Lowepro – Relist. Opinions are fairly evenly split here, and the fact that the DRV is longer than the original AfD is a good indication that this would benefit from additional discussion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Hi Spartaz. I do not see consensus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lowepro (2nd nomination) that "an article on a brand should be sourced to coverage of rhe brand not individual products to avoid OR". There is no original research in discussing in an article about a brand the products that make up that brand. There is no original research as the reviews say the products are part of the brand. Please revise your close from "delete" to "no consensus". Cunard (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. I don’t agree. You explicitly referred to GNG but the argument was that either NCORP applied or that this was a brand and an editor specifically raises the risk of OR. So either NCORP applied and this fell to be deleted as the standard for NCORP is higher or this was a brand and sourcing needed to be about the brand and not individual products, otherwise the article becomes Synth, which is a form of OR. SpartazHumbug! 23:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Properly deleted; Cunard's source analysis was critically flawed.
Cunard offered three sources, which I presume are the best sources for demonstrating notability.
1. "Just about every serious photographer in the world knows about Lowepro. Lowepro camera bags are sold in more than 60 countries. They have been lugged up Mount Everest and hiked into the Alaskan back country. And most of them came from an unimpressive warehouse on Guerneville Road in Santa Rosa. Lowepro is one of the biggest camera bag dealers in the world. Its parent company is based in Toronto, but since the early '90s, all of the design and distribution work has been done by about 25 employees based at the Lowepro headquarters in Santa Rosa."
This is puff writing from a very close perspective. Not independent. For coverage of a for-profit company and its product, I expect dispassionate distant-perspective writing. How does the author know the mind of every serious photographer? How does the author define "serious". How does the author know the company staff numbers since the 1990s, unless the author directly interacted with the company or its staff in writing this story?
2. "Backpackers and nature photographers have relied on Lowepro's versatile and rugged camera-bag systems for 30 years. The packs' hooks, loops and malleable partitions make them adaptable to any trip, and their nearly bulletproof nylon skins and cushioned compartments are both protective and lightweight - perfect for the trail or mountaintop."
Again, promotional puff. Not a chance that this was produced independently of the company or the company's promotional materials.
The writer's perspective is inside the head of the company, the writer knows the company's strategic manoeuvring to partner with a drone carrier, and this is a primary publication on it. The writing is puff promotion of the drones, and the company's packs and cases. Such excitement over the routine! In the 2nd paragraph it is giving price information and where to buy it from, with a quote from the CEO. Blatant non independent.
All three fail the GNG due to non-independence. Wikipedia does not want this material that is re-churned promotion.
Source searching from the AfD links reveals saturation promotion of the company products.
Overturn as the wrong standards were applied. Lowepro is a brand, not an organization. There are dozens of reviews for different Lowepro products on Google News, for example CNET, and Wired. While glowing reviews of a high-end product may look like puffery, that is not a guarantee of editorial non-independence. Page through the lists of Google News results for reviews in various photography, tech/geek, or other print media over the years (Wired link is from 2009), and it's clear that this is not a non-notable brand. Full disclosure: My wife has one of these. It lasted longer than her photography habit did. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More sources: NYT from 2003 and 1992. Does anyone seriously suggest that the NYT is going to review non-notable brands' products multiple times (You can go find the others easily with the links in the AfD) over four decades? Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 2003 article is promotion, and even contains explicit quotes from the vice president of the vendor company. If these brands are notable, why is it so hard to find independent comment on them? SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So anytime an RS quotes a company employee, it's automatically an advertorial? The reason you can't find independent comment on them is that anything that comments on them, even the New York Times, you are deeming to be non-independent and/or promotional. Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, afraid so. If the author of the article has gone to a company source for the material that they publish (product details, product description, product price), and what they write is all positive, and they include zero contextualisation that involves history or similar products, then yes, the article is the churning of promotional material and is not a suitable basis for an encyclopedic article. While it may be true that this reputable newspaper would only review Wikipedia-notable products, their articles, if they meet my description, are not GNG/NCORP compliant sources.
If the topic were notable, why is there not an article at Camera bag? This generic article would contain a list of notable camera bags. It would cover the history of camera bags, and the variation in styles. It would not be telescope-focused on one particular bad, based on sources that only describe that particular bag, in positive terms, before winding up to tell you how much and where from to buy it.
Compare Trousers, and Kidoriman the top hit for my google search for "buy trousers".
If Lowepro is a brand, why are the proffered notability-attesting sources reviews for their products as opposed to reviews of the brand? SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A brand is made up of products. Lowepro products, of various kinds, have been getting RS'ed reviews for decades, so while an individual well-reviewed product might well be notable, covering the brand makes far more sense per WP:NOTCATALOG. The premise that any quotation by an associated company official taints an otherwise RS coverage of this or any product smacks of anti-business bias. Sure, we don't want paid placements counting towards notability, but when they NYT is lumped in with them, I think you are making an untenable argument, or one that if applied consistently would result in other unhelpful outcomes. Why hasn't anyone profiled lowepro as a brand? Heck if I know. For all I do know, someone did, but none of us can find it among decades of glowing reviews for their products. Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens, I make no suggestion that NYT reviews are not RS-es, just that they may not be independent RS-es, as required by the GNG, and as emphasized by NCORP.
When you say "taints an otherwise RS", do we understand that we are talking *only* of compliance with the "independent" clause of the WP:GNG?
I am pretty sure I am not being stupid when I observe that these NYT etc single-product reviews have a distinct pro-product POV that smells strongly of non-independence. Compare this single product review with this this multi-product review. In one, the pros are calm and objective, and in the other they are over-the-top glowing. In each review, are the cons are things that will turn off some buyers, and are multiple brands are easily and fairly compared, or have you been cornered by a salesman?
Single-product reviews featuring company quotes and description, and unverifiable first-person personal-experience testaments, do not make for a good start to an WP:CORP article. In contrast, similarly-RS multi-brand reviews for a generic topic do make for a good start, and I have started one at camera bag. I have reviewed the references in the deleted article and decided that *none* of them are suitable references for Lowepro content at camera bag. In the context of a generic topic, they are obviously promotional.
A brand is made up of products? No. Products are a brand's output. A brand is made up of people, employees, customers and financiers, and it features a history and a reputation, and a brand values and manages its reputation, which includes establishing and managing relationships, including with NYT review writers. Inadequately disclosed influencer marketing is a thing, eg, and as disclosure is not mandatory, to protect Wikipedia from native advertising, if the publication does not declare independence from the brand, then Wikipedia should not assume they are independent. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, your terminology is more precise than mine was, and the issue is indeed of editorial independence rather than reliability as a whole.
While I grant that guerilla marketing is indeed a thing, and indeed something we need to protect Wikipedia from, the fact is that this brand has been around and covered in otherwise touchstone sources for four decades. In 1993, no one knew about SEO, because there wasn't really much of an Internet yet. I understand that you don't see it this way, but I view the conduct of the New York Times as a hallmark for what Wikipedia should emulate. I mean, we could use Consumer Reports if we want to arrive at impeccability rather than actual coverage, but Wikipedia independence should not be expected to exceed the usual and customary conduct of the internationally reputable press. Jclemens (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel a bit that I am fighting an honourably for the wrong side. I'll agree that the NYT review is a very reliable indicator of notability, and I agree that Lowepro is a notable brand worthy of inclusion. However, the article was terrible, and the AfD couldn't justify it, and the NYT reviews were not in the picture. The Cunnard-supplied three references are not GNG-compliant sources that are good to use to start off an article in the right direction. I have now reviewed the references in the deleted article:
1. Company's expansion announcement
2. Internal company document, headered "NOT FOR RELEASE" !!!
3. Company's own chronological history document.
4. Marketnews reference for company trademark registration, yet the link doesn't mention the company.
5. Another internal company document headered "NOT FOR RELEASE".
6. A broken link, referencing a promotional statement.
7. A CNET single product review. If you buy the product, the CNET editors "may get a commission".
8. Broken link, fixable, same as #7 but for a different single product review, again with the declaration: If you buy the product, the CNET editors "may get a commission".
As an example of how to establish a NCORP page, references 1-5 utterly fail, even G11-worthy. References 6-8, supporting the "Products" section, are not suitable sources because they are commission-generating single product reviews, not objective, no contextualisation with similar products and similar brands, and no history only recentism.
Textbook WP:TNT. My suggestion is to get quality sources into camera bag, including sources that mention Lowepro, amongst other brands, and leave it to later as to whether a WP:SPINOUT is justified.
Your NYT sources are better. However, they were not in the deleted article, and were not mentioned in the AfD, and so are not a basis to overturn. An advertisement for Lowpro was deleted, and properly so. This does not mean that a NCORP-complaint article can't be written. WP:TNT.
This is en excellent evaluation of sourcing. Great points, well made. But why? This DRV is turning into an AfD. HighKing++ 11:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think as I am uninvolved in the AfD, I have more leeway to analyse the participants’ analyses. The question at hand is whether the closer overreached in dismissing Cunard’s proffered sources, and the sources in the article are a big part of the picture. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
High-end product reviews, that are glowing, describe intimate personal experience, and contain not a word of historical or other brand contextualisation, and read like puffery, do create an undeniable feel of non-independence. The 2009 wired article is a personal testament and recommendation finishing with "This size costs $55, and is the baby of the range. There are two larger models, and the chest strap costs another $10 (plus the cost to your dignity)". It is standard advertorial. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. The closer gave inappropriately low weight to the keep !votes which gave good and policy-based reasons for the article to be retained. (Aside: Lowepro is absolutely notable in photography as a major gear brand. This isn't a contribution to the DRV as it would be a point appropriate to the AFD, but I'm quite surprised it managed to get deleted.) Stifle (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closing admin correctly identified the nub of the issue. If the Lowepro "brand" is, in fact, notable, then where are the references which discuss the "brand"? For those that point to an article that discusses "camera bags", just be aware that the "brand" appears to cover a lot more - for example, the website lists the current products (I assume there were others in the past that are no longer available) which includes 13 different types of "bags and backpacks" as well as Laptop/Tablet bags and drone cases. There are also 22 (yes 22) different "collections" on the website. The closing admin correctly identified that in the absence of reliable third-party sources discussing the brand in a way that met our guidelines and with enough in-depth independent content to enable an article on that topic, then the entire article is WP:OR and synth. It must also be noted that if we examine the sources as if the "brand" is a "company" (which makes sense in this case IMHO) then they all fail the criteria for establishing notability as discussed at the AfD. HighKing++ 12:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also wish to add that there are two Keep !voters, one of which is NemesisAT. It is notable that according to their AfD stats, Keep !votes are made 98% of the time but only matches consensus 62.3% of the time (compared to Cunard at a whopping 95.2% and my own at 88%). That is one of the lowest I've encountered (with the exception of Eastmain - another problematic AfD contributor with consensus at 55%) and strongly indicates that NemesisAT's participation at AfD is disruptive and with an ulterior motive or undisclosed agenda - put simply, editors who have participated in hundreds of AfDs and show stats that low clearly don't understand our policies and guidelines and shouldn't be !voting at AfDs at all. HighKing++ 12:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that while not particularly nasty or vitriolic, what you have just done is a textbook ad hominem argument, right? Jclemens (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The intent was to rebutt the opinion right above mine which claimed the closer gave an inappropriately low weight to the keep !votes. Don't see why a statistic on an editors !voting patterns could or even should be taken as ad hominen especially when it influences decisions at AfDs. HighKing++ 20:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's also inaccurate, firstly because the equivelant figure for HighKing is 84%, not 88%, and secondly as both figures ignore "no conesnsus" results. I'm also a bit miffed neither I nor @Eastmain: were pinged in this conversation. NemesisAT (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as per User:SmokeyJoe's analysis of User:Cunard's appeal. This appeal is a relitigation of the AFD. User:SmokeyJoe and User:Cunard appear to have entirely different concepts of what Wikipedia is meant to be for commercial products, but the closer and SmokeyJoe and Wikipedia policies and guidelines all appear to be looking at the same view. My own guess is that an article on Lowepro that is compliant with Wikipedia neutral point of view and other policies probably can be written and approved, but this was not it. Treat this as a Soft Delete, and allow submission of a new article, but relitigating the deleted article is the wrong answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Reviews of a company's products are not the significant coverage required to establish notability. I realize at least one of the sources provided in the AFD is not a review, but that is still not enough to establish notability. (For what it's worth, I disagree that the sources presented above are advertorial in nature or contain puffery.) Calidum 18:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I think I am seeing GNG compliant sources in the context of searches for camera bags. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and redirect (maybe a bad idea per replybelow) to Camera bag, and encourage creation of of the section Camera bag#Popular brands, to which content can be merged from the history behind the redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RFD would delete that redirect in a New York minute. Not only is it not mentioned at the target, we never redirect specific products, brand names, or company names to the article for the generic item they're selling. A section like you propose might possibly work if it were in an already well-developed and very well-maintained article; in a barely-watched stub like camera bag, it's just begging for spam. —Cryptic 23:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True. I can find lots of independent multi-brand review articles, so the section can be written. There are also many other camera bags with articles that can form a bluelink list. If the section is not written, draftify instead. I have just been reading through the references in the cached version of the deleted article, and while I read the corporate history as interesting, I am not impressed with any of the deleted article's references. So maybe I should say instead: Advise interested editors to add content to camera bag. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources 1 and 3 mentioned by Cunard in the AFD appear to be independent, and the coverage is significant. The fact that a journalist has read a press release, spoken to someone from a company, and possibly visited their premises, does not make that journalist non-independent. A journalist writing about businesses in their local area is likely to have researched the more important companies locally, including any with well known brands such as Lowepro. If there is a reason they don't contribute much to notability, it is WP:AUD, because they are local coverage. On the other hand, product reviews show that the company's products are of interest to a wider audience, and some may demonstrate notability - if they do, it would be more reasonable for any article based on this coverage to be about the company - the sources in the AFD are enough for WP:NOR and WP:GNG, just not WP:NCORP. A865 (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you planning to answer my question about what other accounts you have edited with? SpartazHumbug! 20:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on my talk page. A865 (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist If this AfD hadn't been relisted twice already, I'm fairly sure it would of been to try to find more consensus. However, no discussion of the AfD occurred until after the second relist, so I would treat this as an AfD with 0 relists, and per that fact relist once more to try to determine a consensus. JumpytooTalk 02:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on a second. The entire purpose when relisting is to generate further discussion in order to see if a consensus can be reached. So that happened. The 7 days from nomination had elapsed, multiple editors were involved and a consensus was reached to delete the article. What's your point again? HighKing++ 11:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a consensus was reached (two keep votes and two delete votes) is debateable which is why this discussion is taking place. NemesisAT (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I also do not see any sort of consensus in the AfD. The only vote before Cunard's was a WP:TNTeque vote which Cunard said he resolved, and the two votes after Cunard's were 1 keep and 1 delete. There is no consensus to delete over WP:TNT grounds, nor there was any consensus that Cunard's sources are not enough to show notability. JumpytooTalk 04:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
overturn to NC or relist no consensus was found for deletion. As noted, it seems to meet the GNG pretty easily and I don't think it needs to meet WP:CORP. And yes, the fact there was no discussion early probably justifies another relist. Hobit (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you doubt that it needs to meet NCORP? It is an actively trading and advertising for-profit company. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a company (at this point) it's a brand, yes? WP:CORP applies to organizations, not brands? I agree it's screwy, but IMO that's not close to the most screwy part of WP:CORP. Hobit (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It most definitely falls under WP:CORP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus or relist, because there very clearly wasn't any in that discussion. There is no agreement about whether NCORP applies (so there is nothing "most definitely" about it) but regardless of whether it does or it doesn't the only sources that matter are those about the topic of the article - so in this case the absence of coverage of the brand owner is completely irrelevant as that was not the topic of the article. Two people felt the article demonstrated notability, two people felt the article didn't, the arguments that it didn't were not significantly stronger than the arguments it did. Indeed given that topics that meet the GNG are notable regardless of what a subsidiary guideline of disputed relevance suggests I'd actually say the keep arguments were the stronger, but not so much that they had consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Astounding to hear multiple normally sensible editors doubt whether NCORP applies. Lowepro is a company (it is a manufacturing company, it makes photo bags and backpacks; in 2017 it was bought by Vitec) . The article described the company, using company documents, and described two of its products that are currently being advertised, with the references supporting the product content being to promotional sources.
WP:NCORP beings: "This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services ..."
How is that even ambiguous?
"Two people felt the article demonstrated notability". This is not true. Cunard did not argue anything based on the article as it was, but argued notability based on other sources not in the article (it was a fair argument rejected by the closer, and my analysis supports the closer's rejection, maybe the rejection was a bit supervotey). NemesisAT's feelings that Cunard had demonstrated notability makes no claim that they thought anything about the state of the article and its astoundingly poor sources (company documents).
At best, the keep !voters were arguing WP:TNT. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, you are right. I'd missed the "or any of its products and services". But that's utterly unreasonable. Every book, song, and sports team would fall "products and services". So that's another reason I have for thinking WP:CORP is a hot mess and should be depreciated. Hobit (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not unreasonable at all. Every book, song or sports-team than is featured in promotion, for profit, is a potential abuse of Wikipedia WP:NOTPROMOTION and should be treated with the stringency of WP:NCORP. Note that NCORP does not really introduce new hurdles, but emphasizes a black letter reading of the WP:GNG. It is laid out clearly at WP:SIRS. When push comes to shove, it consistently is borne out by consensus, that promotional commercial topics are not given leeway in passing the GNG. As per DGG (07:12, 31 January 2022) in the AfD: "[The article] is an advertisement". Every source in the article failed the GNG, unambiguously per the clarifications at NCORP. Leeway is appropriate for historical culturally significant books and songs, but not for latest releases being simultaneously advertised and written into Wikipedia. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have a WP:NBOOK. I think the folks that work on and use that would be shocked to learn that books need to also meet WP:NCORP. I'll go a step further and say that such a view would not have consensus. Hobit (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not very hard to see where a division between NBOOK and NCORP. Read them, read at least the nutshell and lead section (which you didn’t do for NCORP).
It the book historical, or the basis of a movie, or a cookbook, or an online contract freelance book writing product? NCORP should definitely apply if there is a current advertising budget.
Books may cross fields, but camera bags? In what way is a camera bag like a book? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two things: #1 I'm not seeing anything about "products" in the nutshell for NCORP. #2 My comment was the having NCORP include all "products" is overly broad and would reach far into other SNGs, including NBOOKS. Again, I think NBOOKS is controlling wrt books. I think most folks would agree with that, advertising budget or not. Hobit (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1 Logical “and”, means read both.
2 A topic is usually only expected to meet one SNG. If it meets NBOOK, it doesn’t matter if it doesn’t meet NCORP. And that’s just for indicating likelihood of passing at AfD, where the unltimate test is “consensus”, exactly as Thryduulf was saying.
Lowepro doesn’t meet NBOOK. The deleted page didn’t meet NCORP. Arguably, other sources may pass NCORP, but I suggesting adding coverage at camera bag. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that it doesn't matter whether NCORP applies, but no guideline is relevant to a discussion unless there is consensus that it does (otherwise someone could rock up to an AfD discussion about a church and argue for deletion because it doesn't meet PORNBIO or NFOOTY, which are arguments that nobody could refute). Based on similarly strong arguments an equal number of people argued that this topic is and is not notable - a textbook no consensus close. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I now need brain bleach after envisioning the AfDs for religious organizations where either SNG might also arguably apply. Jclemens (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SNGs tend to be permissive, you generally need one to permit the article, not all of them.
If a commercially sold camera bag company and two of its products are not covered by NCORP, then by what? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, whether it is covered by NCORP is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Thryduulf, it may be irrelevant to your argument that there wasn't any consensus in the AfD.
It is relevant in that "NCORP" featured heavily in the discussion, and here my input it that NCORP is definitely an applicable guideline to helping assess the notability of a brand of commercially-sold camera bags.
I think your input "Overturn to no consensus ... because there very clearly wasn't any in that discussion" is reasonable input,
but I think "There is no agreement about whether NCORP applies" is absurd and I think that we should reject this statement of yours.
You give a rationale "the only sources that matter are those about the topic of the article - so in this case the absence of coverage of the brand owner is completely irrelevant as that was not the topic of the article", but I struggle to make sense of that part. "the only sources that matter are those about the topic of the article" says nothing to NCORP, and what are you saying about the brand owner? The brand is owned by the company Lowepro, and Lowepro is now owned by Vinten (aka Vitec). Are you saying that NCORP doesn't apply because Vinten wasn't covered? The article covered a company and two of its products, and so WP:CORP definitely applies. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Interesting DRV. I think Spartaz got this absolutely right. Trying to distinguish this as a brand is critically flawed and nevertheless doesn't rebut Spartaz's either-or situation. In the alternative, if we assume this doesn't, then that would imply subsidiaries wouldn't fall under NCORP since they're owned by a parent company. Lowepro seemed to have unique employees as recently as at least 2011 if it doesn't now, appears to have started as a company, and any normal individual looking at their website wouldn't know they weren't their own company. That being said, this could be salvaged as a stand-alone article if additional sourcing is found.SportingFlyerT·C 20:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
