Administrator instructions

Skip to: Active discussions | Recent discussions | Archive

Wikipedia editors may find articles, images, or other pages that they believe should be deleted, and raise these concerns in various deletion forums. Administrators determine consensus and examine policy to determine if there is sufficient justification for their removal from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. It is not necessary to have the original stub undeleted. If, however, the new stub is also deleted, you may list it here for a discussion. If you are proposing that an existing page be reconsidered for deletion, please place the template {{Delrev}} on that page to inform editors who may wish to join the discussion here.

Before posting a deletion review request, please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy.

What is this page for?

Please consider the options below, and then follow instructions to add your request to the main part of the page.

Principal purpose — challenging deletion debates

This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate. This page exists to correct closure errors in the deletion process and speedy deletions, both of which may also involve reviewing content in some cases. Purely procedural errors may be substantive and result in an overturn (such as failing to tag a page for its XfD discussion) or irrelevant (such as closing 1 minute early).

The main purpose of the page is to review the outcome of deletion discussions, as described above. There are some ancillary cases where editors wish to have pages restored. These are also handled in main part of the page — please consider the usual reasons below and state clearly the basis for your request.

Temporary review

Request this if you want to use the content elsewhere (such as in other articles), you suspect the article has been wrongly deleted but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted, or if the full article history is needed to complete a transwiki properly. Please state whether you would like:

1. The article temporarily restored for all to examine during a review.
2. The article restored to your userspace so you can work on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion.
3. The source of the article emailed to you to review 'off-Wiki'.

Only uncontroversial revisions will be restored. Content that is moved back to the encyclopedia without being improved may be subject to speedy deletion, and content held in userspace without evidence of intent to work on it may also be nominated for deletion.

History-only undeletion

Request this to have the history of a deleted article restored behind a new, improved version of the article. The old, deleted revisions will sit harmlessly in the history of the page. 'History-only' undeletions can be performed without needing extended discussion on this page.

Contesting 'proposed deletions'

Request this if the article was dealt with as a 'proposed deletion'. A 'PROD' can be restored by any admin upon reasonable request. Such an article may still be deleted at articles for deletion or under the criteria for speedy deletion.

Administrators restoring deleted articles should also restore the associated talk page if it exists and place {{oldprod}} on it. {{ProdContested}} (shortcut {{subst:PC|articlename}}) is available for notifying the original nominator that the article has been restored.

How do I do all this?

All requests go in the main part of the page below. Please state clearly your reason for requesting undeletion. If you want to review the debate or the cause of deletion, then these ancillary options are not appropriate, and you should request a full review.

Under no circumstances will revisions that are copyright violations, libelous or contain otherwise prohibited content be restored.

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Commenting in a deletion review

In the deletion review discussion, users should opt to:

• Endorse the original closing decision; or
• Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
• List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
• Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear.

Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least five days. After five days, an administrator will determine if a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.

Steps to list a new deletion review

Before listing a review request, please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision) as this could resolve the matter faster. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.

Click to create a log page for tomorrow (9 September 2008)

Active discussions

8 September 2008

Welsh Foundation

Welsh Foundation (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

An article about the Welsh Foundation was recently deleted and blocked prior to allowing me the opportunity to provide justification for the article. The article was initially deleted because it was deemed to "not assert notability." In fact, this organization is the first and only 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that is funded entirely by proceeds of a Charitable Lottery Pool (CLP). This unique approach to fund-raising is significant because it is not currently utilized by any other public charity recognized by the IRS. Please reconsider the deletion of this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonsumqualiseram (talk • contribs)

• Note: This request was malformed on the September 3rd log [1], such that it was not visible. I have relisted it here as a convenience to the user. I have no opinion on this request at this time. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Also note: I have notified the 4 administrators who have speedy deleted and/or protected this article, and noticed that two of them have wikibreak or busy notices on their talk pages, so they may not be currently able to defend their actions. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment from deleting administrator: I deleted the article Welsh Foundation because, in my opinion, it was not notable under criterion A7; that is, "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." While being the first and only 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that is funded entirely by proceeds of a Charitable Lottery Pool, this is not a claim to notability. There are charities in the UK that do exactly the same thing, and in any case, notability is not determined by being the first, but by WP:N. In addition - and I'm from the UK here, so I'm not savvy with the systems, but I can't find any record of the organisation as being tax-exempt at this link. Even a national search yeilds no charity called 'The Welsh Foundation'. I might also add it has no hits in any news sites. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well 501(c)(3) and IRS suggest it's American, so if it is indeed a UK organisation then clearly something is wrong. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

HE did not say it was a UK organization. He compared it to UK organizations. The external links he provided are US-internal revenue service links. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 08:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment from deleting administrator (deletion 3 out of 4): Other than the statement above, which did not seem particularly important to me, and where there was no mention of it being unique in that way, there was absolutely no mention of importance. It was a clear A7, in my opinion. 06:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Od Mishehu (talk • contribs)

7 September 2008

ASuite

ASuite (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

A year ago, ASuite page was deleted because it is non-notable software. Today, I rewrited a new page of this software with some english sources on my userpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:El_salvador/ASuite . If this new article is good, I will ask you to restore old article and I will merge it in new ASuite page Salvadorbs (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Laurence Baxter

Michael Baxter

Michael Baxter (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted as an A7 (no assertion of notability). A look at the cached version shows numerous assertions of notability. So why was this article really deleted? RMHED (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Delete The article was a resume. There was no assertion of notability and the references were merky at best.--Pmedema (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So numerous important civil service positions aren't assertions of notability? RMHED (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Did he do something other than his job? Corvus cornix_talk 20:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Do any high ranking civil servants do anything other than their job? I believe he had a hobby, though I can't quite remember what it was. RMHED (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep deleted An ordinary person doing an ordinary job, possibly quite well, but insufficient independent evidence of importance or secondary sources (newspaper or magazine articles, etc.) Remember wikipedia is a tertiary source and summarizes what other sources have to say about a person. Note, however, that there is another British Statistician of the same name (but different middle initial) who quote possibly meets the professor test, so the title should not be protected or salted. Thatcher 02:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment as deleting administrator - there were no real assertions of notability; it read, as Pmedema says, like a resume of a middle manager. Merely working for the civil service does not make one notable by Wikipedia's standards. Neıl ☄ 08:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. As per Thatcher. Minkythecat (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

FIPS (computer program) (closed)

XBRL International

XBRL International (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Closed as keep despite an apparent consensus to delete. Recommend overturn and delete. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. Upgrading my Merge to Delete. WikiScrubber (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No third party sources. --Tone 15:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Relist as it should have been. inadequate discussion. This is not the place to discuss whether or not it's promotional or neutral. The nom, the author, and 1 dletete + 1 merge is not enough for consensus DGG (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• comment (as closing admin) From my talk page, where Stifle was kind enough to discuss this closing prior to submitting this deletion review request:

The nomination itself lacked any substantive argument for deletion. The opinion that a subject is not fit for an encyclopedia is akin to simply not liking it. I really feel that no articles should exist about Pokemon, regardless of how much coverage there is in reliable sources, but I recognize that wikipedia does not only cover what I like. Your argument, although not discounted, is by no means supported by consensus; have a read over WP:TIND (the 'no deadline' essay)... it is just as convincing as the essay you linked-to in your !vote. I agree that a reasonable close may have been no consensus, but in this case, where the nom was not valid, I felt it leaned over enough to keep to warrant calling it as such. I doubt a keep closure would get overturned at DRV to no consensus, and I am very certain that this one would not find support as delete at DRV. But, if you see it differently, feel free to submit it. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 21:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that in the conversation, Stifle said it should have been closed as "no consensus", which is a form of keep, which is why I was so sure that DRV would be unlikely to overturn just to recharacterize the type of keep closure. I am surprised to see people here saying overturn the closing as keep, as I can absolutely not see how one can see delete consensus in the discussion. No consensus (and/ or relisting as DGG suggested above) is the only other possibility, which I just discussed. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Relist. If it had to be closed, I would say the current discussion is no consensus. However I agree that forming a firm consensus by relisting is the best solution. TotientDragooned (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with Jerry that the importance of the subject shouldn't be confused with the current state of the article or who likes it. The SEC has mandated the use of XBRL [2] and has chosen XBRL International to write the taxonomies for US GAAP. [3] If I were a US investor who was interested in financial reporting, I would need to know about XBRL as it is used by the SEC and therefore I would need to know something about XBRL International, too. The article needs a rewrite, but should not be deleted. --Glennfcowan (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I change my mind to keep and agree with Glennfcowan. An article on the subject is useful but I still think than in its present state it lacks neutrality. Cheers Lancet (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Mary Boone (closed)

Martin John Callanan

Most revent version restored under delrev tag Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Martin John Callanan (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Notably was established in the article. Proper discussion was not engaged at review by editors familiar with the topic area. No attempt was made to edit the article Artlondon (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Link to Second AFD here. Davewild (talk) 09:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Hmm Since Artlondon is a SPA I suppose we can let him off his abject failure to engage with me before bringing this to DRV. Consensus is measured against policy not headcount and the´raised issue - notability was only challenged through assertion rather then proper referencing that met WP:RS. As sushc deletion was the only possible outcome to this discussion but I'm very open to reversing the close if some proper referencing is provided. So far they haven't so endorse own deletion Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC) - Just to clarify none of the references provided discussed the subject in any detail and links to places you can buy books and lists of conference attendences don't cut it to establish notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC). Struckthough manifestly untrue comment about SPA. My apologies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Spartaz, what is Artlondon's "special purpose"? -- Hoary (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Relist when someone closes an afd without any comment whatsoever people may not unreasonably take it as a sign they are not open to discussion. The references provided were adequate in my opinion to support notability, but I'm not advocating a keep on the basis of my own opinion--just further discussion. DGG (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Respectfully I completely disagree with your argument that a brief closing statement automatically means that I'm not open to discussion of the merits of the close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Spartaz on this one, DGG. If people are going to make asinine extrapolations to justify bad faith assumptions, we can not be expected to walk on eggshells to accommodate them. A brief closing summary may just mean that the closer does not see the closing as controversial or as requiring any additional remarks, as it may seem obvious to them. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

lets keep it simple: "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary." [4] Artlondon (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Artlondon, the accepted standard for article inclusion is discussed in our notability guideline at WP:N and specific advice on the notability of individuals is at WP:BIO. Basicially there are a lot of tangential references but nothing has been produced that specifically addresses this individual in detail. If such sources exist it would be simplest to simply cite them because that is all that is required to trigger undeletion by me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC) (note that sources need to meet our reliable sources guidelines WP:RS. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. The article had an awful lot of references, which gives me pause, but consensus was clear. Artlondon, this version of the page was much better than the first, perhaps you should request userfication, and continue improving the quality of the sourcing? TotientDragooned (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I was concentrating on the article to make it the best I could do. If some points are too much or not good enough for you, they should be edited out; but this does not justify deletion of the whole article. A published author is notable, as is a person which two high profile artistic residences and a teaching position at UCL when only 26 year old. Artlondon (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Artlondon, this is notability by assertion. That's not what we work on. If the individal is that notable then someone somewhere will have written about them. The art world is well endowed with literture and documentation. Please help us to help by finding the sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• 2nd AfD The link at the top goes to the first AfD. It should go to the second. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin John Callanan (2nd nomination). Ty 21:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Update: Spartaz provisionally "restored" the article, but one minute later blanked it with a notice inviting people to edit it and telling them not to blank it. Uh? Anyway, I've provisionally restored its substantive content, of course leaving the DRV notice on it. -- Hoary (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is customary to restore an article at drv upon request if it is not in the google cache so that non-admins can see the history, and then blank it, so google will not catalog it. The notice should have said not to edit it, not don't blank it. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Artlondon is not an SPA. He's been here for over two years with 1,130 edits to 367 unique pages.[5]. Ty 02:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse and userfy This is an unusual situation, as the subject has an international presence, which would not normally merit deletion, yet three of the most experienced art editors on wiki !voted that way, so I can't fault the closing admin. The sources do provide information e.g.: "In addition, "Martin has recently worked with: The Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, The Mayor of London, Transport for London, Network Rail, and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. Currently Honorary Research Assistant at The Slade Centre for Electronic Media in Fine Art, University College London and Artist in Residence at RIXC, Latvia."[6] I suggest the best solution is to userfy and work with editors at WP:WPVA to gain consensus for an improved version. Ty 03:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Tryad

Tryad (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Not unnotable GeShane (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

One deletion reason was that people suspected it was a nonexistent band, but http://tryad.org/ here is its website. Another request might have had to do with it not being a "noteworthy" band according to Wikipedia standards; however, the standards listed for bands are all geared towards traditional label bands and not for the type of internet-distributed open liscenced music that Tryad produces. Further if you go to jamendo.com you will see that Tryad indeed has a good fanbase there, and so by CC licensed internet band standards it is quite notable.

Note: second AFD nom is here. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - there's nothing in the article that comes close to meeting our notability guidelines. We're not a primary source; unless secondary sources have covered a band, we really can't verify anything that's in the article. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Process followed, close within discretion. MBisanz ^talk 03:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse AFD although lightly attended found no evidence of meeting the WP:MUSIC and nothing has been produced here to change that. Davewild (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment general notability guidelines certainly cover "internet-distributed open liscenced music", had this band received significant coverage in multiple independant reliable sources? The nature of distribution or licensing should have zero impact on that, indeed you'd think if the broader world thought these to be notable the open distribution and licensing would make them more likely to be being covered in said sources. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 11:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

newcomers may reasonably be reluctant to confront someone directly, especially when they closed without comment. DGG (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

They may also be reasonably reminded about the instructions which suggest that they try to discuss it first. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 18:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Relist as the close was on the basis of it being a hoax, which it isnt. It seems irrational, though, to close something thought to be a hoax as a redirect. I can';t really see a different conclusion than delete, but the place for that discussion is afd, not here. It's time we stopped debating notabiiity at deletion review. The reason is not in my view primarily procedural, but because the participants here are relatively few and non-representative, unlike teh much wider group who come to afds when they see something in field they are interested in. DGG (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

  Look again, the deletion in question here is this Afd as noted by the deleting admin in the deletion log. Nothing to do with being a hoax, items such as notability get mentioned here a lot for several reasons, one being that a change to the status re-notability can be enough to overturn a deletion based on a lack of notablity (The "Deletion Review also is to be used if significant new information has come to light.." part of the purpose of drv), and also to give pointers to newer editors who may not understand the issue, in some cases reiterating it may in fact enable them to produce sufficient sourcing etc. In this case since the nomination here is based around an issue of if the notability guidelines applied are appropriate a response not talking about notabilty seems unlikely. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Endorse. I would have preferred the AFD stay open a little longer - two participants is awfully flimsy for forming consensus - but I don't think the article has any hope of surviving a relist. TotientDragooned (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, it was deleted following a discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Tryad and the recreation did nothing to address the concerns of that VfD. --Stormie (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

SunSpider JavaScript Benchmark (closed)

6 September 2008

Flamboyant bella

Flamboyant bella (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Unsigned band, never released a record, Kept at AfD as no consensus despite not passing any part of WP:MUSIC. One editor produced some "coverage" of the band during the AfD which turned out to be three local news items about the band playing locally - two other editors voted Keep because of this, presumably without reading the sources. Black Kite 23:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse closure DRV is not AFD_2, process followed, admin close within discretion range and doesn't preclude another AFD in a couple weeks. MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse From the comments made those who argued for keeping do appear to have looked at the sources - 'borderline notability' as one of them said. Reasonable close based on the consensus at the AFD. Davewild (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, a headcount leaned more towards deletion and there were no policy-based reasons to go against that. Stifle (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, as I am the one who closed it. Couple of things here - AfD is not a majority vote, so the fact that there was one more person saying delete, than there were saying keep, should not be a point. Secondly, all of the users who commented on the AfD left some sort of comment, and all of the comments do make sense - most of which are relating to notability. It is clear that the article can be improved a bit, so maybe that should be the route taken here. Either way, there was no consensus to delete it, so it was kept. Just for the record, had I left a comment on the AfD, I would have said "delete" myself. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Of course it's not AFD2, but admins are meant to close AFDs not on vote count, but on the arguments provided. Can someone saying "Endorse" here please give a good reason how this band passed any part of WP:BAND?? Where is even the borderline notability? I'll say it again - this is an unsigned band that's never released a record! Even bands that have record deals and have released multiple records sometimes fail WP:BAND...Black Kite 16:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Those who commented for keeping in the debate felt the coverage was significant enough to meet the main notability guideline. Personally I think the coverage is borderline. As the only argument used against this was they believed the article did not meet the notability guidelines, there is no policy based reason for the closing admin to disregard any of the arguments. If the closing admins are going to start using their own opinion on whether articles meet the notability guidelines then we start getting in trouble. Davewild (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, as I said above, I think the article does not meet our notability guidelines - but given the fact that there was no consensus at the AfD, I closed it as so. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. Some editors thought the sources were sufficient to establish notability, about an equal number disagreed. Textbook no consensus situation. TotientDragooned (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

5 September 2008

RFC templates (closed)