From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2015 July 4
2015 July 6 >

5 July 2015

  • MattyBraps – Endorse but recreate. There's a weak consensus that the original AfD close was OK, but a much stronger consensus that given the new sources which have appeared since that time, recreation is warranted. Although not explicitly argued by anybody, it seems to me that WP:RECREATE could have been invoked to just recreate this with the new sources and skip the week of process-mongering here. In any case, no prejudice here against bringing the new version back to AfD if anybody feels the new sources don't go far enough. – -- RoySmith (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
MattyBraps ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The article failed to follow WP:MUSICBIO at the time of the deletion (March 7th, 2013).

Since the deletion of the MattyBRaps article in 2013, this young rap artist has gained quite a huge global following. He now averages 90 million views/month on his Youtube channel, is the #1 music artist in his age group, has appeared on numerous TV shows and news interviews, and recently performed at Race to Erase MS. I believe the aspiring artist deserves to have an article on Wikipedia, and that his deletion deserves to be reviewed. -- MichelleDson33 ( talk) 20:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse - Appears to be the same largely weak coverage as before; essentially "man bites dog" stories about a 10-yr-old rapping youtuber. Tarc ( talk) 12:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Restore - several of these in depth sources post-date the discussion, there's no way it could be applied now, and it was probably borked in the first place. The idea that he needs to meet a much higher standard than WP:N (articled in the AfD, and repeated by Tarc here) is foolish. For subjects with persistent, in depth coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, there's an onus to argue for deletion, beyond dismissing it with "There are only secondary sources because people find this entertainer entertaining". Wily D 16:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Restore - there was nothing wrong with the original AfD, and some of the sources being presented do look a bit passing in nature, but there does appear to be more coverage than before. As ever, if the article is still crap, we can always send it back to AfD. Black Kite (talk) 07:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Restore The original closure of the AFD as delete was ok to me, when I have a quick read through the AFD I think a consensus that the article just failed the notability guidelines then was a reasonable reading of the discussion, as there seemed to be some link bombing going on (although I would also not have supported overturning a no consensus closure). I also think the arguments raised in opening this deletion review do not do anything in demonstrating that the notability guidelines have been met. However Cunard has produced some significant coverage since the time of the AFD (I can't read the Vietnamese or Portuguese links, but The Daily Dot article looks to me to be significant coverage) so support restoring the article then these can be used to expand. Of course this does not prevent anyone from renominating at AFD after it is restored. Davewild ( talk) 17:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Francesco Schettino – Restore as stand-alone article. There's unanimous consensus here to undo the redirect. I'm going to back this up to just before the redirect was created. It looks like this will blow away some Authority control data. I don't know much about Authority control, so if somebody who knows about that stuff would patch it up properly, I'd appreciate it. – -- RoySmith (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Francesco Schettino ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

On June 5, 2015 an editor redirected the “ Francesco Schettino” (FS) biographic article (about 18K) from the English WP to " Costa Concordia disaster", apparently on the basis of a still-standing decision that had been made in 2012, then a consensus opinion [1]. The 2012 cdecision was based on 2013 on BLP1E: [2].

It should be noted that the BLP1E guidelines include this section: “In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate “ (my bolding).

Currently the “Costa Concordia disaster” article has grown to 188K, and anybody who wants to know something about FS has to read through this overly lengthy article and try finding relevant information. Much has been published about FS since 2012 invalidating the 2012 decision. Further, by redirecting the reader, information has been lost including material about his background and his legal defense. I submit that FS, based on extensive and ongoing coverage since 2012 should be covered in a biographic article. He is clearly noteworthy and more famous than the vast majority of contemporary people covered by WP. Importantly, there is a real demand by readers. Since the FS article has been removed, about 4,400 hits have been registered on Francesco Schettino in the last 4 weeks.

I believe that WP is doing a disservice to its readership by redirecting the biographic article to Costa Concordia disaster and request that the biographic article about FS should be reinstated. Ekem ( talk) 20:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Restore and relist at AfD. I compared the redirected version and the rewritten version. {{ db-repost}} clearly does not apply because the new article is roughly four times the size of the redirected version. The new version uses 24 sources compared to the nine in the redirected version. Ekem advances a reasonable argument about WP:BLP1E that should be discussed in another AfD. Cunard ( talk) 21:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Striking out "and relist at AfD" per WilyD below. I agree with WilyD's comment "optional AfD if someone actually wants it". Cunard ( talk) 05:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Restore. There is no doubt that this case is covered by the BLP1E exception that "the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one". The article will need updating, but it should survive AfD, and I am not convinced that automatic relisting is necessary. JohnCD ( talk) 10:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Restore as per JohnCD. Costa Concordia disaster is so large an article that Francesco Schettino can't be covered sufficiently within. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The AfD discussion appears clear, however, it was held in the few weeks following the event. Now that it is years, the subject is tried and convicted, and an historical perspective is available, it is appropriate to allow re-creation and optional retesting at AfD. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Restore - with optional AfD if someone actually wants it. It's clear he's been the subject of ongoing biographical coverage, (e.g., the CNN profile that's the 2nd new reference) and the discussion's outcome hinged on the (now demonstratably) false assumption there'd be no such on-going coverage. Wily D 14:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I think the most appropriate venue would have been the article talk page, but enforcing a redirect after so many intervening events is foolhardy. Stifle ( talk) 16:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Agree with Stifle that it would have been best if this had been discussed on the talk page first and only coming here if essential, but allow restoration with no prejudice to anyone renominating at AFD or holding a new merge/redirect discussion on the talk page. Davewild ( talk) 06:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Restore a clearly notable person with ongoing coverage. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 23:08, 7 July 2015 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Atomium 320 by 240 CCBY20 flickr Mike Cattell.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria, see User_talk:Penwhale#Atomium_image. 9carney ( talk) 19:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: Also relevant is the exchange between the nominator and とある白い猫 ( talk · contribs) here regarding this image:
    Extended content

    Please do not upload images of the Atomium as they were deleted before. Belgium does not have Freedom of Panorama and we cannot host files in this manner per Wikipedia:Non-free content. Also your claim of copyfraud is incorrect as Belgium law is binding in the United States in accordance with the Berne Convention as well as Uruguay Round Agreements Act. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 12:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

    A official summary of the Berne Convention can be found here
    Note particularly:
    (a) Works originating in one of the Contracting States (that is, works the author of which is a national of such a State or works first published in such a State) must be given the same protection in each of the other Contracting States as the latter grants to the works of its own nationals (principle of "national treatment") [1].
    The means that the copyright of a 2 dimensional work of an artist in Belgium would be honoured in the US because US law provides for copyright of 2 dimensional works. However, unlike Belgian law, US law does not grant rights over photographs of a building to its architect, so the Berne Convention does not confer any additional rights in this case. 9carney ( talk) 18:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply
    Unfortunately, the 3D work itself is copyrighted therefore taking a photo of it is problematic to begin with. Can you link me a single case law example where US FOP applies to a country without FOP? As far as Wikipedia is concerned it is fully copyrighted. As such it will be deleted no matter how many times you upload it. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
    Taking a photo of it is not problematic. The copyright law in Belgium does not restrict taking photos, it only governs their later use. There can be no case law regarding the building image in the US because the copyright doesn't apply there. In contrast to Commons, Wikipedia policy allows fair use of fully copyrighted works from any country. 9carney ( talk) 19:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply
    I am sorry but your assessment is simply incorrect. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
    Cunard ( talk) 05:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 07:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Reading the deletion discussion for the previous image, which was deleted on the grounds that the Flickr CC licence was not verifiable, should be enough to reverse the speedy deletion and restore the image to the article. We can then proceed with our normal careful and thoughtful processes of review for compliance with all other policies and guidelines. 9carney ( talk) 10:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I just do not understand what there is to discuss. We need to have legal grounds how the file can be freely licensed. Belgium does not have FOP and that is that. It is not a mater of "copyfraud". If you can find an exception even something like this one, we would not have an issue. Another alternative is seeking a freely licensed photo from the copyright holder through OTRS where the file would be released with a free license. Now that would be a best case for all of us. They can decide the resolution, angle, lighting etc. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 10:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn - FOP isn't a problem, the image has a non-free use rationale for a depiction of a piece of art (essentially) for use in an article about that piece of art. Perhaps the Fair Use Rationale template's phrasing needs a slight tweak, but it's fundamentally good. Wily D 14:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn. Image was validly used under Wikipedia's fair use policy. Stifle ( talk) 16:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and restore image. I rather suspect that the image does not have copyright protection at all under US law, but that is not relevant here. Assuming that it is in fact fully protected under US copyright law, it is used on Wikipedia under a claim of Fair use, that is, in accord with the WP:NFCC. That claim looks valid to me. But if an editor thinks that it is not valid, there is a proper procedure for contesting such claims, which does not include speedy deletion. The validity of a superficially plausible fair use/NFCC claim needs discussion, not an unreviewed decision by a single admin. WilyD and 9carney are correct above. DES (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn, not a valid speedy deletion reason if there was a valid NFCC claim on it. Also, anyone that uses the word "copyfraud" in a non-ironic sense needs to be vigourously trouted. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 09:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC). reply
  • Overturn, doesn't meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. In particular, White Cat's speedy rationale, "{{ db|Per File:Atomium FlickR ctsnow.jpg uploaded by the same user}}", is wholly invalid, and his statement above fundamentally dishonest; the two files have nothing in common besides subject matter and uploader, nothing in the previous file's deletion discussion applies to this file, and nobody but he removed the image from the article before it was deleted. — Cryptic 16:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn a fair use rationale was included, so FOP or not is irrelevant. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 22:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Restore As others have noted, this did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. FOP images ARE allowed on Wikipedia, per the content POLICY Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights. 17 USC §120(a) states: "The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place." That does not apply exclusively to architectural works in the US...it means pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of an architectural work have no copyright for the creator of the work (not the photographer/artist) if the building is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place. Wikipedia is only subject to the copyright laws of the US per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights. Freedom of Panorama is not subject covered by any IP treaty between the US & Belgium (location of the work). This image should be tagged with Template:FoP-USonly and then re-added to Atomium. Per the Berne Convention, the US is not obligated to extend any copyright to a foreign work beyond what the work would have if it were first published in the US (exception made for the registration requirements of US copyright law before 1989). Since the work would not be copyrighted if it were located in the US, its creators have no copyright claim in the US. This is not different to the use of works on Wikipedia & Commons that are still copyrighted in the country of first publication but has expired in the US (eg. File:Littleprince.JPG, which is still copyrighted in France). AHeneen ( talk) 14:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn because the deletion did not claim that it failed any speedy criterion and none seem to apply (in particular WP:CSD#F7). Even if the US courts might apply Belgian FoP law, US fair use provisions would mean a display on WP would not be a copyright infringement in the US. However, there are local WP policy considerations such as whether the image is adequately replaceable by a free image such as File:Minimundus117.jpg but discussion at WP:NFCR would then be appropriate and any subsequent improper deletion could be appealed here. Thincat ( talk) 11:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn FOP is not a concern here. The picture is covered by {{ FoP-US}}. Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 August 14#File:Atomium FlickR ctsnow.jpg resulted in deletion because there was no evidence that the photographer had licensed the photograph. If it is the same photograph as the one discussed in August last year, then overturn to speedy deletion under a different criterion (G4 instead of F9). If it is a different photograph, then overturn to undeletion. If someone thinks that there are problems with the file, then it's better to discuss the file at PUF or FFD instead. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 22:27, 10 July 2015 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Kadar Brock ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)
The consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 June 27#Draft:Kadar Brock was 5–1 to allow recreation. But Spartaz did not restore the article because:

The consensus was that the G4 was not justified but Guy subsequently deleted the graft on the basis of undisclosed COI editing and G11. That action is outwith this discussion and in the case of undeclared COI editing, the community feels strongly enough about this that am not prepared to undo Guy's action without a specific consensus at DRV to do so.

I am taking this back to DRV to seek that "specific consensus".

G11 applies only to:

Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic.

JzG wrote at the DRV: "Google the name of the creator: 'Studio Administrative Assistant at Kadar Brock Studio'." But G11 doesn't authorize speedy deletion of a draft when there's an undisclosed COI. It only authorizes speedy deletion for "exclusively promotional" pages.

I have not verified the creator's job title and workplace because I do not know who created the article. But Googling the subject and revealing his or her information here seems to strays too closely to violating Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Avoid outing. WP:OUTING says that "personal information" includes "job title and work organisation".

When I reviewed the draft, I believed it was well sourced and sufficiently neutral. It did not violate WP:G11.

Restore draft and move to mainspace to enforce the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 June 27#Draft:Kadar Brock.

Cunard ( talk) 18:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  • restore as per previous consensus. This was not a blatently promotional text of no value to the project. It needed copy editing, as most relativly new articles do, but it was sourced and the subject was pretty clearly notable, IMO. The statements made were factual, if generally positive towards the subject. One quotation was rather positive, but it was a sourced and attributed quote. If it was WP:UNDUE the solution would be to find a balancing quote or statement, or at most to remove the quote. As to any alleged COI editing -- I have not seen the evidence behind such a claim -- it is strictly beside the point. COI editing is not a reason for speedy deletion. Frankly this deletion strikes me as disruptive, if not arbitration-worthy, after there was a clear consensus to permit restoration. I am strongly tempted to restore and source the artticle further myself without any additional discussion, as in my view none is needed to enforce the previous DRV consensus. Any promotional nature of that version would have bean fully appareant to those viewing the draft at the DRV discussion, and the consensus clearly did not view this as promotional, much less blatently so. The content, not the author, is what makes an article promotional or not. WP:CSD says, in pertinant part, "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations and pages that meet specific uncontroversial criteria" If multiple experienced editors supported retaining the draft, it was not an obvious case for G11 deletion, so this deleteion was withotu consensus and to the harm of the project. I urge Guy to reveerse his action promptly. DES (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • restore as per previous consensus. In general, I've been very impressed with Guy's work, but this particular action really surprised me. The first DRV was clearly heading towards a consensus to overturn the previous deletion. That's not the best time to jump in with, OK, maybe not G4, but I'll play my G11 card and trump your consensus. DES gets it all right above. I wouldn't go so far as calling for arbitration, but I can see some trout swimming not too far away. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment on Cunard's concern about outing: Wikipedia:Harassment says that "if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted (as is the case here) such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums." JohnCD ( talk) 20:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The sentence I quoted comes immediately after yours, and starts with "However", so I think it is stating an exception to the general rule. JohnCD ( talk) 21:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The "However" sentence you quoted applies "if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted". Where has the user identified that he or she is a "Studio Administrative Assistant at Kadar Brock Studio"? Cunard ( talk) 21:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • @ Cunard: I see your point, but if the "However" exception doesn't cover a case like this, it is pretty meaningless. To say that in considering COI we must close our eyes to information openly displayed on someone's LinkedIn or Facebook entry, because looking at it would be "opposition research", is going too far in protecting spammers. JohnCD ( talk) 11:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • endorse deletion of disguised COI editing. This doesn't preclude anyone creating a neutral article. Since notability isn't in question I really don't understand why Cunard has to bludgeon the debate with all those sources. They could have simply written a new article in the time it took to format that lot Spartaz Humbug! 22:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I don't understand how providing a list of seven sources is now considered "bludgeon[ing] the debate". The sources were provided to definitively establish that the subject is notable in case anyone had any doubts and wanted to take it to AfD.

    It takes far longer to write a new article with those sources than to find and format those sources. If you or anyone else wants to write a new article using those sources, then you are free to do so. But I think the draft article is sufficiently neutral and see no need to waste my time duplicating the creator's work. Cunard ( talk) 22:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

    • Where exactly is "disguised COI editing" a deletion reason, speedy or slow? How exactly was the draft blatently promotional? DES (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn - speedy deletion shouldn't be applied to articles kept or restored in discussions (except G12). It's not a bludgeon to delete pages where you know you couldn't get a consensus to do so in a discussion. Wily D 08:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Restore per DES. JohnCD ( talk) 11:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Restore as above. As I said in the previous deletion review anyone can send it to AFD, but I think the version deleted does not reach the "exclusively promotional" level required for G11 speedy deletion. Davewild ( talk) 06:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Restore and so overturn the speedy delete, the page is not excessively promotional, containing several totally neutral statements. Tone problems can be fixed by editing. A COI is not a reason to speedy delete. Drafts are there so tone issues can be fixed before going to mainspace. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 22:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and Restore. Improper abuse of process. Here's another source to further confirm the artist's notability: The Art Assassin. Andrew D. ( talk) 18:23, 8 July 2015 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Azerbaijan–Bangladesh relations ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Discussion was closed as "no consensus" after barely seven days. Ten people left input but for an article on bilateral relations, this is insignificant; the AfD was largely hijacked by one editor's inclusion of a draft essay that caused drama. Closing admin's judgement that enough people had commented was flawed IMO, and there is no harm in allowing this to remain open to gain an actual consensus. I feel input of more people is needed here and will be helpful to avoid further drama if article is relisted for deletion. —Мандичка YO 😜 06:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse After a substantial 7 day discussion , where clearly incompatible but reasonable views are expressed by established editors, especially on a topic where there have been man inconclusive afds, there's really no necessity to relist instead of closing no consensus . Some admins would relist in this circumstance, some not--either is an acceptable option. The appeal here is unnecessary--you can just wait a few weeks, and list for AfD2--the reason for waiting a few weeks is that its more likely to result in a conclusive discussion. DGG ( talk ) 07:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Relist, Northamerica1000 is a frequent relister of AfDs, so why this one was not given the same treatment is curious. Tarc ( talk) 12:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Nothing to see here, move along. This is silly. I might have relisted this, but I don't see anything wrong with closing it as NC. In any case, do something else for a while, then relist this per Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion if you must. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Relisting is done when there has not been sufficient discussion. A "tie" discussion is closed as no-consensus, as this one correctly was. Stifle ( talk) 16:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse There was no consensus at the discussion and there was a reasonable level of participation, so per WP:RELIST relisting is not a substitute for a no consensus close and it was a reasonable decision by the closing admin. Davewild ( talk) 22:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse enough people commented, it is unlikely that new policy based arguments would have been introduced by a longer time. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 23:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse- the issue with the misleading draft essay was identified early enough not to really interfere with the result, and I don't see any consensus in the remainder of the discussion. Reyk YO! 06:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - There is a question of the validity of sources which should be hashed out on the talk page before re-nomination or the outcome is likely to be the same. Jbh Talk 11:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. The mention of the draft could not have confused anyone as it was expressly described as a draft from the outset. There is no prospect of this reaching a consensus for deletion if left open, there is no consensus at present, and enough people have commented to leave it at that. James500 ( talk) 14:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Getting 10 editors to comment on this is more than topic deserves. Leaving the discussion open to provoke even more drama would be absurdly disruptive and would be quite unlikely to generate more of a consensus. Andrew D. ( talk) 18:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse no particularly good reason to overturn (though it wasn't really a great AFD). It can be relisted sooner rather than later though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse: Prolonging discussion would probably not result in a definite consensus; let someone tip the scale first before renominating it. Esquivalience t 22:03, 9 July 2015 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_July_5&oldid=1082336768"