Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 November 10

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< November 9 Deletion review archives: 2008 November November 11 >

10 November 2008

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Aql.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Largest and longest established provider of its kind in the UK, leading the deployment of Geographic SMS numbers - I would not have considered this page to meet criteria for Speedy Deletion although agree it's content could be revised. AQL is a provider of messaging services to companies such as BT PLC in the UK and therefore is not insignificant in their contribution to the UK Telecoms industry.

78.86.109.169 (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd call that a G11 and possibly also an A7 myself. Endorse deletion, though you should of course feel free to write another version. I suggest looking at the featured article of the day (or another featured article) for an idea of what to try for. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've not seen the original page, just found a couple of broken links to it ... Emphasis on the importance of the company (and complying with A7) should be relatively simple. As for G11 I've not seen the original page, but I feel an article about it and it's history is as relevant as ones about companies such as Lumison and other such long-established ISPs/ITSPs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.109.169 (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: On 10 Nov, this nomination was briefly and partially overwritten by a malformed nomination of another page. This discussion has been restored. Rossami (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now had a chance to review the deleted versions of the page. The substantive content was added exclusively by user:Aqlimited. That user has since been indef-blocked for conflict of interest and spamming of other articles. If you think that a proper encyclopedia article could be created on this company which would demonstrate that it meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria, I recommend that you just be bold and do it. The page is not protected. I don't think the deleted history of the page will be much help to you in this case, though. The "references" provided in the deleted content did not actually substantiate the claims made in the article. This page is better started from scratch by people completely independent of the company. Rossami (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted Valid speedy on several grounds. I agree with Rossami, we'd want to see an article first before reinstating--there isn't enough here to make it probable that any of the versions of this could be adequately improved. DGG (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, the very definition of G11. Article started with an external link, and was full of advertising and puffery. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Suggest Redoing article from scratch, note that it's a new article (it can make things a lot harder for you if people think it's just the same old article resurfacing)...Camera123456 (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 article above. Please do not modify it.

Freebiejeebies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Correct version under discussion: User:Oscarthecat/Freebiejeebies

A well sourced and objective article 163.1.212.48 (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The site is highly notable and has been featured by T3 Magazine. All links will be on the deleted page. It is the largest site of its kind in the UK, and the largest equivalent in the US has a page at Gratis Internet. I think several individuals showed malicious intent in marking this page for deleted and it was not properly reviewed before deletion. Thanks. 163.1.212.48 (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have been open to suggestions from the very beginning. I believed the whole point of Wikipedia is for articles to be improved over time, not just deleted when a couple of users have an 'opinion' and decide to go for the most extreme option and delete it. If you restore the article then I can edit the tone as you suggest and hope this will calm things down. Simon2239 (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— Simon2239 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Why add this tag? I am new, of course I haven't written half of wikipedia yet!!! I created Coca cola christmas advert which has now been extensively improved by the community. Perhaps the way admins have treated that page is a lesson? Incidentally it was the same user that marked that page who also marked Freebiejeebies. Not a coincidence. Simon2239 (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just for the record, you did not in fact respond to suggestions that the article needed more sources; we discussed this on the talk page before it was removed, and you asserted there that the site is one of the largest of its kind, or even the largest (sorry, I don't remember your exact words) in the UK - which would certainly mean it's notable. So my suggestion would still be to find sources in addition to the T3 review of the site. It doesn't have to be online sources; a reference to an article or a review in a printed, reputable newspaper or magazine would also be fine. There were no such sources on the page the last time I saw it. It seems as if you have interpreted my comments as attacks on you, which wasn't my intention at all - I'm really sorry if I've come across as overly pushy. If I may make another suggestion, you could create the article on a sub-page of your user page, which would mean that you could work on it without worrying about othe editors and their intents. --Bonadea (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You marked my page for Speedy deletion. That's pretty pushy! Before I could have time to so much as search google you'd had my page deleted! Completely ridiculous and unjustified, you could have managed the situation in a much more reasonable fashion. I am afraid that sourcing it as the largest is difficult in any way besides hit counts. I doubt listing the hit counts of every website of this type on the web to prove that point would win more support. Also, apparently massive independent forums are also not sufficient references. Simon2239 (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not having been part of these discussion I concur with Bonadea. The way to create articles, even the shortest of articles, is to ensure that they are cited from reliable sources. I am certain that no-one would be able to make a substantive objection to a neutrally written, well cited article, however imperfect, and that such an article, assuming that the topic is inherently notable, would be a useful addition. Part of the issue here was not only the article itself but the flurry of ill considered activity that surrounded it. Simon2239's belief about the point of Wikipedia is correct. However this process is to review the actual deletion, not discuss philosophy. As one of the proposers of speedy deletion I can say clearly that I would not have proposed it had it appeared to me to be anything other than an advert. I am happy to be swayed by a new article, which I suggest be drafted in userspace pending whatever is the usual procedure to move such a draft over the SALTed article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My article is on a single website, not the history of the White House! I was happy that sourcing a reference from an international magazine and a large forum community dedicated to websites such as this would be more than enough to satisfy. Certainly if the article Had been about the history of the White House, then slightly more references would be required. There are undoubtedly plenty of other articles with less references that have no such deletion orders. Simon2239 (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am responsible for the last two speedy deletions of the article and the WP:SALTing to prevent repeated future recreations. (it had previously been speedy deleted many times previously). Doesn't appear to be notable ("highly notable" above-why?). Appears to be merely an advertisement. Sources offered are either lacking (don't mention freebiejeebies) or are merely forums, failing WP:RS. I stand by my decision to remove the article as it stood. Perhaps an AFD would have helped, although I'd be quite suprised to find it surviving such a discussion. --Oscarthecat (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am new to wikipedia, don't expect me to know SALTs from AFDs from WP:RS from 'notability' in the non-dictionary sense. I believe a point blank deletion was quite out of order. Where a similar page exists and has similar content I don't think deleting the page was justified. Your comment ignores the international magazine publishing and I do not reference freebiejeebies as a source for integrity.Simon2239 (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also please note that the 'cache' appears to be a much older version of the page, which I would have agreed required deleting. I don't know how wikipedia works well enough to know if everyone can see the version that I wrote which was deleted?Simon2239 (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'veposted the version that was deleted at User:Oscarthecat/Freebiejeebies if that helps. --Oscarthecat (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Simon2239 (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding this point, you should also read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The purpose of this DRV is to judge if the right process was followed to arrive at the deletion decision, it isn't supposed to be a re-run of the arguments that lead to the deletion. You are either arguing to overturn the deletion, have the article restored then listed at, say, WP:AFD for a thorough review or to endorse the decision. Reading the deletion criteria and the original article leads me to the conclusion that the criteria were correctly applied - hence I'm endorsing the decision. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 22:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I certainly do not believe it met the criteria for speedy deletion. It has one good source and I believe was relatively balanced in its representation. I do not have a problem with it being reviewed and altered, but believe it should be re-instated for discussion ie. the speedy deletion decision should be overturned in favour of a much more open approach. Simon2239 (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to have to go for an overturn on this one, and send to AFD. The article had some level of balance in its coverage (therefore not G11), and Simon2239 presents some valid assertions of notability (defeating an A7). The article stands a chance, although perhaps not a very good one; let's give it that chance. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn followed by immediate send to AfD for a full discussion and formal consensus on the rationale for or against deletion. After a lot of thought I can understand Simon2239's objections to the deletion. I think a spirit of fair play is required to be shown. It also gives him a chance to enhance the article to demonstrate within it the notability he asserts so eloquently. While I still view it as an advert, I feel it is worth letting it take its chance. I do not feel that the deletions were incorrect, I simply see a need to let a wider consensus take shape. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Endorse (Per request below) - The draft user namespace article now listed at the top of the article overcomes the G11 reasons for speedy deletion and no other speedy deletion reasons apply. - Fairly clear G11 deletion. Most of the article was made up of: "You need to sign up for one of their offers," "you need to distribute to others", "You need to read the terms and conditions and ensure you adhere to them,", "Currently the free gifts available are £100 Amazon.co.uk vouchers, £200 Amazon.co.uk vouchers, £500 Amazon.co.uk vouchers, Xbox Games, (etc.)", "You will need to get the required number of people to sign up", "If you wish to become involved click this". -- Suntag ☼ 02:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC) -- Suntag ☼ 16:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try not to be so snippy. Like all Wikipedia deletion discussions, the topic and any modifications to the topic are listed at the top of the discussion. The DRV request was to comment on the deleted article, which I did. After my post, you added the link to the draft user namespace article to the top of the discussion. -- Suntag ☼ 16:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Barack-obama-mother.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)|IfD)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise closed this IFD discussion even though there were multiple objections to deletion and no consensus to delete - a violation of the cirteria for closing the discussion set out on the project page. The same user then deleted the image under discussion. I believe the image should be restored pending the proper conclusion of the discussion. 86.166.86.153 (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the case at all. The discussion clearly shows consensus that the image satisfies nine of the ten requirement under NFCC. The only debate in the discussion is whether the subject of the picture satisfies the significance requirement, and on that point there is no clear consensus in the debate. And the discussion there does not concern the significance of the individuals (which nobody disputes), but of the particular individual moment the picture illustrates, which is irrelevant because the picture stands as an illustration for Obama's childhood in general. 86.166.86.153 (talk) 09:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The question, which has not yet been resolved, is whether the photos are significant enough to warrant their use. There are no free equivalents, etc.... So point #8 is still unresolved (even if I think the photo meets this requirement easily). -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 09:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really feel it would be very helpful for me to comment on the close, as I'm not very familiar with the NFCC myself, but I would like to note that I am attempting to contact Obama (or more likely someone from his campaign) through Flickr currently to see if we can get that photo for free or get something else free that would serve the same purpose. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't gotten a response, that appears to be a bust. Anyone else wanna' give it a go? lifebaka++ 00:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - That was the largest collection of WP:ILIKEIT arguments ever. This ifd should be used from now on as the best example of how admins should judge ifd decisions: Taking into account policy-related arguments and ignoring the head count. None of the 33 keep votes had any substantial policy-relevant argument, and Fut.Perf decision is uncontroversial. --Damiens.rf 16:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whatever you think of the other 32 keep votes, I ask that you do not characterise my vote in this way: my argument was that the picture provided an irreplaceable resource, i.e. that there was no free equivalent and that it was highly significant (criteria 1 and 8). I'm not saying that you have to overturn everything for my statement alone (especially as others mentioned ways in which this might be replaceable), but please don't see mine as an ILIKEIT. Nyttend (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would like to note how interestingly 86.166.86.153 (talk · contribs) only warned users that voted "keep" about this review. --Damiens.rf 16:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing admin's rationale. Here's my breakdown of the different kinds of keep votes:
    • Nyttend and numerous later voters who chimed in with more or less sterotyped repetition of the same argument (calyponte, 98.212.98.26, Ryanaxp, 84.149.245.150, Bellagio99, Cabiehl): argued that the image shows something about the "connection between mother and son". Like Nil Einne, who refuted this argument, I can't follow this, at all. What, specifically, is the image showing? That she didn't perpetually frown at him or beat him every minute of the day? That she could smile at him even though he was black and she was white? The way this mother is holding her child and smiling at him looks precisely like any other young mother holding any other small child in some cheerful moment in all this wide world. The idea that this one image lets us understand something specific and non-trivial about their mother-child relationship or the way he grew up is preposterous.
    • Pmbcomm, FlyingToaster, 82.1.151.34, Mareino said it was unlikely anybody would claim rights to the photo. That's quite implausible, the photo is quite obviously copyrighted, and evidently valuable at this moment, both emotionally, one supposes (for Obama's family), and commercially (for journalists), so yes, you betcha people will care about who publishes it and how. If somebody claims Obama released it for anybody to use for any purpose, then we need to see a specific license saying so.
    • Numerous other votes that just claimed the persons and their relationship were notable, not that the image conveyed crucial information about them (153.108.64.1, missy1234, 71.236.242.245)
    • Votes that argued the symbolic value of the image, in its very commonness and unspecificity, rather than any concrete crucial information conveyed (77.31.194.107, Editsometimes, 207.127.241.2, 12.214.34.206, EconomistBR)
    • Votes that were nothing more than ILIKEIT (Proyster, 68.196.57.204, 201.240.56.251, 70.153.125.126
    • Aeon17x and Unak78 pointed to the precedent of another Obama childhood photo, but didn't specify what this image added over and above the other one that was kept
    • Votes that consisted just of a rehashing of stereotyped catchphrases of fair use rationales, without specifying how the whole set of NFCC was met (Richardrj, KoshVorlon, 153.108.64.1, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
    • One vote that claimed the image was valuable for assessing some conspiracy theory about Obama not really being Obama. Aside from the inherent absurdity, we don't keep non-free images for enabling WP:OR.
Well, sorry, for me all of this doesn't make for a well-informed policy-based consensus. The delete votes were clearly better argued and more coherent. I haven't even started to check how many of the keep voters were socks/meatpuppets/fly-by anons/double voters et cetera. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so which of the NFCC conditions does this violate? The only argument the deletionists have put forward is a variation on 8 - that the image is not significant enough to warrant its use. Coincidentally, that's the condition that's the most open to interpretation. The "ILIKEIT" crowd, as you describe them, seemed to be trying to give justification to its significance (8). I would have at least asked for justification on this point before deleting. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 09:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S.: As Damiens.rf has found out in the meantime, there was also external canvassing, on Digg, apparently initiated by Aeon17x (talk · contribs), who is hereby officially troutslapped. [1] That obviously explains the sudden influx of clueless IP voters, and justifies all the more my decision to disregard most of their opinions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not that this justifies it, but that appears to have attracted little attention. If offsite canvassing is the reason for the high turnout, I believe there's likely more of it out there. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I highly doubt it had any effect too. When I posted it back there I thought Digg had an error since I couldn't find it in the queue. Turns out, it showed up in the second page of upcoming news. At 3 AM. Yeah.
As far as I'm concerned I'm going with what the admin called here, as it stands there really is a lot of other pictures that can represent Obama, Obama's mother or his childhood with much less drama and policy involved. --Aeon17x (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there aren't. But if you find one, please share! 153.108.64.1 (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This one and this one depicts Obama's mother side of the family. --Aeon17x (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Several problems there. Firstly, none of those are free images. So the same arguments can be made against those photos. Secondly, Obama is older in the image you link to - this photo is the only one of him at a younger age. Thirdly, Ann is not very recognizable in the photo of her with Obama (sunglasses obscure her eyes). A recognizble photo of her is not unreasonable in an article about Obama's early life; however, the second photo does not contain any image of Obama (and thus is less appropriate for an article about Obama).-- Gaius Octavius | Talk 09:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • That's just your opinion, and mine is different. Both our opinions on the material are broadly irrelevant to a DRV. The consensus of the AfD was that it should be deleted and the admin correctly identified this consensus. Hence the deletion should stand. There can be no policy violation of NFCC in deleting an image anyway. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 09:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not mention my opinion on the material. It is a simple statement of fact that only NFCC#8 was raised in the discussion as a reason for deletion, and there was no clear consensus in the debate that the image breached NFCC#8. I think the lack of consensus is clear in the admin's closing comment ("Arguments by Danny, Calliopejen, Howcheng and others carry the day here"). That statement indicates the admin simply decided which side of the discussion he personally found more convincing, not what the consensus was. Is it the remit of an administrator to adjudicate in such a way? Furthermore, the admin has now listed above a number of reasons that he believes the picture violates NFCC (that is a copyrighted commercially valuable image). None of these were raised against the image in the debate, there was no consensus on them in the debate, there is just that admin's personal opinion. So it is clear that his decision to close the debate and delete the image was not based on the debate, but on his personal opinion as to whether the picture violates NFCC. So, the deletion was not the result of the IfD discussion, as the admin responsible has made clear. The image was deleted in spite of that discussion. 86.166.86.153 (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies if I misinterpreted you. "It does not fail NFCC 1 or 2" sounded like an opinion. Writing, for example, "the AfD was clear that it did not fail NFCC 1 or 2" would have sounded more like a statement of fact I guess. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 09:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While there is debate about NFCC 8, which I address below, I don't see at all how 1 or 2 is violated. With respect to 1, if anyone has a free equivalent of this photo, please post it and the matter can be settled. Otherwise, it is rather pointless to say state that there exists a free equivalent without evidence to back it up. Condition 2 argues that posting this photo will destroy a commercial opportunity. I'm not aware that the Obama camp was licensing this photo and don't believe it ever would. So that's really a moot point as well. But prove me wrong! Otherwise, there is no legal or fair use argument against the photo; the only debate point is whether the photo adds enough to the article to outweigh philosophical opposition to its use. I feel it does, for several important reasons, as described below. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 09:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. When the balance of "votes" in a deletion discussion is close (after discounting, if necessary, canvassed, very new, and unregistered users), the closing admin is within his rights to grant greater weight to arguments which expound a policy-based reason for deletion or keeping. In this case, nobody successfully made out a reason why the image met all of the non-free content criteria, or specifically #8. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reinstate Photo. The photo meets all the criteria for fair use (low res, doesn't decrease value, etc...) The only argument against the photo (at all) is that of significance (#8): "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Although "signficantly increase" is a term open to debate, I believe the following reasons justify the photo's value:
  • Firstly, the photo is an image of Barack Obama at a young age. The article is about the early life of Barack Obama. Hence, in an article about Obama's youth, this image contributes strongly to the subject matter at hand.
  • Secondly, there is only one other photo of Obama in the article. In that photo, Obama is 11 years old. In an article about Obama's early life, it is not unreasonable to include an image of him at a younger age as well.
  • Thirdly, the current (and only) photo is of Obama with his father, who was a much less relevant individual to Obama than his mother. As Obama grew up in a single parent household, showing him with his single parent is also illustrative of this fact. Yes, the photo is beautiful and touching, but that doesn't discredit it from being valuable or contibuting. A picture is worth a thousand words, after all.
  • Additionally, it worth adding that discussion on the subject was hardly complete when the image was deleted. Given the signifcance of the subject matter, more debate should have taken place prior to deletion. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 15:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: On a seperate note, the admin in question (Future Perfect) has a history of rapidly deleting images that do not meet a his very strict interpretation of fair use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise. Can we at least have another admin look at whether the image is "significant"? -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 15:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You already get that via this DRV. Although Future Perfect is not barred from closing the DRV, it is unusual and the closer will almost certainly be a different admin who will base their decision on this discussion and the original AfD. Unusual? Quite TalkQu
Just to make this clear, of course I won't be the one to close this DRV, most definitely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, handily fails WP:NFCC as detailed in IfD and reasoned by administrator. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 03:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - IfD is simple. WP:NFCC justification must come from Wikipedia reliable source material, usually one or more reilable sources discussing the photo in question. Without using Wikipedia reliable source material to justify a image under WP:NFCC, the keep arguments amount to nothing more than the subjective, perhaps original research, opinions of Wikipedia editors. I did not see anyone at the IfD citing to a Wikipedia reliable source in support of keeping the image. The closer could not have close in any other way. If you really want to keep this photo, first, find some Wikipedia reliable sources discussing the photo and present those at DRV to see whether that new information might be enough to restore the image. -- Suntag ☼ 01:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NFCC 8 - No one has presented any Wikipedia reliable source material to establish that the images presence in the article would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. Editors have claimed that it would. However, editor subjective opinions are like noses - everyone has 'em. None of the statements you made in your 15:12, 11 November 2008 post above are sourced to a Wikipedia reliable source. None of that can be used in the article and, without text discussing the photo, the photo has no text content justification for being in the article. If you list in this DRV discussion the Wikipedia reliable source material discussing the photo, then there may be a basis in that source material to meet the requirements NFCC 8. (P.S. If you have an external link to the photo, then perhaps I can find some reliable sources discussing it.) -- Suntag ☼ 18:07, 14 November 2008 (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/2008_November_10&oldid=1138433774"