Wikipedia:Deletion review
 |
| Deletion discussions |
|---|
|
|
| Articles |
| Templates and modules |
| Files |
| Categories |
| Redirects |
| Miscellany |
| Speedy deletion |
| Proposed deletion |
| Formal review processes |
|---|
|
|
|
For RfCs, community discussions, and to review closes of other reviews: |
| Administrators' noticeboard |
| In bot-related matters: |
|
|
| Discussion about closes prior to closing: |
Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.
If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.
Purpose
Deletion review may be used:
- if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
- if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
- if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
- if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
- if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.
Deletion review should not be used:
- because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
- (This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
- to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
- to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
- to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
- to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
- to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
- to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
- for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
- to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.
Instructions
Before listing a review request, please:
- Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
- Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
Steps to list a new deletion review
 | If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. |
| 1. |
and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in {{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
|
| 2. |
Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
| 3. |
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach |
| 4. |
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:
|
Commenting in a deletion review
Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:
- Endorse the original closing decision; or
- Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
- List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
- Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
- Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:
- *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
- *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
- *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
- *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~
Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.
Temporary undeletion
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
Closing reviews
A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.
If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:
- If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
- If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.
Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)
Speedy closes
- Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
- Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
- Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
- Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".
The article "The Peel Club" was drastically overhauled in its last 24 hours of editing by me, resulting in a fully compliant, high-quality, well-researched page with both primary and secondary sources. The primary source material includes authoritative references from the UK Parliament and the University of Glasgow, supplemented by various books from 1836 to 1840 that offer significant historical insights, involving two Prime Ministers.
The main contentions that justify this review are as follows: 1. The initial draft of the article was indeed underdeveloped and flagged for improvement. However, the revised version addressed all concerns raised, meeting Wikipedia's quality standards. 2. I resolved the orphan page warning by linking the article to related pages, which seemed to have drawn undue suspicion. 3. The article was deemed promotional due to my inexperience and lack of neutrality in my first attempt. However, my intention was to contribute valuable historical content on a topic I am particularly knowledgeable about. 4. Editors mistakenly refuted the connection between the new Peel Club and the original, despite the new club's clear claim to continuity. This was substantiated on the Talk page, which hosted a detailed explanation of the legitimacy of this claim. Unfortunately, this explanation was overlooked by the reviewing editors. 5. My edits were based on empirical evidence from the sources cited and accompanied by thorough justifications for each change, yet these were repeatedly undone without proper review. 6. An error on the "Glasgow University Conservative Association" page linked to this page, and my correction (including the proper use of "The" in "The Peel Club" and appropriate linking) was accurate.
This well-researched page added crucial information to Wikipedia and the editorial process that led to its deletion was hasty and dismissive of the significant improvements made. I request a review of the page to assess its professional standard and content integrity. If the page cannot be restored, I also request the recovery of the Talk page essay where I detailed my rationale for retaining the article, as it contains valuable arguments that could be used for future reference. Thank you. Hellenistic accountant (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse, but Allow Recreation - DRV is not AFD Round 2. This appeal is a rearguing of the AFD. The appellant should be allowed to submit a draft for review, or to create a new article, subject to AFD, but not subject to G4 if substantially different from the original version of the article. The version of the article that was seen by the voters is not the same as the last version of the article. Either Delete or Relist would have valid conclusions by the closer. The end result of a Relist would have been that the revisions to the article be taken into account, which is what will happen if the close is endorsed and the originator submits a draft for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Temp undelete for review, please. Jclemens (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Jclemens — done. Daniel (talk) 02:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding the applicant's statement around drastic overhaul in the last 24 hours of editing, oldid's before and after for reference. Daniel (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse the AfD concluded the topic didn't meet our inclusion guidelines. The issues are that the sources that directly address the Peel Club appear to be primary (1, 3, 5, 7?, 8) or a blog (4). 2 is showing the Peel Club was discussed (in Parliament) and might count toward WP:N, it's really not clear to me. 7 is half written by a president of the club (from 2016? our article seems to indicate it didn't exist then?), making it probably primary. So while I'm not happy with losing this article, I think the AfD's conclusion is reasonable. All that said, I have to imagine newspapers of the time had something to say about this Club. Find those things and you'll have a fine reason to recreate the article. Hobit (talk) 03:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
I objected to the original proposed deletion and my objection stands. Collective PAC is sufficiently notable. Stefanie and Quentin James don't have Wikipedia pages and this page is a sufficient landing site for information about them as well. The lister then re-proposed the article for deletion. The Cunctator (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
If the perceived problem is that Quentin James is notable but Collective PAC, the correct solution would be to preserve its content and redirect it to Quentin James, instead of deleting the Collective PAC article. But simply keeping a well-referenced article would be just as reasonable. --The Cunctator (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Allow recreation. With only two participants, this must be treated as a soft deletion. Although this might be an exercise in futility, as the appellant hasn't presented anything that would save the article from failing the next AfD, this time with quorum for a hard-delete. Relisting is also acceptable, now that this received more attention. Owen× ☎ 21:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Where, precisely, do you come up with "must be"? —Cryptic 22:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know how you interpret WP:NOQUORUM's
few or no comments
, but a single supporting !vote after a nomination is as few as it gets. Owen× ☎ 00:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know how you interpret WP:NOQUORUM's
- Where, precisely, do you come up with "must be"? —Cryptic 22:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Restore as a challenged soft deletion, subject to immediate AfD by any editor per RENOM, with advice to the appellant to use that time to wisely address the problems identified. Jclemens (talk) 02:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- weak endorse As I read No Quorum, one option for the closer in this case is "closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal". In this case that would be to delete the article. So closing as delete is an option in a situation like this. I'm not thrilled with that in general--I don't really want No quorum situations to result in deletion. In this case I think it was probably the right call--the sources are thin, with that Hill article being the best I can find. The second reference to the Collective PAC is almost enough to count as a source for WP:N. But A) we need multiple sources and B) "almost". All that said, I think soft delete should be the norm in situations like this and so I can only weakly endorse. Or put differently: "Probably not what we should be doing, but within the rules I think and the right outcome in this case."Hobit (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
1. The deletion discussion was closed around an hour after it was relisted for the second time.
2. The nomination was weak as it failed to explain why the articls does not meet WP:GNG or such. And so did the recent editor who just voted to delete and salt the article.
I suggest that the deletion discussion should be re-opened for at least a few days so that other editors, including me, to share our input about the article. ASTIG😎🙃 16:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. The AfD was open for over two weeks. It was closed--correctly!--as soon as there was quorum, unanimously. Per WP:RELIST:
A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined, without necessarily waiting for another seven days.
If the appellant has input to share that would reverse the decision, they can present it here, rather than cryptically allude to its existence. I see no reason to waste the community's time with another kick at the can just because someone believes they have a crucial piece of evidence that would turn consensus around. Owen× ☎ 16:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC) - What a miserable afd. Nomination was just a delete-by-reference to DYWC, but that had only been prodded, deleted as a copyvio, and created as a bare infobox (and improperly speedied A3) before being salted. The final delete was no better; the only users editing the afd that I give any credit at all to are Badbluebus and Wcquidditch.That said, I can't really argue for undeletion of the article on its merits. Sources were 1 2(p99) 3 4 5 6 7(p179). I can only see 1, 4, and 5 of those, and there's really nothing there. Still, curious why it wasn't just redirected to Radio Mindanao Network, where it still has a mention.So while there's not much of a hump to get over to explain why it does meet WP:GNG or such, you do have to explain it. The article doesn't on its own. Convince us. —Cryptic 17:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm with Cryptic - there's really no way that can be overturned, even with a weak AfD, but if a mistake has been made, it should be easy to restore. SportingFlyer T·C 17:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse as per Cryptic and SportingFlyer, but do not salt. It is true that the nomination was weak, but that does not mean that the Delete !votes can or should be ignored. The closure shortly after relisting was correct because it was shortly after another Delete, and the closure correctly identified consensus to delete. Do not salt, but allow a better article or draft to be created subject to AFD or reviewed by AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Radio Mindanao Network, and leave DYWC SALTed and SALT DYWC-AM. Discourage drafting unless supported by a consensus at Talk:Radio Mindanao Network. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- As nominator I'm fine with a redirect - I only took it to AfD because it had previously been redirected and then contested. But it should be salted, since we must not reward the sort of rule erosion that got us here in the first place. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- The proposed redirect sounds good. SALTing seems premature in the absence of repeated recreation attempts. Owen× ☎ 21:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- There were, over at DYWC (plus the reversion of the redirect here). But - as I said above - DYWC shouldn't have been salted in the first place, at least not indefinitely. It was just the one sockpuppeteer that needed deterring. —Cryptic 22:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect. There’s an obvious redirect target and page where content can be added. Protect both titles or neither. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect both titles I'm not sure if the recreation attempts are enough to SALT (I don't have a lot of experience with our rules for that), but I'm personally fine with doing so. Doesn't really make sense to have one salted and one not. Hobit (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Battle For Dream Island (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
There is now professional and independent coverage on the topic: https://www.businesstoday.in/impact-feature/story/the-brilliance-of-niall-burns-creating-successful-animation-in-the-world-of-digital-content-creation-438292-2024-07-23 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SupConnor64 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
There is a source/reference that in my opinion provides WP:SIGCOV for the above deleted article. Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 07:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. The newly discovered "SIGCOV" is nothing more than a routine stats page for the footballer. This appeal can only be seen as a tendentious continuation of the bludgeoning at the AfD, a standard practice for this editor. The appellant's contribution history paints a picture of an SPA who is not here to write an encyclopedia. Owen× ☎ 11:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- >The newly discovered "SIGCOV" is nothing more than a routine stats page for the footballer.
- I disagree with you. The above source imho provides not only stats. The sport's biography facts of the player are presented in the source.
- >This appeal can only be seen as a tendentious continuation of the bludgeoning at the AfD, a standard practice for this editor.
- Again, I disagree with you ... this appeal has nothing to do with a tendentious continuation of the bludgeoning at the AfD. It's not your job to accuse me of "standard practices" and so on.
- >The appellant's contribution history paints a picture of an SPA who is not here to write an encyclopedia.
- It's not your job to accuse me of things like "an SPA who is not here to write an encyclopedia". In my honest opinion you have no business here.
- Kind Regards Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'll endorse this too. No error, of course, in closing the discussion - policy-based opinions were unanimously to delete - and while this single additional source might, barely, be considered significant, it's not independent, it's not of dissimilar character to what was in the article, and I don't think there was any reasonable chance for it to have affected the afd. —Cryptic 11:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse There's no error by the closer. User:Web-wiki-warrior is the only contributor who has made keep assertions in these processes. Deletion review is an inappropriate place to bring new evidence. On the merits, WP:SPORTSPERSON, created for exactly this situation requires at least one source which directly details. Nothing approaching that here. BusterD (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse (uninvolved). Consensus was correctly interpreted. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse and speedy close — this is clearly and obviously a totally deficient application on the facts. The new "source" does not even meet the threshold of being discussed as potentially SIGCOV, it clearly fails. Further, this editor has not notified the deleting administrator of this discussion as required by the procedures. This request for review should be speedy closed as a combination of clearly endorsed and procedurally unsound, in my opinion. Daniel (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree; a speedy close is well justified here. Owen× ☎ 18:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse and SALT - The appellant is offering a database entry as if it were significant coverage. DRV is not AFD round 3. (The AFD was AFD round 2.) The close was correct, which is the real issue at DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - I, personally, would prefer to leave this sort of filing open for seven days in order to pile on the filer, to use an American football term. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Disagree - no amount of 'pile on' is going to communicate a different message here. The applicant has significant IDHT-exhibited behaviours in previous situations (some of which are linked above), which renders a pile-on moot in terms of 'changing behaviours' or 'sending a clear message'. My view is we shouldn't waste any more time on this. Daniel (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- A pile-on rarely has much impact on an SPA, as they are not here to collaborate. But an AN/I case, with the goal of a topic ban, seems like a good choice, especially seeing the appellant's reaction above. An SPI case for the likely socks that materialized in this AfD would also be a good idea, and may eliminate the need for the other measures. Owen× ☎ 20:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- There's no need for a pile-on or an early closing, either one. —Cryptic 06:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Salt is not appropriate after a single violation, and we don't even have a single one. The fact is that a lot of the Wikipedia mandarins don't like sports articles, and a lot of the rank-and-file editors like them just fine. Nothing against policy is happening here on either side, just the ongoing slow erosion of editor participation by virtue of self-proclaimed beach purity guardians kicking down sandcastles that enthrall their creators. Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Look at Web-wiki-warrior's AfDs. They are all unanimously against keeping except for www. Don't make general railing about mistreatment of sports fans without looking at THIS current evidence. BusterD (talk) 10:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- You mean he hasn't been beaten down, given up, and gone away yet? It takes guts to be 1AM, although granted that not every stance taken is principled or sensible. Jclemens (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Look at Web-wiki-warrior's AfDs. They are all unanimously against keeping except for www. Don't make general railing about mistreatment of sports fans without looking at THIS current evidence. BusterD (talk) 10:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- This was a badly argued AfD and I don't think we're necessarily being very fair here, as a quick search in Cyrillic, narrowing down to his specific football club, brought up lots of recent coverage. Even though most of it was about his signing, he's a young player and is likely to receive coverage in the future as well. Not saying this is should have been a keep, not saying there's not potential character concerns here, just noting this would may been a lot closer AfD if sources were presented: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] SportingFlyer T·C 03:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Weak endorse as a correct reading of the consensus in the AFD but no salting as it is highly plausible that the subject will gain notability in the forseeable future. Shakhtar Donetsk is a major European club, and Mr. Savchenko is one of the few players on that team not to have a separate biography, although that can probably be somewhat justified by him not playing for them much, and being on loan to another club. The source provided in the DRV nomination here is insufficient, but as with SportingFlyer, I am open to the possibility that there are other sources in other languages that would be adequate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse (involved) but I oppose salting as there is a reasonable chance that Savchenko will meet GNG if and when his career takes off properly. The sources above do address the subject but not in a huge amount of detail so I don't think that there is any mistake made either by the closer nor the participants at AfD. Sources like this are basic transfer announcements and are not usually considered as significant coverage. The close was correct in line with the consensus from the participants. No prejudice against the article being recreated should the coverage of Savchenko increase. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse closure was correct. Supplied article does, IMO, count toward WP:N, but it's not enough to overcome that quite recent discussion. But per the above salting would be wrong-headed. Hobit (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Deleted page is suitable to describe another relevant organisation (not the one it was initially created for). "African Wild Dog Conservancy" was originally created for an US-based NGO and rightfully deleted after AfD discussion. The same organisational name however is also used in Namibia for a government gazetted conservation area. I propose that the page is used for the Namibian entity. My initial edit for this purpose was reversed, with reference to the deletion discussion. The page currently exists, but serves as a redirect to "African wild dog". If agreed, my edit of African Wild Dog Conservancy can be restored. Calidumpluviam (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |