case, but that the encyclopedia is better with this article than without. I think that the verifiability guidelines have to be applied with some nuance, because some subjects are more apt to be written about than others. Garnering some media attention, which this website has done, is much more difficult for a website than for many other potential subjects. I'll grant that the coverage is pretty thin, but I think that this website is just barely notable enough. Blowfish (talk) 02:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC) — Blowfish (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Some nuance would mean these references actually discuss this website. They don't. They discuss the things this website discusses. Having an article here is just wrong. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. Overturn and delete. I opened the article and didn't read it. I opened every reference and skimmed them trying to understand what they had in common - nothing. Then I read the article. Then I looked at how each reference was used, quite simply, the references that don't completely suck meaning the blogs and self-published sites, do not ever actually talk about this website. The only thing left that might be compelling would be Alexa ranking - except... Alexa ranks them in the high 60,000s with a massive 264 incoming links. So, nevermind. If our sourcing and notability policies mean anything then this has to go. Even invoking IAR requires some kind of evidence of something that this subject matter has fallen through the cracks of policy and this is important to document regardless - no evidence of such exists. Publishing facts on this subject matter that makes claims means Wikipedia could be publishing the fantasies of the participants of the forum! NO! SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Overturn and delete many of the Keep arguments (such as invoking WP:IAR) were flawed. Some editors made more policy-based arguments regarding sources but these concerns were well rebutted. The delete arguments were not rebutted. Deletion is therefore an appropriate close. Hut 8.5 09:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus close. There was not a clear consensus for keeping or deleting.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Regardless of the actual merits, it is clear from the repeated discussions there, and the discussion here, that there is a strong difference of opinion among established editors on how this should be dealt with, and thus there is clearly no consensus. The admin closed saying so, correctly. The only solution is to work elsewhere than here to establish some consensus about how to deal with the problem of what constitutes sufficient sources for establishing notability of web sites such as this one as a general question. DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, this site could be notable if a non-Wikipedia notability criterion were applied. However, as argued in the AfD debate, Bullshido.net fails Wikipedia's core policy of verifiability. If sources cannot be found to support the information in the article, verifiability is not met.

    There is a strong difference of opinion among established editors, but who has better arguments? Those who misapply WP:IAR (As Tim Song said above, none of the users in the AfD debate or in this DRV have explained persuasively why retaining this article "improv[es]...Wikipedia".), or those who wish to remove potentially-damaging original research from Wikipedia?

    In the AfD debate, you wrote that the article has potential content and that the original research should be removed, but I cannot see how User:Kelapstick/Bull or User:DoriSmith/Bull has enough content to warrant an article that would be valuable to Wikipedia's readers. Cunard (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The OR issue is caused by the lack of notability. No notability, therefore no reliable sources, therefore all we can write is OR. This is not something that the editing process can fix. Tim Song (talk) 00:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Normally, I would find it rude to say so, even out of line, but the closing admin has allowed us to make such statements. I don't rightly see how IAR applies when there are no reliable sources discussing this topic at all, not a single one--and there really aren't even unreliable sources discussing it. I appreciate DGG's suggestion that we look elsewhere for establishing precedent for difficult cases; I just don't think this is a difficult case, just one which some users feel passionate about. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Regardless of the decision to delete or not, there seem to be too many articles on this fairly narrow cluster of topics, including Mcdojo, Bullshido, and Bullshido.net. Perhaps a "Martial Arts Skepticism" article could replace those three (and potentially others). This would have the advantage of being based on something other than a single website, and mention of bullshido and bullshido.net could be brought into line with its notability (where currently the coverage seems to outweigh notability). Martial Arts skepticism is a deep enough topic, with sufficient coverage in television print media, to warrant an article. It could contain a section on Martial arts skepticism and the internet, and a subsection on bullshido. (Speculating here). Blowfish (talk) 05:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC) — Blowfish (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • A three-way merge is not viable because none of these articles have reliable sources. Without reliable sources, editors must resort to original research. As I said in the AfD, Bullshido.net fails Wikipedia's core policy of verifiabilty. A merge would not solve this problem. Cunard (talk) 06:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the idea of a three-way merge into an article on martial arts skepticism. There are plenty of sources on the more generic topic of martial arts skepticism, and these articles under attack could be merged in no problem. I believe a merge should be the ultimate outcome, and I see the neverending afd's as disruptive to that goal. Squidfryerchef (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said above, a merge is not viable because there are no sources that discuss any of these topics. I agree with the concept of a new article about "martial arts skepticism", but the information in this article is useless because there are no sources. Creating an article about martial arts skepticism on a clean slate would result in a better article.

    However, this debate should be about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination), not a merge, so let's stop getting off-topic. Cunard (talk) 07:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deciding to merge is a common outcome of deletion discussions. You did nominate this for a fourth AFD, oh, I mean a DRV, so merge is something to think about. Wiping out an article which could be condensed to a paragraph about this particular site would be disruptive to that merge. Squidfryerchef (talk) 07:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Martial-arts scepticism isn't headquartered at bullshido.net. It encompasses popular shows like Fight Science, it was the motivating force behind the creation of the UFC in the early 90s, and there are quite a few sources which discuss it. Bullshido, bullshido.net and mcdojo could be rolled into one subsection, which would be in keeping, I argue, with their notability. The bulk of the article would not discuss bullshido.net or its neologisms. Blowfish (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC) — Blowfish (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Overturn and delete, a strong and comprehensive policy-based nomination was not rebutted by any of the keep votes. --Stormie (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure there really wasn't a consensus to delete, and this isn't supposed to be AFD round four. Wait a reasonable amount of time and renominate if you disagree with the outcome. JBsupreme (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Claims about sources had been throughly rebutted, and the WP:IAR don't explain how exactly Wikipaedia is being improved. Also, the closing administrator here should consider that given one reason for this listing here is the weakness of the 'keep' votes, that simple repetition of those same arguments by the same voters be taken into account. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. There wasn't a consensus to delete, not the time before, and not the time before that. Wikipedia is based on consensus, not bureaucracy. The article is properly sourced and footnoted, despite the fuss about "original research" I see above. Yes, primary sources are allowed on Wikipedia, and no, making use of them is not "original research". Squidfryerchef (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're confusing "no sources" with "needs independent secondary sources that discuss the subject in detail". The sources already listed might have a few sentences about bullshido.com. That might be borderline, but that doesn't mean "no sources". That usually implies to me that an article can be shrunk and merged.

    As far as primary sources, when a self-published source is cited in an article about itself, that's one kind of primary source. And that meets WP:V. An article shouldnt be based solely on that, but a paragraph in a merged article can. Remember, verifiability means that your facts are credited to someplace other than Wikipedia. It doesn't mean a third-party source that "verifies" what the selfpubs say. And "original research" means original research that's created on the Wikipedia, not that's created by the subject of the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are you sure you understand original research? That web page was referred to in an article from Bullshido.com that was cited in the same sentence, so it's simply a primary source referred to by another primary source. Remember, original research means facts that only exist on the Wikipedia. However, we do need to watch WP:BLP, only one of the sources for that paragraph is a secondary source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Dori, yes. In WP-parlance, "verifiability" means "cite your sources". It's not the same as verifying something is true; actually, it's often contrasted with truth as in the maxim "verifiability, not truth". WP:V can suggest readers look at WP:RS, but WP:V doesn't actually include RS, as V is a policy but RS is only a strongly-suggested guideline. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment In general, the martial arts have poor representation in academic sources and do not make the headlines in the national media. A wiki lawyer perspective would remove much of the material in many of the martial arts articles. The editors that regularly work on martial arts articles (Nate, JJL, myself, other members of the Wiki MA Project) do not want OR in the articles but are familiar with the quality of sources. I concede that the two newspaper articles are not overwhelming but could you consider that the editors active in this area feel that Bullshido.net has future potential? Thank you! jmcw (talk) 10:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"future potential" is an argument against keep, not for it--but it's a good basis to support a merge if there is one available. DGG ( talk ) 17:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I'm not convinced the article actually merits being kept, but wp:drv is not the place to argue that point. The closing administrator determined the discussion resulted in no consensus, and I believe that was a reasonable and accurate determination. Endorse closure. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Squidfryerchef, this would be great advice if you were to follow your own advice. In the same edit that you made this post, you continued "conducting a fourth AfD".

    Because "[w]e should be debating the merits of whether the closing admin read the consensus correctly", I will follow your advice.

    Why is the close incorrect? To summarize the arguments advanced by the "overturn and delete" editors, the closing admin failed to correctly weigh the votes. Should more weight be accorded to votes that cited IAR as their reason to keep the article? Or should more weight be accorded to participants who argued that the article could not be sourced with reliable sources; could not pass the core policy of verifiability; could not be expanded beyond a one sentence definition that is sourced by a passing mention (see User:Kelapstick/Bull or User:DoriSmith/Bull); could not pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines? The "keep" votes in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination) cited IAR but did not substantiate their assertion. As Tim Song (talk · contribs) said above, the "keep" votes could not "explain persuasively why retaining this article "improv[es]...Wikipedia"." He said that "a naked appeal to IAR is not very different from WP:ILIKEIT." Because these votes failed to assert why IAR improves Wikipedia, the closing admin should have discounted these votes.

    As a rebuttal to IAR, I wrote at the AfD that "In a nutshell: the lack of verifiability means that the original research in Bullshido.net may or may not be true. Since there is no way to verify this information, false information may start seeping in. This will damage the reputation of Wikipedia." No one was able to refute this statement, so the closing admin should have accorded more weight to the application of a core policy of Wikipedia — a core policy that trumps users' personal preferences of what is notable or not.

    Should more weight be accorded to the single vote that cited passing mentions (mentions that do not exceed one sentence) as "substantial coverage"? Or should more weight be accorded to the three editors who refuted this uninformed assertion?

    Because the "keep" votes were very weak and were all refuted and because the "delete" votes were all grounded in policy, the debate should have been closed as delete. Cunard (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Squidfryerchef, please don't continue the debate about verifiability. The debate about verifiability occurred in the AfD. As you recommended in the previous comment, we should evaluate the AfD, not re-discuss what was discussed in the AfD. If you choose to reply, please point out any discrepencies in my analysis and the analysis of the "overturn and delete" arguments at this DRV. But per your own advice, please don't continue the verifiability debate. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read all that, Cunard. Please condense that down to three lines or so. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read all of it. If you do not have the time to do so, choose and read either the third, fourth, or fifth paragraph, and then respond to why you believe the "keep" votes were as effective as the "delete" votes. As you recommended above, we should evaluate the AfD, not re-discuss what was discussed in the AfD. Cunard (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_October_2&oldid=1142604977"