User talk:Yallery Brown

Surprised

I was very surprised, reading this article, to learn that Silberbaur finally died in jail, in Poland... Does anyone has more informations about this fact ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.114.115.90 (talk) 09:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Impressive

Just wanted to say that I'm thoroughly impressed by the how far you've taken Karl Silberbauer from the stub I originally created. In fact, I'm considering nominating this for Featured Article status. DS 16:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Anne Frank

I think it's a bit of a jump to say that Melissa Muller - or anyone - ever accused Otto and Edith Frank of neglect! Muller observed that their decision to solve the "new person" sleeping dilemma was to have him share Anne's room, and that was a decision that disregarded - probably unintentionally - Anne's growing need for privacy. That's a long way from accusing them of neglect!!

Your point is taken, though, that Muller's statement is her considered view ("opinion", if you must) but if direct quotes from authors that are in any way opinionative were banned from Wikipedia, 1/3 of the articles would disappear tomorrow. As long as the writer makes it clear that they are citing another author, and then cites that author accurately, I do not believe it is a problem. An article on topics such as subatomic particles or the disappearance of the great dinosaurs will, by definition, be largely a relating of opinions, as that is basically what it amounts to at the current state of research in those fields.

You write so well, Yallery. Most of your work on Wikipedia is excellent. But you split hairs a little too fine sometimes IMO. I believe offering a personal POV is wrong. But I do not think offering one - or several - opinions of respected authors, when it is made clear that that is what you are doing, is wrong at all

Melos

Hello Melos,

Thanks for your message. There are several points I'd like to pick up on.

I had a problem with the quote from Melissa Mueller's book for several reasons, the primary being that I don't think it is an accurate evaluation of the situation. Her interpretation not only overlooks the context of the people in the hiding place and therefore their lack of options in housing Pfeffer, but also (by applying amateur psychology to the situation) turns what was a difficult choice into something that is made to seem symptomatic of Otto and Edith Frank's parental skills. I'd like you to look at this statement again. It says:

"Otto and Edith's decision to put Pfeffer in the same room with Anne . . . corroborates Anne's complaint that she was in fact regarded as a child. Not only Otto but Edith Frank as well disregarded her growing need for privacy and obviously ignored their adolescent daughter's sense of modesty . . " (my emphasis)

Now, there are several terms in this statement which could lead an uninformed reader to conclude that Otto and Edith neglected Anne's needs by lodging Pfeffer with her. That 'not only Otto but Edith Frank as well disregarded her' suggests they'd failed her together. The words 'disregarded' and 'ignored' in this context also do not suggest attentive, considerate parents, of which, of course, Otto and Edith Frank were. The point could certainly be made that it wasn't an ideal situation for Anne (or for Pfeffer for that matter) but we have to balance any assessment we may make in retrospect with an understanding of the original context.

Up to this point, I have to agree with your presentation.

It's cheap to conclude that because Anne had to share a room in the hiding place with Pfeffer her parents didn't care about her, because it suggests they could have done otherwise.

Whoa! I never concluded that, and I doubt any thinking person could. Upon reflection, (as I indicated above) I think Muller's choice of words was a bit too strong for the description - or the TRANSLATORS were - but I think Mullers point was that Otto and Edith - not out of cruelty, not out of neglect, and not out of stupidity, but just because they were human beings, and like all of us they occasionally "dropped the ball" - merely "dropped the ball" on that one. I see it as a decision that they really should have thought through again. And I can think of at least two - if not three - alternate sleeping arrangements that could have been made, but that is armchair quarterbacking, I realize.

You see, I don't think it is a long way to say that this passage accuses the Franks of neglect. In fact, I think that's all it suggests. I hope you can understand that for that reason I opposed it's inclusion.

I understood from the outset that that was the reason you opposed it. But I still think it is much too much of a reach to view it in that light. Two things come through clearly to any reader of Mullers book: 1) That Otto Frank was basically a fine man who did the best he could, and 2) That Edith Frank was a fine, caring mother, to whom Anne was very unfair in many ways.

I am not against to offering interpretations by respected (or otherwise) authors. There is certainly a place for an assessment of critical evaluation, but does it belong within the context of a short biography? That's debatable, but it certainly exists elsewhere here. What I think we have to guard, especially in articles relating to the Holocaust (which are vandalised almost every day by random editors and by people with a political agenda), is accuracy on every level. These pages aren't the same as the pieces on particles or the disappearance of the dinosaurs because these subjects, as you rightly point out, are speculative and open to new interpretation as research continues, whereas the recent history of the Holocaust and its victims isn't so obscure that we're still uncertain as to what or how it happened. For that reason, I think in this instance we should avoid presenting any interpretation as verifiable fact.

I couldn't agree more with that. But as you state it there, I could have prefaced my direct quote from Muller with the words "An opinion expressed by author Melissa Muller states:" and you would have let it be. Really?

I'm also aware that several passages in Mueller's book (her conclusion, for instance, that Lena van Hartog was the betrayer,

Intriguing, but merely amateur detective work, agreed.

and that Otto Frank reneged on a promised inheritance to Miep Gies)

Miep wrote the afterwards to Mullers book - I can't believe she let that piece of information pass as Muller wrote it, if she disagreed with it.

have been vigorously challenged by Anne Frank historians and by surviving members of the Frank family as being inaccurate and unjust. In fact, the book was considered so slanted that the Anne Frank Foundation refused to endorse it when it was adapted for television, which forbade use of quotes from Anne's diary being used in the production.

Out of curiosity, did you see that film? It wasn't perfect, far from it, but it was MUCH more historically accurate than "The Diary of Anne Frank", which Otto DID approve. And, the Anne Frank Fonds has their own views of a lot of things that are difficult to understand in many ways. They could have had any number of reasons for their difficulties with the film, Muller's biography, and their dissatisfaction with it, being one of them of course. But she had full cooperation from them in writing it. It would be foolish to say that Muller didn't opinionate in the book, but she was/is a highly respected journalist who has done as much or more than anyone to illuminate the period of what she calls "Hitler's racial madness". You would look long and hard to find anyone who has done more than Melissa Muller to get the message of the horror of the Holocaust out to a generation that knows only periphally about it - save Elie Wiesel and Simon Wiesenthal, of course. The book she wrote with Traudl Junge - innacuracies that there may be and all - was excellent.

Carol Ann Lee's biography of Otto Frank, and the report by NIOD into the betrayal of the families points out further inaccuracies in the book.

That works both ways. If you have read both books in depth (and I assume you have) you know that Lee's book - which I very much liked, too - has some outright wrong information in it. Most noteworthy: Her statement that Herman van Pels was gassed on September 6, 1944, when the train arrived in Auschwitz. That is simply not true - by considerable eyewitness testimony. I detected several mistakes in BOTH books. Try as they might to be accurate and objective, both Lee and Muller, like Otto and Edith - and Anne herself - were human, and made mistakes. You obviously disliked Mullers book. That is your right, I'm certain you have plenty of company, and vice-versa (though as I said, I liked both books, and found both very worthwhile for different reasons.) But if you reach the point of taking issue with anyone who used Muller's book for a source - and I'm not saying you have - yet - you would be very unfair, and very "un-Wiki".

Thank you for your compliments about my writing and I appreciate your opinion that I spilt hairs. You're absolutely right, I do! In my defence, you may have seen from my page that I wrote the articles on Anne's diary, her family and the other people in her life and as I've already said I have to remove vandalism from one or more of them almost every day,

As I have had to do myself.

often from people who wish to deny the facts of Anne Frank's life and in a larger context, the Holocaust, by questioning ambiguities that may appear. It's for that reason that I think it's essential that anything presented in them as a fact is just that. Not conjecture, not an interpretation, but a fact. If that means splitting hairs, I'm willing to do it.

I agree completely, of course, but I though I made it very clear to any reasonably intelligent reader (there will never be anything we can do about morons) that I was quoting another's view. Speaking for myself, though, between raising my own children, and having taught girls that age for 30 years, even if we assume that the biggest problem between Anne and Pfeffer was the basic abrasiveness of their two personalities vis-a-vis each other, the fact that this utterly normal adolescent girl had to share her sleeping space with a middle-age man was unquestionably a constant source of "more logs on the fire" to her overall view of Pfeffer. There would have been something abnormal about Anne if it weren't. But that aspect is the "elephant in the living room", the thing everyone knows is there, but no one wants to talk about. Muller had the guts to talk about it, even if she did phrase it very inelegantly, and I admire her for that

Two of my favorite creative artists who ever lived are Franz Schubert and Anne Frank, because both were outright geniuses at what they excelled at, and both make one wonder what they might have accomplished if they had lived a normal lifespan. I am a longtime researcher and educator, and I have a passionate interest in truth and accuracy. But I know full well we cannot write every article so perfectly that the morons cannot 'read into it' what they want to - and it's futile to try. I believe Anne Frank was an enormously gifted, but very human, very NORMAL girl, which makes her accomplishments all the more amazing, and she herself all the more endearing. I also believe that the more that is known about the life, times, surroundings and friends of any person helps you to understand even better who that person was (see my expansion of the article "People Associated With Anne Frank").

I would add in closing that it is nice to debate with a highly intelligent person for a change, and that I am guessing you are from England or Canada, as virtually no American spells "defense" with a "c".

--Melos Antropon 03:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD

You have previously edited an article about Anne Frank - I wonder whether you would be interested in passing comment on this AfD:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anne_Frank%27s_cats Robertsteadman 09:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Final thoughts on Anne

Yallery:

Thanks for the post back - I didn't see it until tonight, "life has been in the way" recently.

Bruno Bettelheim: I had to read a lot of Bettelheim's stuff in college. I remember all of it as being half thought-provoking insights into ideas and issues, and half Bettelheim preening himself through his writing. I was not a fan, and I agree with your assesment of his view of the situation in the annexe.

"The definitive biography of Anne is yet to be written" - I agree here also. Further, I fear that it will not be in our lifetime, if ever. But, if one has the patience to do it, and buttress it with study of other writings about Anne (to illuminate the mistakes), the closest thing we have to it are the combination of Muller's and Lee's books. If one can be objective enough to honestly assess the information in both as presented, the books, in their own strange way, very much compliment each other.

Write anytime - the topic is a favorite for discussion on my end.

Melos Antropon 04:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

High praise indeed. Thank you. :) Vashti 14:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The Diary of a Young Girl

Hi, I just wanted to alert you that I've re-added my additions to the lead on The Diary of a Young Girl as per WP:LEAD. Although I completely understand that the information is available later in the article, the lead is supposed to "be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." That is why I added the information about Frank's subsequent history after writing the diary, because it certainly is an important point and crucial to the success of the book. Furthermore (and similarly), the same tactic is used on the autobiographical book Night, which is a featured article. I hope you agree, and I just wanted to say I really admire all of the work you've done for the Anne Frank related articles; I enjoyed reading through a majority of them yesterday. :) María (habla conmigo) 12:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you mean about trimming so as not to be repetitive, especially if an article is relatively short and therefore doesn't require a comprehensive lead. I think the Diary article is coming along nicely, however, and it may be GA status sometime in the future, so the lead can stand to include more info. You're very welcome for the compliment, and I hope to see you around. María (críticame) 12:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Diana, Princess of Wales‎

Hi. I undid your addition of flag icons to this entry in view of WP:MOSFLAG. The use of flag icons in such instances adds nothing and is therefore deprecated. Best wishes, --John 19:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

user talk deletions

hey, i was browsing the recent changes and noticed you'd deleted parts of your talk page about uploaded images. while i cant directly intrude, its frowned upon for users to delete justified comments on their talk page; its like giving students freedom to edit their permanent records.

It wasnt a particularly good comparisom, no. it was meant as a piece of friendly advice rather than anything related to a "magisterial outlook", and if everybody required solicitation to say something nothing would ever happen. Didnt mean to cause any problems, my apologies!

O keyes (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

O keyes (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:First edition.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:First edition.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ilse@ 20:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Miep Gies, 1945.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Miep Gies, 1945.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Margot Frank,May 1942.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Margot Frank,May 1942.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Dorisstokes.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dorisstokes.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Herman van pels.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Herman van pels.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Anne's manucripts.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Anne's manucripts.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Augustevanpels.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Augustevanpels.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Vanessabell.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Vanessabell.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Etty.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Etty.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 06:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Opekta.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:Opekta.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 01:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jan Gies.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jan Gies.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Editør (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dr.F.Pfeffer.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dr.F.Pfeffer.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Quentincrisp1.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Quentincrisp1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Source for specific fact on Fritz Pfeffer page (transfer to Sachsenhausen)

Dear Yallery Brown,

First of all, thank you SO much for all the work you do and have done on pages about and related to Anne Frank. Amazing stuff! I work at the Anne Frank House, and a colleague of mine had a question about a specific fact on the page of Fritz Pfeffer, which I'm asking on her behalf. She was wondering what the source was for the statement "On 29 October he was transferred with 59 other medics to Sachsenhausen". I believe you added this looking at the page's history, and if not, that you might know it in any case.

Looking forward to hearing from you!

Best Lotte Belice (talk) 12:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kugler 1975, utrecht.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kugler 1975, utrecht.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Bsisters.jpg

The file File:Bsisters.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Margot Frank,May 1942.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Margot Frank,May 1942.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Keith Charters for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Keith Charters is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Charters until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)