Journal of Commercial Biotechnology – Closure endorsed. There is sufficient support below for allowing an immediate renomination (at any editors volition) at AfD. Daniel (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I believe that the keep arguments were were too repugnant to policy for the discussion to be closed as anything other than delete. In particular, Headbomb's vote (and thus the associated "per x" vote) starts off by referring to
WP:NOTEVERYTHING. He then makes the argument that Indexers are by very definition third party reliable sources, which, while true, only adreseses non-existent verifiability concerns, rather than the actual notability concerns. Seeing as how 2/3 keep votes have effectively no weight, I see clear consensus to delete Mach61 (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Endorse While the nuance of differing word choices will vary in local dialects of English, to characterize a difference between interpretations of essays as "repugnant" strikes me as reminiscent of
Reichstag-climbing. It's a notability dispute; we have those every day. And, in fact, we have two groups of editors who disagree here. The nom isn't great--I don't think sockpuppet is likely the correct word to use in this context--but we have evenly-numerically-matched editors, one set referring to an essay that deals specifically and in detail with this particular topic, while the other side makes references to higher level policies and guidelines where good editors can differ about how they apply to this specific topic. Classic no consensus. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
Thanks for the clarification. As not-a-lawyer, the word connotes something worse than merely being unseemly or odious in my lexicon. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus close. The AFD ran for 20 days (extended 2x) and mustered only 5 participants, who split 3 keep and 2 delete, neither side using unreasonable arguments. I can't see how a reasonable closer could close in any other way than No Consensus. A no consensus close does not preclude renominating for deletion at some point in the future, and I would not be surprised that a more robust discussion at that time might lead to a Delete close.
Revisiting to read points made after me (as I try to do whenever I comment early in a discussion), I think there are solid arguments below why a more robust and well-attended AFD would probably have reached a consensus to delete, and that would have been the "right" outcome. However, such a discussion did not happen in spite of the 2x extension. Therefore no consensus was reached, and in such cases we default to no action, not deleting this article. I think the meta-discussion here demonstrates we have inconsistencies to resolve regarding various policies, essays, and guidelines regarding academic journals. We should resolve them, following which it will be easier to reach consensus on articles like this. Then someone can renominate this article for deletion, and I expect it is quite likely to get deleted then.
Endorse my close but of course defer to whatever consensus emerges here and have no issue with the close being brought for a broader look. I have re-read it and don't see another way I could have closed it. This discussion, IMO, is a micro version of the broader discussion about N:Journals last year. The community hasn't quite landed on whether Scopus et al are sufficient and that was reflected here with editors making valid cases in both directions. StarMississippi 14:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a reasonable case that meeting NJOURNALS is the same as being notable at all. One of the most unambiguous dictums in
WP:N is that articles must meet either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG). It is very bad for the rule of law at AfD if people can just claim inherit notability for any subject they want to without gaining the consensus necessary for a {{guideline}} tag, and if they're persistent enough closers won't downweight their votes. Mach61 (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
For a not insignificant period of time in Wikipedia history, being indexed in Scopus was generally considered sufficient. (Not saying it was right or wrong, just was. ) This is not dissimilar to the changes in guidelines for schools and athletes in the last few years. My opinion is the community remains split since the change was recent. We're humans, we're slow to change. In my opinion as closer, the consensus in that discussion reflects that split. NB, it may be helpful for you to look at it from less of a legal POV. We really don't have any "rule of law" here, even when it concerns policy. Not saying this to dissuade you at all, but it might be a different frame. StarMississippi 19:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. The participants who recommended keeping did not say that the journal is notable, they said that the article meets
WP:JOURNALCRIT which are patently and notoriously not about notability while purporting to present reasons for page inclusion and retention, completely bypassing the fact that lack of notability exists as a reason for deletion (none of the three criteria has anything to do with notability). The nomination correspondingly failed to express a cogent argument that the article should be deleted, lacking an argument that it is non-notable. However, during the discussion a relevant delete argument did form eventually, with two editors saying that the journal is not notable. After that point, there needed to have been comments saying that the journal is, after all, notable. But there were no such comments.—Alalch E. 17:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Endorse. Despite two relistings, consensus failed to materialize. None of the views expressed in the AfD can be summarily
WP:DISCARDed as invalid. Headbomb's "Keep" relies, inter alia, on the journal's evaluation in the Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals, a legitimate method of assessing notability. Similarly, XOR'easter's reasoning relies on sourcing per GNG. Randykitty
agreed with Headbomb's reasoning. The appellant may not agree with those three, as indeed they and two others hadn't in the AfD, but I see no valid reason to discard those Keep views.
As for
WP:JOURNALCRIT--is the standard by which we normally measure the notability of journals. It seems disingenuous to turn around and claim that we are to ignore years of "case law" on hundreds of AfDs based on this essay simply because it does not have the power of law. WP:JOURNALCRIT, in its various iterations, has been used as our practical guideline for over a decade, and is our de-facto standard for academic journals. I will not overturn a valid AfD closing based on the claim that "NJOURNALS is merely an essay", especially seeing as one of the Keep arguments was anchored in GNG. Owen×☎ 20:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
If "NJOURNALS is merely an essay" is a reason to discard a vote, then so is "
WP:NJOURNALS is written as assertion, as if it were accepted among the community that meeting its criteria is enough to justify an article, when in fact NJOURNALS has not gained consensus. Mach61 (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
HEY and TNT are arguments that invoke specific P&Gs. NJOURNALS does not attempt to align with any P&G. JoelleJay (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NJOURNALS criteria recently failed to gain consensus on its own talk page. That a very small number of editors have been misrepresenting it as a guideline for a decade is the definition of LOCALCON and is explicitly disallowed by WP:N. JoelleJay (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When was the last time an essay was promoted to a policy? It is now almost impossible to change policy. GNG and other policies have sadly attained the status of Scripture, making them effectively untouchable canon. Any such RfC is doomed to end up with views equally divided between those who don't like the proposed change, those who don't think it is needed, and a minority who see the change as an improvement, even if it isn't everything they hoped for. Consensus is nigh near impossible. So we end up with broad, vague policies like GNG, and a long list of topic-specific essays and a history of "common law" in the form of AfD results, which are followed closely despite not having the power of policy. The fact that NJOURNALS failed an RfC to turn it into policy tells us nothing. We are still using this "essay" as our only consistent guideline when it comes to the notability of journals. Ignoring it while embracing GNG is a bit like ignoring WP:N while embracing WP:IAR. We don't ignore rules - or common practice - if we want consistently applied inclusion criteria. If you have a valid reason why we should ignore NJOURNALS in this particular case, then the AfD was the place to raise it. Claiming that someone's !vote on AfD should be discarded because they listed, among other things, a common practice we apply every day that isn't policy strikes me as baseless. Owen×☎ 00:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has failed multiple times. And there is a consistent guideline on the notability of journals: GNG. And consensus for drastic changes to P&Gs have occurred in recent years -- take NSPORT as an example. Automatic notability for simply being listed by an indexing company that the journal applies to join just means that Wikipedia hosts a copy of the journal's own self-description that will appear at the top of search results. That is not the secondary independent coverage required for a neutral article. JoelleJay (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to say this, but even after all the discussions we've had on this topic, you clearly still don't know how these databases work and what inclusion in it means. --Randykitty (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a participant; I can't see any other way to read the final result than as a "no consensus".
Endorse clear no consensus case here. "Keep arguments were were too repugnant to policy" is simply utter nonsense. We have no deletion notability policy, we have guidelines, and guidelines are not absolute.
This is a key point: policies like V are non-negotiable, N--which is at issue here--is negotiable. It is entirely within Wikipedia's not-rules for a consensus to form that overrides a guideline in a specific case or set of cases. Academic journals are a set of topics that are clearly important, but (and I'm not sure from whom I'm stealing this observation, but I'm relatively certain I read it in a past Wikipedia discussion) if they do their jobs well, no one writes about the journal. Thus, it's perfectly OK for an admin to consider !votes that say "The cited guideline is wrong for this application and leads to a less-than-encyclopedic result" as was done here. Had they been in the clear majority, it would have been acceptable to close this discussion as Keep--but they were not. Jclemens (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I would have preferred a "keep" here, but given the discussion and the arguments presented, "no consensus" was the only reasonable outcome. --Randykitty (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete I think the close itself wasn't necessarily bad, but it ignored the fact GNG has clearly not been met, which was clearly demonstrated by those wanting it off the site. If that's the argument for keeping a journal, then journals have become the new cricketers. We shouldn't put up with spam... SportingFlyerT·C 23:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. NJOURNALS is not a guideline, its "notability criteria" cannot be used to assert notability any more than any other project essay, and especially not in the demonstrable absence of the required secondary independent SIGCOV for GNG. Keep arguments were not based on P&Gs.
The criteria are not even notability criteria. According to the essay, an article about a journal should not be deleted, because it is deserving of a standalone page, if the journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area, is frequently cited by other reliable sources, or is historically important in its subject area (and there are reliable, independent sources on the subject, but significant coverage is not required). And only if all three of the following conditions are met: The journal is (1) not influential, (2) not frequently cited, (3) not historically important, then and only then need notability be considered. See the sentence: If a journal meets none of these criteria, it may still qualify for a stand-alone article, if it meets the conditions of WP:Notability or other notability criteria. So whether it meets the conditions of notability is irrelevant as long as it meets at least one of the three "don't delete" criteria. The essay is literally saying that notability only need be considered for journals that are not influential, not frequently cited and not historically important. Absurd. This essay is not a notability essay. It's an anti-notability essay. —Alalch E. 01:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. It may be a journal, but none of the sources support a Wikipedia article. —
WP:RENOM. GNG not met? The GNG is just a guideline, deletion requires consensus at AfD, such as a consensus that the GNG failure means this article should be deleted. There was no such consensus. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
This reasoning seems circular; the entire point of my DRV is that I see a consensus to delete. May you elaborate? Mach61 (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was not a consensus to delete. You probably overweight your own !vote. I read your !vote as weak. No single guideline is every the “only” one. You didn’t address the sources that were added.
Work though the added sources. Give it two months. Read
Mach61's comment comes after the WP:HEY exclamation of Dec 24, and he responded to it by saying that significant coverage comes in paragraphs of prose and that articles can't be based off of databases and indices. What was added were databases and indices, to verify fulillment of JOURNALCRIT, discussed previously. Self-evident and not in dispute that these are indices and databases as he said. So when reading in context -- a participant did address the later-added sources. Ultimately, there was a consensus that the GNG failure means that the article should be deleted, because after two editors said as much, no one was able to relevantly oppose these recommendations, and the only later comment was that the page is helpful. —Alalch E. 08:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn’t my reading of the AfD. Ok, should I read through the sources? They are all junk, for Wikipedia notability, all primary sources. At AfD I would !vote delete. Or “Merge to publisher”, ThinkBiotech. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in the habit to re-affirm my !vote if somebody else !votes opposite. That doesn't mean that I consider myself rebutted. --Randykitty (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not rewrite history,
Alalch E.. There was no consensus at the AfD. The three Keep !votes are here with us, and do not need you to second-guess their intentions. True, they didn't come back to badger the Delete !voters on that AfD. How you construe that to be acquiescence is beyond me. We don't give extra weight to an opinion just because it was expressed later in the discussion. In the end, six editors expressed a valid opinion on that AfD. Slice and dice it any way you want, there was still no consensus there. What's next - discard the seven "Endorse" views here because they didn't come back to argue with you? Sorry, that's not how consensus works. Owen×☎ 13:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
An AfD's participants are not individual stakeholders in the matter of an article's retention (the totality of the project is the single and only stakeholder), so I did not mean to say that they acquiesced, and whether they did or did not is not what I consider to be important. It's not a negotiation, and reaching consensus, with its particular meaning on Wikipedia, is not about consenting, as in waiving an objection. Any other editor or editors could have opposed the best deletion-supporting argument during the extended relist periods, but no one did. Why? Because the issue with the sources is self-evident. I respect everyone in the AfD and here, and I appreciate and value the opinions that articles about non-notable journals should be kept based on
WP:JOURNALCRIT and that helpful articles on non-notable subjects should be kept, and I have no doubt that these editors only make these arguments in the best interest of the encyclopedia, and do not second guess their intentions. —Alalch E. 15:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
You said, Any other editor or editors could have opposed the best deletion-supporting argument during the extended relist periods, but no one did. Why? Because the issue with the sources is self-evident - I'm sure the issue was self-evident to you. But until you get the WP:OFFICE bit, you cannot simply override lack of consensus by decree. Owen×☎ 15:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You think there wasn't a consensus, I think there was, we think about this differently, and that is all there is to it. No need to second-guess my intentions involving a supposed desire to enact decrees. —Alalch E. 16:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what? I certainly did assess the sources that were in the article (and did my own GS search), as should be evident from my !vote. Should I have spelled out that specifically the primary trivial info from the databases and indices cited were not sufficient? Do I need to quote the notability guideline Editors are cautioned that these WikiProject notability guidance pages should be treated as
policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. every time, or can I assume any closer is aware of these? Two editors noted that there was no coverage that suggested meeting GNG. (Also pinging @Enos733) No editors made any claim that GNG was met or put forth an explicit IAR argument; sourcing was purely evaluated by keep !voters in the context of verifying the journal met the essay criteria, not that it met the policy requirement of secondary sources or the relevant guideline requirement for SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I find your !vote looks confusing and weak. It does not suggest that you did your own thorough analysis. Had have you asserted that you looked yourself at the sources and they they are all “primary trivial info from the databases and indices”, I think it would have closed as “Delete”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a direct response to your point per se, but this comment reminds me of Joelle's remark (at
WP:ARBDEL) about how A lot of frustration arises from AfD participants never having any idea how particular !votes are weighted by closers, or to what degree policies and guidelines (or just policies?) trump numerical majority. This encourages many !voters (me included) to respond to each argument that is not P&G-compliant or that makes inaccurate claims with rebuttals, out of concern that a closer unfamiliar with the guidelines (and consensus interpretation thereof) in the area will be misled.Mach61 (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I would point to Headcount's rebuttal "Indexers are by very definition third party reliable sources," RandyKitty's point toward WP:HEY (suggesting the article was sufficiently improved since nomination), and XOR'easter's comment "Adequately sourced" as claims that GNG was met. From one end of the spectrum, they are ambiguous statements that coverage exists. But, to me those statements in the discussion go a step beyond hand-waving and could not be dismissed out of hand by the closer. To your question, the burden on an AFD is usually from people who do not believe a subject should have a stand-alone article - and once supporters to keep the article argue the sourcing is sufficient, the burden really falls on supporters to delete the article to point out that the sourcing is insufficient. - Enos733 (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:IINFO and claiming that notability, as opposed to verifiability, was the issue Mach61 (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't disagree. I just think your argument was contested and there was no consensus on the matter. --Enos733 (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - the outcome was well within the closer's discretion of assessing the balance of arguments. While contrary to GNG, keep !votes made reasonable arguments in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia's core policies and can't be dismissed outright; no consensus is a reasonable call to make given the balance of arguments made. The applicability or lack thereof of
WP:NJOURNALS is a longtime point of disagreement within the editing community that needs to be resolved more clearly at a project level before arguments made on that basis are a priori tossed out as invalid; irrespective of what the correct path forward is for future English Wikipedia P&G, Star Mississippi made the correct call as an individual admin here. signed, Rosguilltalk 16:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Are we just going to ignore Editors are cautioned that these WikiProject notability guidance pages should be treated as
policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. for AfDs relating to this particular area? JoelleJay (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
No one's ignoring that, we're talking about a discussion where a numerical majority composed of experienced editors argued for an exception to a guideline, which I believe includes in its definition Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Reference to NJOURNALS in this discussion isn't laying down the law so much as it is referring to a condensed argument. Misuse of an essay would be more along the lines of ruling in favor of a minority that wants Foo because there's an essay that says to do Foo. signed, Rosguilltalk 03:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I struggle to see any different way to close the discussion. As it was the keep comments did inculde suggestion or implications that GNG was met. No consensus was the correct close. --Enos733 (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Given that
WP:N or judge encyclopedicity differently than others. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Are you saying the close was IAR? No one argued for IAR in the AfD so an interpretation that the !votes supported IAR retention would not be valid. JoelleJay (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not saying that the close was IAR. I believe that the close was a correct reading consensus. I am saying that IAR status as a pillar of Wikipedia means that
WT:N or a similar policy page. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I do not think it is unreasonable to say that the "flexibility" of our notability guidelines come primarily from the several existing SNGs that supplement the SNG, or to expect that IAR arguments be held to a higher standandard of consensus than was found at this relatively low participation AfD. Mach61 (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the event it needs to be said, explicitly saying my close was not IAR. When I do that (and I do at times), I say that I have and why. I did/do not believe there was a consensus to be found here, and I closed it as such. Others see it differently, which is all good and why we have DRV. StarMississippi 03:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse After three weeks of this AFD being open, it was clear that consensus did not form. The keep voters made a credible case that GNG was met, and the delete voters made a credible case that it was not. No consensus was certainly within the closer’s discretion, and I believe the correct choice. FrankAnchor 05:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also adding that the original nominator was later indefinitely blocked for disruptive edits. Take out the nomination statement, and there are only two delete votes remaining. If all keep votes were discarded (which is clearly not the case), it would have been closed as a soft delete or no consensus. Now add in a few valid keep votes, and no consensus makes the most sense as a result. I maintain my endorse vote and add prejudice against an early re-nomination. FrankAnchor 18:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak endorse, favor a new AfD This appears to be a for-profit entity without sourcing to meet WP:N and with no relevant SNG met. I like academic journals as a notion. But this one doesn't appear to meet our inclusion guidelines and I'd !vote to delete it at AfD. This isn't AfD, it's DRV. And I think the discussion was leaning toward delete, but the close was within discretion. I get why people want these academic journals to have articles. I don't think *this* has any redeeming qualities and I'm seeing no evidence it meets our inclusion guidelines. It has an impact factor of around 0.2, which basically is really really bad. https://mdanderson.libanswers.com/faq/26159. It looks like a "write-only" journal (people write articles and no one reads them). Hobit (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to a shorter than normal re-nom window as closing admin. I didn't see the point in an additional relist because of the less than normal AfD traffic at the holidays but if (generic) you feel can get input later this month or early next, feel free. StarMississippi 23:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
:*I don't know where you got that 0.2 figure, but this journal has no IF because it's not indexed by Clarivate. The link to mdanderson is a bit misleading as it is written from the point of view of oncology, a high-citation density field. IFs are very much field-dependent. Oncology journals have some of the highest IFs around and an IF of, say, 5 would be quite average. The same IF for a mathematics journal would indicate a top journal. --Randykitty (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
[reply]
Regarding this being a "write only" journal, looking at GScholar, I see a rather robust citation record, with several articles cited over 100 times and many others 56, 60, or even 80 times. Looks like the people writing in this journal get read (and cited), too. --Randykitty (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as much as I enjoy the debate about whether the journal is notable or not, this isn't what the DRV is meant to adjudicate. The only question before us now is whether the opinions expressed at the AfD were prima facie valid or not. Even if those Keep views are ultimately found to be misguided (which I don't believe is the case), as long as they were made in good faith by established editors relying on policy or common practice for the benefit of the project, they cannot be legitimately discarded. Owen×☎ 14:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right, I've struck my last two comments. --Randykitty (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further discussion at Randykitty's talk page. Hobit (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allow immediate renomination. The AfD is defective, if only due to the nominator now being blocked. It was a weak nomination, and the sources added during the discussion were not reasonably discussed in the AfD. End the end, I see the discussion having been closed as “no consensus” primarily due to confusion. On how to renominate, see advice at
WP:RENOM, namely, make it a good thorough renomination that summarises what happened in prior AfDs. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
That's an interesting point. The AfD nominator was indef banned for disruptive deletion nominations during the AfD, which allows us to discard their view. If we do so, it leaves us with just two legitimate !votes for Delete. With this in mind, claiming there was a clear consensus to delete is just ridiculous. Owen×☎ 09:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Their indef was a little more complex than bad AfDs. StarMississippi 14:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but the fact remains that this was not an editor in good standing at the time of closing. We have the option to legitimately discard it. Owen×☎ 14:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've already said I have no issue with a speedier than normal re-nom. A relist didn't make sense, but with distance from the holidays we may get more input. StarMississippi 14:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - If a closer finds No Consensus, and an appellant comes to
DRV, it is sometimes because the appellant thinks that the closer should have supervoted. it is very unusual for a close of No Consensus when the !vote count was approximately even to need to be overturned. This is not the special case. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Endorse, accurate closure. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, and a trout to the opener of this discussion. I have mixed feelings about
WP:NJOURNALS, but the idea that this AfD could reasonably have been closed as anything other than NC or K is ridiculous. --JBL (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
