Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 April 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2014 April 12
2014 April 14 >

13 April 2014[edit]

  • OpEdNews – Deletion endorsed. I will be happy to userfy this article for any experienced editor without a conflict of interest who wishes to put together a draft. – IronGargoyle (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The userfied version is at User:S Marshall/OpEdNews, which anyone interested is welcome to help me edit.—S Marshall T/C 15:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
OpEdNews (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Robkall has asked me on my talk page what the procedure is to appeal the deletion of OpEdNews, and in an attempt to be helpful I've agreed to begin this discussion on his behalf. As far as I can see the previous discussions we should be reviewing are:-

Strictly speaking, I should have contacted all these people before beginning the review. I hope it will be sufficient to ping them here and invite them to participate.

The sources that Robkall would like us to consider are:-

Arguably, these sources should be disregarded because they all pre-date the AfDs. But I think those AfDs were quite unsatisfactory, being full of sweeping assertions in the emphatic declarative and lacking in close examination of the sources, and I can't see any evidence that these sources were discussed at all. So I suggest that we can treat these sources as if they were new evidence.

Is this sufficient for us to allow an article with this title? —S Marshall T/C 18:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • could not see the Washington Post one, but the rest all seem to not be about opednews but mere passing mentions - even calling them trivial coverage would be stretching it. What can be said *about opednews* based on those beyond it existing? 93.158.40.76 (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Nothing has been presented to show notability or any references to build an article from, and Robkall has a definite conflict of interest here as the publisher of the site. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am grateful it has been done, I did not ask for the opening of a delete appeal, Thargor Orlando. I asked some questions to understand the process more. One of the people involved in the deletion opened it.

I have a lot more material and supporting arguments to present to whoever decides, but the document is being worked on by the nine senior editors at opednews.com. They can be seen on the masthead, at www.opednews.com/masthead. I expect we'll have the document in a day or two.

Also I don't understand why my edit, correcting the washingtonpost link, is not visible, unless I posted it wrong. Here is the link again.

  • revised Washingtonpost link: [1]

Robkall (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would be nice to get some more input on this. Robkall appears to be the publisher of the site, and Thargor Orlando is the initiator of all three previous deletion debates. I participated in the previous DRV, so the only fresh eyes we have on it so far are from 93.158.40.76.—S Marshall T/C 11:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Nothing wrong with the closure itself, but new sources certainly establish notability. The publication has been mentioned multiple times by reliable sources. Valoem talk contrib 13:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • We need more than a mention. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand these recommendations in terms of the most recent decision, so I think Thargor Orlando's "endorse" relates to AfD#2 (i.e. he wants the material to remain deleted) and Valoem's "overturn" also relates to AfD#2 (i.e. he wants the material to be un-deleted). Because there are multiple sources which are widely accepted as reliable, the case for deletion relies on defining all of the references as "passing mentions". If any source that passes as "significant coverage" can be found, then I would think that's decisive.—S Marshall T/C 16:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you point me to any defined standard of notablity for such items where the bar is so low as to be "mentioned multiple times by reliable sources" --86.2.216.5 (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse due to a lack of significant coverage. Also note that Rob Kall is the executive editor of OpEdNews. Wikipedia is not a tool for promotion. ThemFromSpace 17:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • More evidence for reversing the deletion My apologies for not knowing wikipedia formatting better.

Here is another citation: A local paper, Bucks County Courier Times has this article behind a paid firewall: Local site wants piece of online news market; Highly traveled Opednews joins ranks of growing Web news base. BY THERESA KATALINAS Title can be seen at the following link. These are not casual mentions: [2]

a similar article was published in the Bucks County Intelligencer. The archive link for the Intell lists that article and several other articles referencing Opednews. [3]

  • Here's a link to an article in thenation.com [4] which refers to a Zogby poll commissioned and published by Opednews.com. But it is spelled Op-Ed News.com The poll was reported in several articles, starting with this one [http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_rob_kall_060127_opednews_com_2f_zogby_.htm[. Back in 2006, Opednews was one of the first news websites to commission a full poll by a major pollster. The costs were crowd funded.
  • in another mention, in the Guardian, which just won the Pulitzer for public service articles, Opednews was also mentioned here [5]
  • In the deletion record, several criticisms were either not accurate or inadequately researched, presenting an incomplete or misleading case.. 1-OEN WAS mentioned in NYtimes, 2-There are numerous mentions in notable publications. One possible reason is that different people spell Opednews in different ways, including Op Ed News and Oped News. Another wikipedian said that OEN had no effect upon the web, but alexa lists over 5000 inbound links to Opednews.
  • Opednews is and has been indexed by google NEWS since 2003. It has met and maintained google News' criteria for indexing. Wikipedia reports that google news indexes about 4500 English language sites.
    A search of google news for OPEDNEWS shows this result: "About 2,250 results (0.20 seconds) I believe that only reflects the past 30 days news.

Substantially more information will be posted within 24 hours. It is being assembled and vetted by the volunteer editors I mentioned earlier Robkall (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The only one that shows anything remotely substantive is your local paper doing a local interest story on a local person. Not really the type of thing that reflects notability. That your site is indexed on Google isn't really much of anything. We need substantive pieces, not local mentions. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid the idea that notability requires national-level sources is erroneous. What notability requires that the sources be (a) reliable and (b) more than a passing mention.—S Marshall T/C 11:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't wait until the article about me hits Wikipedia because my local paper did two pieces on things I did. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting history and talk page be restored for discussion. Valoem talk contrib 23:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review, including the talk p. I've never understood why I am usually the only one doing this--it seems to me a minimal basis for a rational discussion--otherwise its only the interested parties pro and con who know what is being discussed, not the previously uninvolved outsiders who are needed to resolve the matter. Even if one of the parties has already posted it elsewhere, there's often a elevant history (there is a reason for not making it automatic: there are some blp and copyvio exceptions) DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!
Robkall, I'd advise you userfy and add citations so we can have a look. I am familiar with your site and believe articles are subject to editorial review. The website is definitely notable and is often referenced by major publications. Valoem talk contrib 14:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Valoem thank you. Yes, we have an editorial queue where writers submit articles. Then, volunteer editors vet the articles. Some articles sail through, others receive feedback on how to make them better. Some editors will help people writing in English as a second language. A good example is [George Eliason] who is reporting from Kiev about developments in Ukraine.
Here are a few questions:
1- I don't understand "userfy" and can't find reference to it in a search of wikipedia. Can you explain?
2- I did a search for Deletion Review and nothing comes up. Is there a link so I can get to where the opednews deletion discussion is? (This is deletion review we are discussing your article) Valoem talk contrib 19:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3-can you give me more of an idea of what kind of citations?
4- (and this is not just for Valoem) one of the occasions of thargor orlando attacking opednews was here where there was a [discussion of an article by Dennis Kucinich ] Thargor Orlando questioned the authenticity of the article cited. Dennis Kucinich is a supporter of a opednews and a subscriber to the daily enewsletter (which has over 28,000 subscribers) I'm certain he or his former communications director can confirm that Opednews was authorized and encouraged to publish his words. I've had him on my radio show numerous times and hear from him every now and then when he likes something we've published. Robkall (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article's history is available online now. I'll userfy it for you. It is here User:Robkall/OpEdNews. Revise the article with sources use this format for citations: <ref>{{cite web|url= |title= |publisher= |author= |date= |accessdate= }}</ref> (Just add what criteria you can, you do not have to fill each requirement). I would recommend adding some book citations using <ref>{{cite book|last= |first= |date= |title= |url= |publisher= |isbn= |accessdate= }}</ref>. Because you are a conflict of interest editor you should have a separate set of eyes review it. Valoem talk contrib 19:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the research tools on your talk page. Use what I linked to find sources. I found plenty of RS and books that reference your website. Valoem talk contrib 19:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this following list this afternoon and just noticed, Valoem, that you'd posted more info. I'll get on it but wanted to put these up for now. Thanks again for your help.

  • Citings/mentions of Opednews on conservative sites with pages on wikipedia
[Breitbart.com]
[Townhall.com]
[FoxNews.com] spelling it Oped News
[RedState.com]
[newsmax.com], and [another newsmax.com]
This one in Dailycaller.com quotes a Democratic Senator from Wisconsin thanking opednews [Dailycaller.com]
[FreeRepublic.com]Robkall (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had said I'd post more information within 24 hours. It appears I need to post, with formatting to the resurrected, temporary opednews page. That will take more time than I can give tonight. So, just for the record, I am pasting the information here, to, so to speak, put it on the table.
-OpEdNews (OEN) has published more than 90,000 articles since 2005, by thousands of writers in over 30 countries, including Nepal, Syria, Egypt, Burma/Myanmar, Mexico, Canada, Pakistan, India, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Mexico, Cuba, Ukraine, China, and much of Europe.
-Google Analytics reports that OEN is visited by people from over 180 nations and territories
-OEN's monthly traffic ranges from 200,000 - 800,000 unique visitors per month, according to Google analytics.
-OEN has a dedicated team of more than 30 volunteer editors.
-OEN appears as the top unpaid result when Googling Liberal News or Progressive Opinion and it has for over two years.
-OEN uses a custom-built proprietary content management system with highly advanced functions for multiple levels of editors. It is designed so that all submissions receive notification of acceptance or rejection -- something rare for news websites. The site has many other unique features, including tools to make it easier to find and attribute creative commons images, poll creation, WYSIWYG content submission system that allows writers to submit directly to the site, popularity analysis based on page views, comments, Facebook shares, reader ratings, and more.
-OEN is one of a small number of news sites recommended on the front page of the Huffington Post.
-OEN is one of a small number of sites tapped by Project Censored's "DailyCensored" website for daily content.
-Both OEN and Editor-in-Chief, Rob Kall, were awarded the 2013 Pillar Human Rights Award (New Media Category) for community activism and journalism at the 2013 National Whistleblowers conference.
-OEN has published hundreds of podcasts and scores of transcripts of exclusive interviews by OEN Editor-in-Chief Rob Kall, with notable personalities, many with personal Wikipedia pages. Interviewees include Senators Bernie Sanders, Arlen Spector, Byron Dorgan, Mike Gravel; numerous members of the House of Representatives, including Dennis Kucinich, Robert Wexler and John Conyers; Corporate innovators like Arianna Huffington, Craig Newmark (Craigslist,) Robin Chase (Zipcars); thought leaders, such as Jean Houston, Joseph Nye, Anne Marie Slaughter, Clay Shirky, Douglas Rushkoff; whistleblowers and their allies, including Daniel Ellsberg, Glenn Greenwald, Thomas Drake, Christopher Pyle (Church Committee), and leading scientists, like Frans De Waal.
-OEN, like most progressive news and opinion websites, is critical of much of Israel's policy toward Palestinians. OEN employs strict policies prohibiting anti-Semitism and bigotry of all kinds. OEN is progressive and opposes right-wing, authoritarian policies which undermine human rights. OEN's coverage of Israel is fair, as evidenced by our efforts to publish both Israeli and Palestinian contributors.
-OEN receives article submissions that could be considered conspiracy theories, as do other news and opinion web sites. Over the years we have shaped and refined our policies for dealing with such submissions. As a result, OpEdNews maintains a strict policy of not publishing conspiracy theory submissions, described in our FAQ at www.opednews.com/faq.
-OEN has the endorsement of numerous leading personalities who are featured on the Wiki, including Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Greg Palast, Naomi Klein, Thom Hartmann, and David Swanson. Below is a sampling of their sentiments toward OEN:
Senator Bernie Sanders: "I think you guys do a great job. One of the issues we didn't touch upon is a situation which is becoming worse, and that is corporate control over the media: fewer and fewer large conglomerates controlling what we see here or read. So if ordinary people are going to get a different point of view, a point of view which reflects the needs of the middle class and working families, to an increasing degree that we are going to have to go the progressive media. You guys do a great job, and I appreciate what you do."
Greg Palast: "OpEdNews is where you get the real thing. It's not just progressive opinion. It's the hard, cold truth, the real facts. If you don't listen to Bob Kall, if you don't read OpEdNews, then you don't know what the hell is happening in American you don't know what's happening to you. This is our weapon of mass instruction. Read it top to bottom or you just don't know what's going on."
Naomi Klein: "I think you guys are fantastic and yeah, I read you all the time. And I appreciate the non-partisan nature of it. It's going to be more and more important to have real, critical alternative voices that aren't lined up behind a candidate."
Former Congressman Dennis Kucinich: "I'm always, I'm always grateful, Rob, for the work that you do because it's so important to give people information about what's happening so that they can make decisions about their own world based on the best information."
David Swanson: "OpEdNews is unique in providing new reporting, opinion, discussion, and community from an independent progressive perspective. The internet would be greatly impoverished without it. The world would be greatly enriched if everyone would make it part of their routine."
Thom Hartmann: "OpEdNews has grown to become one of the most influential alternative internet media sites. Between original articles and links to diverse media all over the world, it is a highly useful source we use, at our program, to research current events and perspectives. It brings depth and an unusually broad range of coverage to what is going on the world, going beyond the usual political realm into culture, science, business, arts and living. OpEdNews' founder and director, Rob Kall, is a creative, brilliant innovator who I have had the pleasure to interact with on several projects on and off the web. He is a master at bringing together the best people in ways that take the goals of the project to the next level."
  • Details on the Opednews content management system:
Opednews was started as a personal blog by Rob Kall, running on Microsoft's FrontPage website creation software. But in 2005 was switched to a proprietary Content management system developed with significant input from the volunteer editor team, as a private project of Rob Kall, working as site co-architect with co-architect and coder Vidya. Many of the features have been developed to raise the quality of the journalism and the community of the site, which now has over 70,000 registered members. Features include:
-high level, powerful back end control panel for administrators
-five levels of editor.admin/sysadmin controls,
-a volunteer sign-up, profile and mentor assignment system
-newsletter creation software that pulls new content not sent out in previous newsletters, prioritized based on how it was headlined, designed to be integrated with third party bulk-emailing services or done in-house
-content submission queue with powerful editing and publishing tools that show editors submitter bio, word count, image inclusion,
-content acceptance rejection/acceptance system with over 20 form letter acceptance and rejection emails (too short, formatting problems, not a good fit, needs revision, promotional, does not meet writing standards, etc.,) some editable, so all submissions get responses
-Think-twice word-tracking system detects words that editors feel have been overused, and suggests that they be replaced by less hackneyed and abused
-content editing, headlining and management icons and tools viewable and accessible only by editors
-content statistics, popularity analysis based on page views, comments, shares, likes, tweets, tell-a-friend email sends and more.
-Front page options: editor curated, popularity based, tabular
-group creation by members
-a unique commenting system with member flagging,
-internal member messaging system,
-poll creation with cross-tab demographic analysis of poll questions
-a unique collection of tools for image and video sourcing, inclusion, posting and management
-front page image standardization coding and user cropping tools so the front page has uniform size and shape images
-a WYSIWYG article submission system that enables members to submit content directly to the site, specifying whether it is exclusive or not,
-a premium membership system with three levels with expanding benefits
-a versatile headlining system
-a unique tagging and directory system
-threaded member commenting
-article series tool
-personalized member/author pages that are associated with the content and comments they submit
-unique quotation database software designed for user submissions and bulk uploads
-a powerful member and editor reputation scoring and tracking system
-hack and malware prevention security tools
-tools for bulk detection and banning of spammers
-petition creation and sharing software
-FAQ creation and editing tools for editors
-RSS feeds for varying levels of content including tags, authors, directory levels,
-tracking of article changes/revisions
-member Bio and pseudonym minimal requirement notification and revision tools
-blocking of banned IP addresses (usually commercial spammers and site rule violators)
-to-do list control panel with prioritization
-content syndication widget for use by other websites
-quicklink or full article grab browser toolbar widget for making it easy to link to or reprint articles from other sites
-integration of social media share buttons and APIs from Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, Stumbleupon
These features add up to make the content management system that Opednews uses among the more powerful and versatile on the web.
I apologize for my inability to properly format. I wanted to get these up because I was given the impression time is of the essence. Tomorrow I will work at adding this info, if it is appropriate, to the temporary Opednews page that has been resurrected.Robkall (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you provided are just quoting or referencing OpEdNews. None of them are offering substantial commentary on the website itself. Passing mentions do not qualify towards the "significant coverage" provision of the relevant notability guidelines (WP:N and WP:WEB).
If you want to reinstate the article you will need to show that OpEdNews has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. A well-respected magazine or a newspaper describing OpEdNews in detail (at least a few paragraphs of space talking solely about the website itself) would count towards significant coverage. If two well-respected sources do this then consensus may swing in your favor. The more sources you can provide that cover OpEdNews in detail the more likely the article will be reinstated. ThemFromSpace 01:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, as far as I'm aware "at least a few paragraphs of space talking solely about" is not a phrase that appears in any of our notability criteria.

    I think the trouble we have with notability is that we've lost sight of its purpose. When I joined this encyclopaedia, notability was a tool for detecting and removing marketing material. At that time it was a necessary rule whose purpose I understood: there are lots of good reasons why Wikipedia is attractive to those who want to promote their pet project, and we need a simple and drama-free way of dealing with those people. It's not actually an encyclopaedic concept at all (you can bet that the editors of other encyclopaedias don't waste any breath on notability!)----it developed because of Wikipedia's openness to anyone.

    From these origins, notability has now mutated into something entirely different. Notability now appears to mean "A worthy subject about which we have decided to permit you to write some content." It's so important to Wiki-culture nowadays, and there are now so many rules about notability (each of which was written by a small committee of people with conflicting agendas) that we can't even keep track of all the rules people keep making, and in the last couple of years DRV has largely stopped bothering to look at the specific notability guidelines. (If you're interested, the one that applies to this article is Wikipedia:Notability (web), but the test DRV will apply is the general notability guideline.) And notability is enforced by a self-appointed article police. We do need these article police, because spammers are clever and someone's got to stop them or our encyclopaedia fills up with crap until it's totally useless, but, well, let's just say that the fact that we have a rule doesn't mean it's always in the encyclopaedia's best interests to enforce it strictly on every occasion. I think it would be better if more editorial discretion and judgment could be shown.

    But it won't be; Wikipedia is what it is. Considering the preceding debate and the strength of opinion that's being shown, and considering that we don't have evidence that OpEdNews passes the strict notability criteria as written, I now feel that a separate article isn't the best outcome for the encyclopaedia. But even if it isn't notable, to suggest that an award-winning site that publishes articles by US senators shouldn't be covered by Wikipedia at all is bizarre. Can we agree that the site doesn't get a standalone article but should become a redirect and should receive a paragraph in some alternative article such as Political blog#United States, so that at least someone that reads a post by some dignitary and types "OpEdNews" into the search box gets something more helpful than a redlink?—S Marshall T/C 10:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On your first point: I realise I wasn't quoting policy (that's been done enough times in this discussion and the prior AfDs). I was trying to explain in layman's terms how things generally work around here to someone who may be confused. What I said generally sums up what is expected to pass notability, (exceptions aside). A few paragraphs of space is usually the minimum I accept for a source to demonstrate significant coverage.
With regards to your point about the policing of notability guidelines, I remain of the opinion that this article isn't helping out our cause. I still feel that, generally, our standards for inclusion of small companies and websites is too lax and that our notability guidelines are our best defense (however flawed) against being run over by a myriad of unimportant, trivial articles. I agree with you that discretion and editorial judgement is needed on borderline cases. But as I feel that our guidelines are generally applied too weakly I don't see this as being anything close to a borderline case. ThemFromSpace 14:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few things I've been holding back from bringing up.

One is the fact that last year, beginning in the spring, a group of former members of the site who were banned for various reasons began posting very hostile attacking messages about Opednews. They started sending messages to a group of current and past editors and began posting attacking, untrue statements on various websites. It was about that time that the question of delisting Opednews seemed to raise it's head. I trusted that the wikipedia system would work and that someone or multiple people with bad intentions would not be able to cause a page that had been up for several years to be taken down. I bring this up because you mention that "Strength of opinion." And you are talking about two people. I can't tell if either of the people opposing are among the malcontents from Opednews. To get an idea of what I am talking about, do a google search here: site:OliveBiodiesel.com opednews .

Over 200,000 people a month visit Opednews. 5000 websites link in to it. Senators and members of congress have their staffers post articles to the site. Thousands of people from scores of countries have submitted articles that have been published by the site. Over thirty volunteer editors put in time working on the site article queue and policies. Google lists over 1400 BOOKS that reference Opednews. But that's not enough?

Here's the second reason, which I actually wrote a few days ago. Given your thoughtful discussion of wikipedia policy on notability, I think it applies.
I have to say that this re-opened discussion is both encouraging and discouraging-- encouraging because it is clear there are people working with good faith and good intentions here. But the other side, that's discouraging, is that Opednews is an alternative media site-- we routinely criticize the mainstream media for failing, or more realistically, intentionally not covering issues, people, organizations who/that stand up to the mainstream establishment narrative. By definition, alternative media are not given the attention or coverage by the kinds of sites that wikipedia notability requirements call for. In that way, wikipedia reinforces what James C. Scott has described in his book, Domination and the Arts of Resistance; Hidden Transcripts, as the [public transcript] and represses and sabotages the message of alternative media. I don't believe this is the intention of the policy and I believe that most wikipedians do not have that intention, but the result of requiring notability to be supported by mainstream media, and some, like thargor orlando appear to be attacking any sources that are not MSM, produces a result so that alternative media are treated as illegitimate-- which exactly what dominating powers would want. I am not accusing anyone of that intention, but it appears to be an unintended consequence that would bear close consideration so the "side-effect" can be avoided. Even attacking the content management system for not being as polished as a massive media site seems to be an ad hominem way to attack the organization. By nature, alternative media may choose not to use mass produced content management systems, like Wordpress, and should not be expected to be able to afford the biggest, most expensive, fancy ones. I apologize if this is an inappropriate place to raise this. And if it is inappropriate, is there a more appropriate place? Wikipedia is too powerful an entity to unintentionally prevent alternative media from being recognized because of a propensity for trust in top-down institutions. Robkall (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very, very much 'User:MichaelQSchmidt, User:Cunard and User:S Marshall. I am willing to work, under supervision, to get the page up to specs, and I realize that editing will be required to meet neutrality and verifiability policy. I am also happy to help document whatever is needing documentation. Robkall (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse and Userfy without prejudice to re-creation  Being included in Google News, and recommended by someone I view as the most famous independent politician in the country (Bernie Sanders), are strong indicators of notability.  On the other hand, searching on "OpEdNews" on a Wikipedia search reveals a bit of a Wikipedia disaster with this topic.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2014 (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/2014_April_13&oldid=1136459988"