Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2014 January 6
2014 January 8 >

7 January 2014

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

While the closing admin gave a decent rational for his no consensus closure I believe it is flawed, the majority of Keep votes gave no reason within policy for their vote. The majority of deletes did give a reason within policy for deletion. The delete votes outnumber the keep votes, Delete votes: 29 Keep votes: 21, given this the discussion should either be relisted until such a time as a clearer consensus is reached, or the list ought to be deleted. Darkness Shines ( talk) 20:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse. Well, there was no consensus, was there? And if I was worried that the closing admin hadn't paid enough attention to the quality of the individual arguments, the closing rationale makes it clear that great care had been taken. In fact I think the closing statement was a very good one indeed. Unhappily, I do not share the nominator's confidence that further discussion would lead to a greater harmony of thought. Thincat ( talk) 23:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • endorse I can find no fault with the close. If anything I think it might have overstated the strength of the deletion argument in that discussion. But even then, this wasn't a keep. So NC is the right answer and the close is very well explained indeed. Hobit ( talk) 01:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse "no consensus" looks like an accurate way to sum up the discussion. I've always been against proposed numerical limits on deletion (i.e. maximum x noms or maximum x times per year) but it's hard to look at the history of this particular article, after a dozen AFDs and DRVs, and not see an attempt at victory through exhausting the community's patience. Nominating it yet again without demonstrating some new and previously unconsidered reasoning should be dealt with as disruption. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse I voted for deletion and still think that could have been a reasonable result of the close given the tallies and arguments. However, the close was well within discretion and pretty well-justified (except perhaps I wish Sandstein had discussed the keep arguments in a bit more depth). Vehemently disagree with the assertion above that there should be a permanent moratorium on further deletion discussions, although restricting to 1/year is probably fair. This article is unquestionably divisive... probably the only list on Wikipedia with more than 30 archived discussion pages... Sailsbystars ( talk) 02:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, particularly given the closing admin's lengthy remarks and reasoning. There was clearly no consensus in this discussion and neither side presented any brilliant policy-based arguments that would have given the closing admin room to deviate from closing the discussion as it was closed. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 13:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC). reply
  • Request Modified resultAnnual AFDs will only end when this has been deleted or we have a community consensus over the various perennial claims of OR/POV/FRINGE/BLP/whatever..... the best way to do that is for the deletion process to "retain jurisdiction", send us to the talk page under fear of WP:ARBCC, let everyone involved give the climate DS template warning and log it, and then, once we're at the talk page, work through a list of FAQs that address the various points. Each perennial argument, be it a VAGUEWAVE or something articulate, should be thus laid to rest in the FAQs, or the page should be deleted. This is pretty much what the closing admin weakly suggested, but I request you keep our feet to the fire by re-opening the AFD with instructions that a future closing decision will be based on the FAQ discussions at the talk page, at a time to be determined. That way, we might actually work constructively, and one way or another, bring the annual AFD parade to a halt.
  • PROCESS ERROR Neither this version of the article or this version of the talk page tells editors that deletion review is underway; I was expecting this so I came looking, and voila! Here it is! Could an admin who knows the right clerk lever to pull please flag the article/talk page so people know? The dang thing is protected right now so it will take the hand of god's angels. Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Well-reasoned close. I would weight the arguments slightly differently, but still come to no consensus. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 14:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
BTW, I was also impressed with the statement, despite my request (above) for a modified result. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I would like to thank the closing admin for daring to stick their neck out and for writing the reasoned close. I was for keep and asked those wanting to delete to say what grounds in BLP they were going on about as it is a large policy but I didn't get specific sections referenced. That's practically the exact opposite impression to the OP as far as policies and guidelines were concerned - so I guess we're both unsatisfied and that's about as how it should be from what was said at that AfD. Dmcq ( talk) 14:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Climate change denial is a stupid, dangerous and irresponsible view held for short-sighted, short-term political and economic reasons by a small number of extremists in the few nations on the planet blind enough to deny the almost unanimous consensus among people who actually know what they're talking about. But, we're trying to be an encyclopaedia, so our job is to inform and educate, and one of the things we inform and educate about is lies. I mean, Wikipedia isn't Snopes, but we do have articles about notable lies, such as chupacabras and sasquatches and area 51, and it's right that we should. Climate change denials is one of the lies that Wikipedia should cover. Retaining this list is appropriate. I'd endorse Sandstein's well-reasoned close which lets us get to the correct outcome while remaining firmly within the deletion guidelines for administrators.— S Marshall T/ C 15:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the above rant is exactly why this list is problematic. The inference that it is a list of "climate change denial" is fundamentally flawed and the conflation cannot be undone. Neither can the stigmatizing harm be avoided, deserved or not. -- DHeyward ( talk) 16:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Wouldn't deleting it waste our time less than discussing it? All the scientists have bios. The list is the time-waster. -- DHeyward ( talk) 16:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
We could allow anyone to speedy delete anything and give no opportunity for review. That would save even more time. And it seems (below) some people do not find it necessary to waste time reading an AFD close before endorsing or overturning it. Thincat ( talk) 09:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
I was commenting more about this being the sixth deletion nomination and the problems with the article listed by the closing admin should have been addressed by now. Instead it will only waste more time. It's not like the issues are new or the main editors of the article have changed. Nor have opinions expressed by those that haven't read any any of the comments likely to change. -- DHeyward ( talk) 16:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • strong endorse climate skepticism/denialism is a highly notable topic and the list is well sourced. If there are issues with individual members of the list, they should be removed, but categorizing a list of notable people who have a notable view is not a policy violation, regardless of what we think of the view. Gaijin42 ( talk) 18:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Are you perhaps under the impression that the article was deleted? Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 18:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
I was. thanks for pointing it out, I have updated my !vote Gaijin42 ( talk) 18:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - While I will be the first to admit that my !vote should have been discounted, I find it impossible to conclude that the AfD could have been interpreted in any other way than "no consensus". Many of the deletion supporters had excellent arguments, but so did quite a few of the opposers. Props to Sandstein for doing such a fine job of closing such a difficult AfD.- Mr X 18:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - Normal Wikipedia policies support this article perfectly well, including the fact that anyone can suggest or challenge any entry at any time, especially if they have new citable sources about the position of the scientist listed. Gradually over the years, I expect the list to diminish in size until there are only one or two outliers who still think that they can legitimately argue that the science is somehow flawed. At that time, the list can be deleted. Until then, those who disagree with the science for whatever reason, should rejoice in an article that shows that we are able to find a couple of dozen published scientists (in some field) who agree with you. -- Nigelj ( talk) 19:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse I admit I should have changed my vote but I honestly didn't think this AfD would last this long. Nevertheless the closing admin went through all the votes and examined and there is no consensus. Just because the deleted votes beat the keep votes doesn't mean the article should be deleted. There was 50 votes 29/21 so the delete votes gathered was about 58%. Does 58% of the votes for the deletion sound like a consensus? Jay Jay What did I do? 20:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse I don't see how any admin could have possibly closed this as anything other than "no consensus". A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 13:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. The close was very compellingly argued as no consensus. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 14:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse My !vote actually was delete, but if I would have had to close this my conclusion would also have been NC (although I would probably not have been able to provide the well-reasoned rationale that Sandstein provided). Many !votes on both sides were, as noted, not policy-based and those that were, more or less evened out. Let's wait a year and if things haven't improved by then, bring it to AfD once more and this time try to limit ourselves to policy-based arguments, instead of bickering whether or not John Doe should be on the list or not and such. -- Randykitty ( talk) 17:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Closer clearly weighted the arguments and I see no fallacy in their rationale. There was nothing to suggest it should be deleted as the outcome if it needed to be relisted and nothing suggests a clear consensus would come from relisting. Mkdw talk 19:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Rousseau Metal – I think the consensus is that this can be restored but is very marginal and many commentators doubt it would survive a AFD. I therefore suggest that the author consider the advice in the discussion and let me know on my talk page whether they want to work on this further or have it restored to mainspace. – Spartaz Humbug! 07:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Rousseau Metal ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I am placing this DRV on behalf of the article author, Isabellelf ( talk), because she has got rather lost in our complicated system. After the AfD the closing admin, Mark Arsten ( talk), userfied the page for her to User:Isabellelf/Rousseau Metal, where she added references. She showed it to him, and he replied on 29 October: "Ok, now you can apply for undeletion at WP:DRV." Unfortunately, she went instead to WP:REFUND, where for some reason her request was overlooked, and repeated it there today. I have not had time to read the article, and express no opinion. JohnCD ( talk) 19:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

  •  Comment: Having reviewed the userspace draft, I see no suggestion of notability, just a history of the business. Am I missing something? (it is early, after all) ES &L 11:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • comment/weak keep/weak overturn - According to the sources in the draft, the company is listed in the Quebec 300, to top 500 employers in quebec (2009), and has had several articles in les affaires (not sure what level of publication this is). It also won the "Lachance-Morin Prize", apparently some sort of industrial safety award in quebec. its weak notability, but I think it passes. Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm not sure what standard we are supposed to adopt in this sort of situation. I suppose we can either accept the article in main space, accept it but requiring AFD, or reject the draft article. If anyone was minded to allow it in main space would this be because they think (1) it should be able to survive speedy deletion, (2) it should be accepted at NPP or AFC, (3) it should survive AFD. Or maybe we are expected effectively to perform an AFD discussion right here. Thincat ( talk) 13:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There's no way we can accept it that will prevent someone from sending it to AfD, and as is, it probably would not pass. An article devoting much less space to perfectly routine business matters and listing only appropriate ELs might appear less promotional . Top 300 or 500 in a Province is not notability--exact rank might be if it's high enough; the prize is minor. An additional aspect of notability not mentioned above is the racing sponsorships. and ref 7 appears substantial, though like all articles in business magazines, it is probably based in part on PR. DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Allow return to main space. If in main space again, the article would not qualify for speedy deletion (including WP:CSD#G4) though it would not be disruptive for it to be submitted again to AFD. The draft is marginal on references for notability so I suggest that, before any return, the WP:GNG guidelines are again considered and, if any matters in WP:CORP#Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations apply, these are carefully demonstrated in the article. I agree with DGG that pruning might strengthen the draft. Thincat ( talk) 11:24, 14 January 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/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_January_7&oldid=1138440201"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2014 January 6
2014 January 8 >

7 January 2014

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

While the closing admin gave a decent rational for his no consensus closure I believe it is flawed, the majority of Keep votes gave no reason within policy for their vote. The majority of deletes did give a reason within policy for deletion. The delete votes outnumber the keep votes, Delete votes: 29 Keep votes: 21, given this the discussion should either be relisted until such a time as a clearer consensus is reached, or the list ought to be deleted. Darkness Shines ( talk) 20:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse. Well, there was no consensus, was there? And if I was worried that the closing admin hadn't paid enough attention to the quality of the individual arguments, the closing rationale makes it clear that great care had been taken. In fact I think the closing statement was a very good one indeed. Unhappily, I do not share the nominator's confidence that further discussion would lead to a greater harmony of thought. Thincat ( talk) 23:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • endorse I can find no fault with the close. If anything I think it might have overstated the strength of the deletion argument in that discussion. But even then, this wasn't a keep. So NC is the right answer and the close is very well explained indeed. Hobit ( talk) 01:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse "no consensus" looks like an accurate way to sum up the discussion. I've always been against proposed numerical limits on deletion (i.e. maximum x noms or maximum x times per year) but it's hard to look at the history of this particular article, after a dozen AFDs and DRVs, and not see an attempt at victory through exhausting the community's patience. Nominating it yet again without demonstrating some new and previously unconsidered reasoning should be dealt with as disruption. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse I voted for deletion and still think that could have been a reasonable result of the close given the tallies and arguments. However, the close was well within discretion and pretty well-justified (except perhaps I wish Sandstein had discussed the keep arguments in a bit more depth). Vehemently disagree with the assertion above that there should be a permanent moratorium on further deletion discussions, although restricting to 1/year is probably fair. This article is unquestionably divisive... probably the only list on Wikipedia with more than 30 archived discussion pages... Sailsbystars ( talk) 02:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, particularly given the closing admin's lengthy remarks and reasoning. There was clearly no consensus in this discussion and neither side presented any brilliant policy-based arguments that would have given the closing admin room to deviate from closing the discussion as it was closed. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 13:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC). reply
  • Request Modified resultAnnual AFDs will only end when this has been deleted or we have a community consensus over the various perennial claims of OR/POV/FRINGE/BLP/whatever..... the best way to do that is for the deletion process to "retain jurisdiction", send us to the talk page under fear of WP:ARBCC, let everyone involved give the climate DS template warning and log it, and then, once we're at the talk page, work through a list of FAQs that address the various points. Each perennial argument, be it a VAGUEWAVE or something articulate, should be thus laid to rest in the FAQs, or the page should be deleted. This is pretty much what the closing admin weakly suggested, but I request you keep our feet to the fire by re-opening the AFD with instructions that a future closing decision will be based on the FAQ discussions at the talk page, at a time to be determined. That way, we might actually work constructively, and one way or another, bring the annual AFD parade to a halt.
  • PROCESS ERROR Neither this version of the article or this version of the talk page tells editors that deletion review is underway; I was expecting this so I came looking, and voila! Here it is! Could an admin who knows the right clerk lever to pull please flag the article/talk page so people know? The dang thing is protected right now so it will take the hand of god's angels. Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Well-reasoned close. I would weight the arguments slightly differently, but still come to no consensus. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 14:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
BTW, I was also impressed with the statement, despite my request (above) for a modified result. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I would like to thank the closing admin for daring to stick their neck out and for writing the reasoned close. I was for keep and asked those wanting to delete to say what grounds in BLP they were going on about as it is a large policy but I didn't get specific sections referenced. That's practically the exact opposite impression to the OP as far as policies and guidelines were concerned - so I guess we're both unsatisfied and that's about as how it should be from what was said at that AfD. Dmcq ( talk) 14:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Climate change denial is a stupid, dangerous and irresponsible view held for short-sighted, short-term political and economic reasons by a small number of extremists in the few nations on the planet blind enough to deny the almost unanimous consensus among people who actually know what they're talking about. But, we're trying to be an encyclopaedia, so our job is to inform and educate, and one of the things we inform and educate about is lies. I mean, Wikipedia isn't Snopes, but we do have articles about notable lies, such as chupacabras and sasquatches and area 51, and it's right that we should. Climate change denials is one of the lies that Wikipedia should cover. Retaining this list is appropriate. I'd endorse Sandstein's well-reasoned close which lets us get to the correct outcome while remaining firmly within the deletion guidelines for administrators.— S Marshall T/ C 15:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the above rant is exactly why this list is problematic. The inference that it is a list of "climate change denial" is fundamentally flawed and the conflation cannot be undone. Neither can the stigmatizing harm be avoided, deserved or not. -- DHeyward ( talk) 16:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Wouldn't deleting it waste our time less than discussing it? All the scientists have bios. The list is the time-waster. -- DHeyward ( talk) 16:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
We could allow anyone to speedy delete anything and give no opportunity for review. That would save even more time. And it seems (below) some people do not find it necessary to waste time reading an AFD close before endorsing or overturning it. Thincat ( talk) 09:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
I was commenting more about this being the sixth deletion nomination and the problems with the article listed by the closing admin should have been addressed by now. Instead it will only waste more time. It's not like the issues are new or the main editors of the article have changed. Nor have opinions expressed by those that haven't read any any of the comments likely to change. -- DHeyward ( talk) 16:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • strong endorse climate skepticism/denialism is a highly notable topic and the list is well sourced. If there are issues with individual members of the list, they should be removed, but categorizing a list of notable people who have a notable view is not a policy violation, regardless of what we think of the view. Gaijin42 ( talk) 18:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Are you perhaps under the impression that the article was deleted? Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 18:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
I was. thanks for pointing it out, I have updated my !vote Gaijin42 ( talk) 18:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - While I will be the first to admit that my !vote should have been discounted, I find it impossible to conclude that the AfD could have been interpreted in any other way than "no consensus". Many of the deletion supporters had excellent arguments, but so did quite a few of the opposers. Props to Sandstein for doing such a fine job of closing such a difficult AfD.- Mr X 18:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - Normal Wikipedia policies support this article perfectly well, including the fact that anyone can suggest or challenge any entry at any time, especially if they have new citable sources about the position of the scientist listed. Gradually over the years, I expect the list to diminish in size until there are only one or two outliers who still think that they can legitimately argue that the science is somehow flawed. At that time, the list can be deleted. Until then, those who disagree with the science for whatever reason, should rejoice in an article that shows that we are able to find a couple of dozen published scientists (in some field) who agree with you. -- Nigelj ( talk) 19:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse I admit I should have changed my vote but I honestly didn't think this AfD would last this long. Nevertheless the closing admin went through all the votes and examined and there is no consensus. Just because the deleted votes beat the keep votes doesn't mean the article should be deleted. There was 50 votes 29/21 so the delete votes gathered was about 58%. Does 58% of the votes for the deletion sound like a consensus? Jay Jay What did I do? 20:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse I don't see how any admin could have possibly closed this as anything other than "no consensus". A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 13:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. The close was very compellingly argued as no consensus. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 14:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse My !vote actually was delete, but if I would have had to close this my conclusion would also have been NC (although I would probably not have been able to provide the well-reasoned rationale that Sandstein provided). Many !votes on both sides were, as noted, not policy-based and those that were, more or less evened out. Let's wait a year and if things haven't improved by then, bring it to AfD once more and this time try to limit ourselves to policy-based arguments, instead of bickering whether or not John Doe should be on the list or not and such. -- Randykitty ( talk) 17:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Closer clearly weighted the arguments and I see no fallacy in their rationale. There was nothing to suggest it should be deleted as the outcome if it needed to be relisted and nothing suggests a clear consensus would come from relisting. Mkdw talk 19:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Rousseau Metal – I think the consensus is that this can be restored but is very marginal and many commentators doubt it would survive a AFD. I therefore suggest that the author consider the advice in the discussion and let me know on my talk page whether they want to work on this further or have it restored to mainspace. – Spartaz Humbug! 07:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Rousseau Metal ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I am placing this DRV on behalf of the article author, Isabellelf ( talk), because she has got rather lost in our complicated system. After the AfD the closing admin, Mark Arsten ( talk), userfied the page for her to User:Isabellelf/Rousseau Metal, where she added references. She showed it to him, and he replied on 29 October: "Ok, now you can apply for undeletion at WP:DRV." Unfortunately, she went instead to WP:REFUND, where for some reason her request was overlooked, and repeated it there today. I have not had time to read the article, and express no opinion. JohnCD ( talk) 19:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

  •  Comment: Having reviewed the userspace draft, I see no suggestion of notability, just a history of the business. Am I missing something? (it is early, after all) ES &L 11:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • comment/weak keep/weak overturn - According to the sources in the draft, the company is listed in the Quebec 300, to top 500 employers in quebec (2009), and has had several articles in les affaires (not sure what level of publication this is). It also won the "Lachance-Morin Prize", apparently some sort of industrial safety award in quebec. its weak notability, but I think it passes. Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm not sure what standard we are supposed to adopt in this sort of situation. I suppose we can either accept the article in main space, accept it but requiring AFD, or reject the draft article. If anyone was minded to allow it in main space would this be because they think (1) it should be able to survive speedy deletion, (2) it should be accepted at NPP or AFC, (3) it should survive AFD. Or maybe we are expected effectively to perform an AFD discussion right here. Thincat ( talk) 13:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There's no way we can accept it that will prevent someone from sending it to AfD, and as is, it probably would not pass. An article devoting much less space to perfectly routine business matters and listing only appropriate ELs might appear less promotional . Top 300 or 500 in a Province is not notability--exact rank might be if it's high enough; the prize is minor. An additional aspect of notability not mentioned above is the racing sponsorships. and ref 7 appears substantial, though like all articles in business magazines, it is probably based in part on PR. DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Allow return to main space. If in main space again, the article would not qualify for speedy deletion (including WP:CSD#G4) though it would not be disruptive for it to be submitted again to AFD. The draft is marginal on references for notability so I suggest that, before any return, the WP:GNG guidelines are again considered and, if any matters in WP:CORP#Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations apply, these are carefully demonstrated in the article. I agree with DGG that pruning might strengthen the draft. Thincat ( talk) 11:24, 14 January 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/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_January_7&oldid=1138440201"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE