![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 7, 2017, April 6, 2021, and April 6, 2024. |
Are the 3 casualties confirmed? I wasn't able to find any source in international media. -- 93.32.49.63 ( talk) 14:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
"Valery Obade, director of the Republican Hospital, said his staff had treated 76 people for injuries. Moldova’s national television channel also reported that a young woman died of carbon monoxide poisoning as a result of a fire set in the Parliament building, but it was impossible to independently confirm the report." quote from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/world/europe/08moldova.html So probably should remove even the one reported death. Fred Talk 03:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we should probably rename this article to perhaps "2009 Modovian demonstrations", or something similar. Although we might wait a bit and see what usage develops in the media. It is hard to tell at this point whether the events will be a major turning point in Moldavian history or just a flash in the pan. So this initial event may be a preclude to much more significant events, or simply be it. We probably need to tie this into the report of the election. I suppose there is a link to that in the article. Fred Talk 11:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I (re-)propose to change the name to 2009 civil unrest in Moldova (from current 2009 Moldova civil unrest). Personally I don't see the need for capitalization of "civil", as the title starts with "2009", not with "civil". More thoughts? Dc76\ talk 07:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The declarations of Moldovan President Vladimir Voronin are diminished; the unabridged ones try to minimalize demonstrations: "a handful of drunk Fascists attempted a coup d'etat" and put a direct threat: "we tried to avoid blodshed but if situation require this, it will happen". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Florin zeitblom ( talk • contribs) 13:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Equidistance was forgotten when quoting an article regarding interference of external security services. Serafim Urechean's declaration is represented, even if it sounds more like a gossip, whether an opinion of former president Petru Lucinski (from the same article) is overlooked. Please, be impartial when editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Florin zeitblom ( talk • contribs) 09:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
There's a lot of repetition in this section about the fates of protesters who lost their lives in the event. 89.28.62.172 ( talk) 19:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC) J.O
Should this article be merged with Moldovan revolution? Caleb Jon ( talk) 00:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
That re-direct should really be deleted. There was no revolution in Moldova. The protesters, who make up a small, radical portion of the population, didn't achieve their goal to overthrow the democratically elected government. -- Tocino 02:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I have already changed the name once. I suggest here a new name: 2009 anti-communist protests in Moldova. It's clearer, and supported by foreign sources (BBC). Dpotop ( talk) 12:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I am against the title 2009 anti-communist protests in Moldova because such a title would not cover government crackdown, which need not be covered in a separate article, but better here. Obviously, there are election results and reaction, anti-communist protests, including violent and non-violent, crackdown, recounting, and aftermath. Dc76\ talk 07:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
OSCE's view should be presented in the "Background" section, a section which also contains remarks of members of the same OSCE observation team. It does not belong in the lead, as the dispute does not revolve on what OSCE sayd. This is a third-party point of view. SISPCM ( talk) 17:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Nicholson is just 1 of 208 OSCE observers. Why haven't any other OSCE observers come out with similar accusations. She wrote a piece in The Independent the other day [1] where she blamed Russia for everything and warned that the West should help the rioters so that Moldova doesn't "sink back into the dependency of Russia". This is not an impartial person and her accusations are given too much weight on this article. -- Tocino 02:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Why are we giving so much space to Emma Nicholson's comments? This isn't Emma Nicholson's views on the Moldovan elections. This article is about the protests. Offliner ( talk) 11:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand that a significant factor in the difference is a unusually high threshold of seat allocation. Is that the sole cause? Are elections in Moldova generally proportional? Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 10:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Please consider the following views and newspaper articles: Emma Nicholson's, this, this and this. In them, one can read about "a profound generation gap in Moldova", "an enormous demographic and generation shift", "a generational clash". I ask editors if this can't be added to the article? Thank you. SISPCM ( talk) 12:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the current version is giving undue weight to the negative aspects of the OSCE assessment. Most of the report was positive, but the section in our article gives about 15 times more space for the negative issues than for the positive ones. Offliner ( talk) 06:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
If you believe that there is more to say about the positive aspects, mention them in the article, please. -- Olahus ( talk) 09:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The purpose of independent observance of elections is to find problems. If we want our coverage of the election observance to be neutral, we must give reasonable coverage of observers who noticed problems. Accordingly, I support discussing the Baroness' findings in the article. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 11:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
We shouldn't waste any article space on this Russophobe. No other OSCE observer has come out with similar claims. It seems that a majority of editors agree that it's WP:UNDUEWEIGHT -- Tocino 17:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I have the feeling that some users here are trying to protect the Communist and Russian point of view, by misinterpreting WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and using this misinterpretation as a pretext to delete the inconvenient phrases. As I already wrote above: nobody is hindered to write more about the positive aspects mentioned by the OSCE. That what Emma Nicholson said is very important to that what happens those days in Moldova.-- Olahus ( talk) 18:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The OSCE position is not "the Communist and Russian point of view" and it is far more notable than the self-admitted innuendo coming from Nicholson. Nicholson's claims have not been supported by other non-Russian members of the OSCE delegation. -- 90.240.205.235 ( talk) 19:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course not, but are her accusings against the Communists and Russians justified reasons to delete her statements? Nicholson expressed more or less that what the demonstrants believed. -- Olahus ( talk) 19:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Her claims aren't notable compared to the OSCE position. -- 90.240.205.235 ( talk) 19:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Olahus said "I have the feeling that some users here are trying to protect the Communist and Russian point of view, by misinterpreting WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and using this misinterpretation as a pretext to delete the inconvenient phrases." Please don't engage in personal attacks against other editors. -- 90.240.205.235 ( talk) 19:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
This is not a personal attack. -- Olahus ( talk) 19:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
You are accusing other editors of trying to "delete the inconvenient phrases." This is unconstructive and a personal attack. -- 90.240.205.235 ( talk) 19:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
No, it's not, read WP:PA. -- Olahus ( talk) 19:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Making negative accusations against other users is a personal attack. -- 90.240.205.235 ( talk) 19:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I suppose you didn't reas WP:PA. -- Olahus ( talk) 19:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
"Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." -- 90.240.205.235 ( talk) 19:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Right now, this article reads like a blog post written by a 15-year-old. In the past I followed along the new changes to it and tried to clean up after anonymous editors adding entire sentences that don't even make sense, but it's too much of a task for one person. -- Node ( talk) 13:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I just did a count of the 75 sources in the article currently. By national origin, these are:
40% from Romania 19% from UK 15% from US 7% from Moldova 4% from Russia
Can you imagine if we used such a balance of Israeli sources to report on the Middle East conflict? On top of that, the majority of Romanian articles are from just two sources, Evenimentul Zilei (evz.ro) and Cotidianul (cotidianul.ro). With such a long article and so many references, we should try for a little more balance than this. -- Node ( talk) 13:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Tampering with an election is like a crime. (In civilised countries, it is a crime.) Observers who noticed tampering are like witnesses.
When Wikipedia discusses a crime and reports what witnesses said, it doesn't make any sense to report how many people didn't say anything or quote them saying that they didn't say anything for "neutrality". The "one person claimed to have seen the murderer running but seven hundred people didn't see anything because they were elsewhere" style just isn't encyclopædic. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 14:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Some international media outlets, such as Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty ( [4]), Spiegel ( [5]), and The Christian Science Monitor ( [6]), refer to the Moldova events as "Twitter Revolution". Should this moniker be included somewhere in the article? -- Kober Talk 15:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Opinions on the economic/social ideology of the Moldovan Communist Party have no relevance here since they are not the reason why the protests started, so they should be written in the article about the Communist Party.
This has absolutely no relevance here, if people want to know who is a member of the Party of the European Left, they can just click the link.
What the British eurosceptics think about the Romanian nationality law has no relevance here, it should be in that article, not here. bogdan ( talk) 21:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
April 2009 Moldovan parliamentary election protests. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
April 2009 Moldovan parliamentary election protests. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
April 2009 Moldovan parliamentary election protests. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Rename the article since they were able to successfully breach the parliament building that is more significant than just "protests".-- I'm on day 4 ( talk) 20:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 14 external links on April 2009 Moldovan parliamentary election protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 7, 2017, April 6, 2021, and April 6, 2024. |
Are the 3 casualties confirmed? I wasn't able to find any source in international media. -- 93.32.49.63 ( talk) 14:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
"Valery Obade, director of the Republican Hospital, said his staff had treated 76 people for injuries. Moldova’s national television channel also reported that a young woman died of carbon monoxide poisoning as a result of a fire set in the Parliament building, but it was impossible to independently confirm the report." quote from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/world/europe/08moldova.html So probably should remove even the one reported death. Fred Talk 03:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we should probably rename this article to perhaps "2009 Modovian demonstrations", or something similar. Although we might wait a bit and see what usage develops in the media. It is hard to tell at this point whether the events will be a major turning point in Moldavian history or just a flash in the pan. So this initial event may be a preclude to much more significant events, or simply be it. We probably need to tie this into the report of the election. I suppose there is a link to that in the article. Fred Talk 11:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I (re-)propose to change the name to 2009 civil unrest in Moldova (from current 2009 Moldova civil unrest). Personally I don't see the need for capitalization of "civil", as the title starts with "2009", not with "civil". More thoughts? Dc76\ talk 07:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The declarations of Moldovan President Vladimir Voronin are diminished; the unabridged ones try to minimalize demonstrations: "a handful of drunk Fascists attempted a coup d'etat" and put a direct threat: "we tried to avoid blodshed but if situation require this, it will happen". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Florin zeitblom ( talk • contribs) 13:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Equidistance was forgotten when quoting an article regarding interference of external security services. Serafim Urechean's declaration is represented, even if it sounds more like a gossip, whether an opinion of former president Petru Lucinski (from the same article) is overlooked. Please, be impartial when editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Florin zeitblom ( talk • contribs) 09:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
There's a lot of repetition in this section about the fates of protesters who lost their lives in the event. 89.28.62.172 ( talk) 19:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC) J.O
Should this article be merged with Moldovan revolution? Caleb Jon ( talk) 00:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
That re-direct should really be deleted. There was no revolution in Moldova. The protesters, who make up a small, radical portion of the population, didn't achieve their goal to overthrow the democratically elected government. -- Tocino 02:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I have already changed the name once. I suggest here a new name: 2009 anti-communist protests in Moldova. It's clearer, and supported by foreign sources (BBC). Dpotop ( talk) 12:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I am against the title 2009 anti-communist protests in Moldova because such a title would not cover government crackdown, which need not be covered in a separate article, but better here. Obviously, there are election results and reaction, anti-communist protests, including violent and non-violent, crackdown, recounting, and aftermath. Dc76\ talk 07:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
OSCE's view should be presented in the "Background" section, a section which also contains remarks of members of the same OSCE observation team. It does not belong in the lead, as the dispute does not revolve on what OSCE sayd. This is a third-party point of view. SISPCM ( talk) 17:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Nicholson is just 1 of 208 OSCE observers. Why haven't any other OSCE observers come out with similar accusations. She wrote a piece in The Independent the other day [1] where she blamed Russia for everything and warned that the West should help the rioters so that Moldova doesn't "sink back into the dependency of Russia". This is not an impartial person and her accusations are given too much weight on this article. -- Tocino 02:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Why are we giving so much space to Emma Nicholson's comments? This isn't Emma Nicholson's views on the Moldovan elections. This article is about the protests. Offliner ( talk) 11:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand that a significant factor in the difference is a unusually high threshold of seat allocation. Is that the sole cause? Are elections in Moldova generally proportional? Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 10:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Please consider the following views and newspaper articles: Emma Nicholson's, this, this and this. In them, one can read about "a profound generation gap in Moldova", "an enormous demographic and generation shift", "a generational clash". I ask editors if this can't be added to the article? Thank you. SISPCM ( talk) 12:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the current version is giving undue weight to the negative aspects of the OSCE assessment. Most of the report was positive, but the section in our article gives about 15 times more space for the negative issues than for the positive ones. Offliner ( talk) 06:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
If you believe that there is more to say about the positive aspects, mention them in the article, please. -- Olahus ( talk) 09:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The purpose of independent observance of elections is to find problems. If we want our coverage of the election observance to be neutral, we must give reasonable coverage of observers who noticed problems. Accordingly, I support discussing the Baroness' findings in the article. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 11:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
We shouldn't waste any article space on this Russophobe. No other OSCE observer has come out with similar claims. It seems that a majority of editors agree that it's WP:UNDUEWEIGHT -- Tocino 17:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I have the feeling that some users here are trying to protect the Communist and Russian point of view, by misinterpreting WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and using this misinterpretation as a pretext to delete the inconvenient phrases. As I already wrote above: nobody is hindered to write more about the positive aspects mentioned by the OSCE. That what Emma Nicholson said is very important to that what happens those days in Moldova.-- Olahus ( talk) 18:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The OSCE position is not "the Communist and Russian point of view" and it is far more notable than the self-admitted innuendo coming from Nicholson. Nicholson's claims have not been supported by other non-Russian members of the OSCE delegation. -- 90.240.205.235 ( talk) 19:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course not, but are her accusings against the Communists and Russians justified reasons to delete her statements? Nicholson expressed more or less that what the demonstrants believed. -- Olahus ( talk) 19:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Her claims aren't notable compared to the OSCE position. -- 90.240.205.235 ( talk) 19:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Olahus said "I have the feeling that some users here are trying to protect the Communist and Russian point of view, by misinterpreting WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and using this misinterpretation as a pretext to delete the inconvenient phrases." Please don't engage in personal attacks against other editors. -- 90.240.205.235 ( talk) 19:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
This is not a personal attack. -- Olahus ( talk) 19:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
You are accusing other editors of trying to "delete the inconvenient phrases." This is unconstructive and a personal attack. -- 90.240.205.235 ( talk) 19:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
No, it's not, read WP:PA. -- Olahus ( talk) 19:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Making negative accusations against other users is a personal attack. -- 90.240.205.235 ( talk) 19:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I suppose you didn't reas WP:PA. -- Olahus ( talk) 19:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
"Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." -- 90.240.205.235 ( talk) 19:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Right now, this article reads like a blog post written by a 15-year-old. In the past I followed along the new changes to it and tried to clean up after anonymous editors adding entire sentences that don't even make sense, but it's too much of a task for one person. -- Node ( talk) 13:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I just did a count of the 75 sources in the article currently. By national origin, these are:
40% from Romania 19% from UK 15% from US 7% from Moldova 4% from Russia
Can you imagine if we used such a balance of Israeli sources to report on the Middle East conflict? On top of that, the majority of Romanian articles are from just two sources, Evenimentul Zilei (evz.ro) and Cotidianul (cotidianul.ro). With such a long article and so many references, we should try for a little more balance than this. -- Node ( talk) 13:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Tampering with an election is like a crime. (In civilised countries, it is a crime.) Observers who noticed tampering are like witnesses.
When Wikipedia discusses a crime and reports what witnesses said, it doesn't make any sense to report how many people didn't say anything or quote them saying that they didn't say anything for "neutrality". The "one person claimed to have seen the murderer running but seven hundred people didn't see anything because they were elsewhere" style just isn't encyclopædic. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 14:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Some international media outlets, such as Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty ( [4]), Spiegel ( [5]), and The Christian Science Monitor ( [6]), refer to the Moldova events as "Twitter Revolution". Should this moniker be included somewhere in the article? -- Kober Talk 15:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Opinions on the economic/social ideology of the Moldovan Communist Party have no relevance here since they are not the reason why the protests started, so they should be written in the article about the Communist Party.
This has absolutely no relevance here, if people want to know who is a member of the Party of the European Left, they can just click the link.
What the British eurosceptics think about the Romanian nationality law has no relevance here, it should be in that article, not here. bogdan ( talk) 21:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
April 2009 Moldovan parliamentary election protests. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
April 2009 Moldovan parliamentary election protests. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
April 2009 Moldovan parliamentary election protests. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Rename the article since they were able to successfully breach the parliament building that is more significant than just "protests".-- I'm on day 4 ( talk) 20:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 14 external links on April 2009 Moldovan parliamentary election protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)