User talk:Arms & Hearts/Archive 3

2466:

shoulders, meeting family, and his personal statement, which wasn't in many of these articles but in a different article (which I also referenced). If you have further information, feel free to contribute, but everything written there is based on the references. It seems really like there wasn't that much other than his statement and Islamic Jihad statement/celebration in those articles (the rest of the articles were pretty much talking about his detention which is already in the Knowledge (XXG) article). And Palestinian media has pretty much played it down, with the exclusion of Islamic Jihad websites (which featured it as featured article a number of times today, I didn't reference it though, you can if you want). Feel free to add any more relevant info that you can find that's reliable. I hope that clarifeis it. --

2550:

to be arguing that because there are Tea Party politicians that don't fit those criteria (and thus won't be included) that we're engaging in original research. If you're arguing that excluding some (unsourced) entries from a list is a form of original research, I'm afraid I can't agree. If you're more concerned with individual Tea Party politicians who don't fit those criteria, by all means, bring them up on the talk page so we can discuss different inclusion criteria.

2920: 2654: 2427: 2377: 2258: 1844: 1494: 1094: 293: 32: 3318: 3206: 1447: 405: 2224:

of NOTABLE!! = Dont let you lack of comprehension waste other peoples time trying to make things clearer for you. LOOK AT THE REPLIES on your talk!! AND THE ONLY person who has an issue for delection is YOU!!! You have taken a stubborn stance. DO SOME RESEARCH around here and STOP TRYING TO GET YOUR EDIT COUNT UP?! If you wanted to discuss it go on the articles talk page!! THE EXPLANATION IS ON THERE!!

618:, so I don't feel qualified to comment on what should or shouldn't be part of it. Finally, remember that redirecting one page to another isn't an irreversible change (nothing on Knowledge (XXG) is). If you're not swayed by my arguments and/or by reviewing the relevant policies, feel free to put the article back in place. (Also feel free to get back to me with any questions or concerns.) Thanks! – 3117: 502: 2744: 1365:. The general term is clarified just an inch or two down the page, in the body of the article, which discusses the specific official OWS groups that have rejected the 99% Declaration. I included this explanation in the edit summary. If you wish to discuss this further, I'm all ears at the Talk page. 3405:

I am contacting you because you have participated in prior discussions at the above article, and it would be appreciated if you gave your views on an current dispute. One editor wants to add a gallery of images for people who declined to stand for the leadership. Another editor objects on the grounds

2549:

is an ideology more than an institution, I'm sympathetic, but I think that's a minority opinion compared to most coverage in reliable sources. And I think the current criteria on the article—endorsements, self-identification, and caucus affiliation—are responsible, objective, and verifiable. You seem

2354:

on 15 occasions: 1972/73, 1973/74, 1974/75..." Alternatively, the list of honours could be merged into the history section, so their victories are listed alongside the developments described there. As it stands I don't think it's especially clear – for example, it took me a while to work out what the

2223:

WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM!!! - Perhaps some slight COMPREHENSION issues or PERSONAL issues you NEED TO GET OVER YOURSELF!!! AND YES I AM SHOUTING AT YOU!! - Like I said to you before, obviously you have nothing else to do but just sit in front of the computer and nominate articles for delection!! 99.99%

1871:

I have seen that you want to delete this article but don't know what I can do to help. I currently have no connection with this group but believe it to be notable. I am not an evangelical Christian, lapsed Anglican would best describe me, so I'm not waving a flag. Crusaders has been around for a long

1264:

I read a policy a few months ago that stated that high schools were inherently notable and primary schools were not. However, like you I can no longer find it. I have no idea whether my memory is playing tricks or whether there has been a change. Nevertheless, I still think that this article does not

2819:

Please see the template message at {{R from other capitalisation}}. My understanding is that we do make these redirects, for though our internal search engine will find it, other search engines and links may not. I think there's a long discussion of it somewhere when it was proposed to stop making

1535:

I will be removing the "for deletion" thing as soon as I can find it and I will find some more sources that better show the 'notability' of PiPP. You suggested the website only included articles which mentioned PiPP in passing, but I feel that many of the articles only existed because topics came up

907:

I wanted to ask whether you wished to re-engage on your DYK nomination—there has been a response to your last comment which I believe clarifies what was being looked for. If you don't, then the nomination should be closed, but I thought it was important that you take another look. Please let me know

226:

As for Michel Aoun/Archive1, Rossami's comment explains the historical need for the redirect and the follow-up by the anon basically says that the need is still current. The nominator's reason is "there is no need for this", so I view the comments saying "there actually is a need for this" as a full

2875:

to the extent that search engines normalize or ignore capitalization, titles different only in initial capitalization are confusing. I have however no intention of trying to make solid ground out of the quagmire that is the MOS in any general matter. In this specific case I. A. refers to the disam

2577:

Thanks. I think you've got my argument about right – the only thing is that my concerns about OR are in relation to setting self-identification as a sole criterion. The current criteria are problematic for other reasons (mostly unfeasible breadth). And no, I'm certainly not arguing against removing

632:

I agree with you that "being a bibliographic database doesn't make a topic automatically exempt from CSD A7", but like I pointed out in my earlier talk, the subject isn't just any bibliographic database but one that is listed on the website of many academical journals as being one of their indexing

2465:

The information I wrote was taken from the 5 or 6 references I included (most of them are nearly identical). They all included all this info about Islamic Jihad at the top of their article, so I included it as well. I also included the info about hundreds of people gretting him, being hoisted on

1316:

As a heads up for you, I've just redirected TCC to TA and sorted out the TA page a bit to include some basic bits and bobs from both articles. I've tried to avoid the primary source stuff about a sixth form which is clearly a while ahead yet I'd imagine. If you can find anything local to add to it

981:

up for possible deletion. She will represent the Dominican Republic in the worlds biggest beauty pageant in December, which in my opinion gives her instant notability. Also Knowledge (XXG) has thousands of "pageant girl" articles where the national win was far less controversial. Her controversial

938:

I'm not surprised you were hoping, though I didn't think of that possibility myself. I can't think of an alternative hook myself, so I'll put an "X" on it. If I do subsequently think of something, I'll let you know. (No need to leave me additional talkbacks; I'll keep you on my watchlist until the

1653:

was first proposed for deletion, which is why that message was on your talk page. However, an editor objected to the proposed deletion, so I created an AfD discussion (where I see you've responded – thanks for that). As a general rule, if there's more than one notice on your talk page relating to

1632:

Hi again, I'm new to Knowledge (XXG) so must admit I am a little confused. Thank you for your patience. You're saying I should not remove the article for deletion template yet I have a message saying, "You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but

1759:, which asks editors to focus on content and actions rather than on people. In this case that means that, while you should feel free to comment on my proposing that the article be deleted, my reasons for editing and edit history aside from that article are probably irrelevant.) Thanks again! – 2540:

Hi Arms & Hearts, it's becoming a bit of a pile-on at that AfD, so I was hoping to get a better idea of your rationale here. The Tea Party is a tricky beast; it's not a monolithic institution, but I do think it's institutional. Progressivism isn't an institution, even if institutions like

330:

Why was my article LG ICT Network deleted!!! did you read it? Did anyone care to read? How can it be a non relevant web content? It is 1. a Government project of the Government of South Africa 2. a cooperation project with own full time staff 3. is heavly funded and supported by the german

222:

Looking at the two discussions you mention again, re: Template:Anchor for redirect - "it does no harm and can be helpful" is a good reason not to delete a redirect, so rebutting the nominator's reason for deletion, but can easily see this going either way between keep and no consensus.

2876:

p. I. a., which lists the journal as one of the alternatives. I think the existing situation is the clearest. If you disagree, & think it matters, I suppose RfD is the place. Speedy is for stuff everyone agrees on; to the extent that it can be argued, it doesn't belong it CSD.

2703:

A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at

251:

However, if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist it, to solicit further discussion to determine

1014:

Hi, thanks for the swift response and for your contributions generally. From my understanding of the relevant notability guidelines, I don't think participating in a major international pageant is an automatic guarantee of notability. However, Ms. Lieggi still might meet the

3009:

I think this list article deserves to exist on its own. There is no guideline in Knowledge (XXG) that says (e.g.) a table cannot exist on two different articles. If anything, the table could be removed from main article where detailed lengthy lists do not really fit well.

3148:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) 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 2592:

I gave the whole thing an overhaul, which I think is a big improvement visually. It also makes it very clear which politicians have articles and which have references to facilitate removal of inappropriate items. I hope this helps make further improvements easier.

2561:

are unfortunate, as their use in AfD discussions implies that the nominator has demonstrated "no effort" or "neglect," which is clearly not the case. It seems like you're frustrated by a lack of progress on the article. I'll see what I can do to improve it. Best,

997:

I have now removed the PROD, if you still feel that the article should be deleted place it up for an AfD discussion instead. Representing your country in a major international pageant is notable. Also her national pageant is of major importance in the Dominician

1872:

time, I went to one of their camps in 1972, and if you talk to any privately educated boy or girl of the last 60 years they will know about it. Perhaps you should open this to a wider discussion on deletion. I would be interested to hear other opinions. Thanks

2578:

unsourced names – I think after the AfD the article will need a radical overhaul, beginning with the removal of all unsourced names (most of which will ideally be restored later). I'll probably admit defeat tomorrow and make a start on the actual article. –

1975:

makes no sense. I fixed it, so don't unfix it, requiring a hat note. Nobody searches on "The...", and the only use of the redirect was in reference to the film. The right fix is now to move the film to get rid of it's unneeded parenthetical.

1473:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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.

2782:

The man was managing Director of the Builders of the Routemaster bus, then MD of it's parent comany then chairman of the Largest bus maker in Europe, who also happened to be number 2 truck maker, I don't see how that isn't notable enough

1539:

On the page, PiPP was also cited in papers by the Australian Government's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade along with the Australian aid agency AusAID - which has donated around 500 million dollars to the Pacific Islands.

1166:

That makes some sense. On the other hand, rather than addressing my second and more serious concern you've repeated the false claims which led me to express it in the first place. I'd like to remind you again of the importance of

453: 268:

Unfortunately rfd is poorly patronised and experience shows that relisting often doesn't bring any further comments and I really don't like closing a relisted discussion (as anything) that hasn't attracted any more discussion.

1477:

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 template from the top of the article.

1608: 1317:

then it'd be good - seems to have been some of the usual school based vandalism there now that term has started (which actually indicates it probably does exist which was my initial worry) so it's on my watch list.

2823:

Redirects are cheap--the load on the database is extremely minuscule. it takes much more effort to remove them when they're just redundant. The times to remove them are when they are wrong or confusing or pointy.

1715:

I have removed your proposal for deletion. This article meets Notable criteria. We are trying to upload stats table and images but its something in here Knowledge (XXG) Which we trying to work through with wiki.

923:

Thanks and sorry for not clearing this up sooner – I was sort of hoping someone else might propose an alternative hook, but seeing as no one else has, closing the nomination seems like the best course of action.

1805:

No, I was shouting lol - I had an angry day yesterday - Sorry you had to deal with that! :) But thank you for being the bigger person and staying constuctive!! Have a good weekend! ☻Ÿ 23:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

3482:

I see that every single page I nominated for deletion/redirect, you supported it being kept, no matter how irrelevant the person is. Under what circumstances, if any, would you support a deletion or redirect?

1150:

Searching for sources before saying, as you said, that a subject "fails GNG" is an obvious requirement before proposing an article for deletion, it will not take to you more than three-four minutes. Regards,

770: 718: 698: 1045:

I would support you placing the article up for AfD, that way we can get input from many users and reach some consensus as I feel biased as article creator. I think that is the easiest way of handling this.

829: 609:

In my view being a bibliographic database doesn't make a topic automatically exempt from CSD A7. If it were, for instance, the world's biggest or the world's oldest such database, or if it clearly met the

873:

The answer to your question, yes it is it was primary defended in the georgia region, there is also another version of this championship its called "NWA Southern Women's Championship (Florida Version)".

1144:

Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article.

594:

do? Even if you do not agree with me, I think you should have allowed a discussion instead of redirecting the article again; I hope you read my comment on the talk page before redirecting. Thank you. —

3144:

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

3062:

is relevant, fork is when there are two articles about one exact same topic, here scope is different. The current redirect is a reasonable solution though, I may consider splitting in the future. --

3040:'s rule of thumb), but if you want to work out another way of doing it within those guidelines (or, even better, substantially expand the content so splitting becomes an option) that'd be great. – 227:

rebuttal, especially as the long-standing precedent at RfD is we keep almost all apparently pointless redirects if they're not doing any harm. I see your point about no consensus though.

1470: 1991:

I think maybe the first thing you need to remember is that it really isn't remotely a big deal. I think someone searching for "The Color Wheel" is more likely to be looking for the

901: 507: 245:

Thanks for responding; and yeah, that all makes sense. I think though, and I don't really know why I didn't say this the other day, that maybe the right move for both would've been

2933: 2667: 2440: 2413: 2271: 1857: 1507: 1288:

sort of doesn't exist yet and so might meet that section's final point. I'm going to have a look for sources and see whether it's salvageable, and if not then AfD or redirect. –

1107: 306: 3180: 1284:, which isn't strictly policy but says that a similar standard often applies when schools are nominated at AfD. However this one's kind of more complicated as (per the article) 866: 2074:. A7 is not even remotely applicable; schools don't qualify for speedy deletion in the first place, except in cases of vandalism, plagiarism, or possibly spam. Thank you. 1385: 1281: 1335:

in the equation, but I think you're right: a closer a reading of the October 2011 article makes it seem more like a sponsorship than a merger. Keep up the good work! –

1061: 3399: 1375: 1678:

is more than 2 weeks old and it looks like consensus for No Merge. As for the other page full of texts, see my comment suggesting moving it to WikiSource. Thanks.

566:, so can you please explain to me how else I can prove the notability of the subject other than citing and linking some of those academic journals? Does being a 1391:

Thank you for your withdrawl in consideration of the massive improvements to the article. As an opining editor, it might otherwise have been improper for me to

615: 579: 3138: 1459: 2106:

includes the phrase "group of people", which isn't used in the actual policy. Anyway, it's on track to be deleted in a few hours anyway, so no big deal. –

437: 423: 3149: 2679:

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Check your Knowledge (XXG) email:

1719:

It seems by your history of "editing" all you do is Propose to delete?? If youre trying to get your editing figures up, try doing it another way.

3287: 3145: 2949: 3157: 1907:

If you think it meets that guideline, it'd be best to demonstrate it by adding those sources; in the meantime though, feel free to remove the

1500: 1493: 1917:

template from the top of the page, as any editor is free to do. If you have any other questions or concerns feel free to ask here and/or on

677: 672:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 375: 370:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 194: 189:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 151: 146:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 108: 103:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 1918: 142: 130: 3153: 2660: 2653: 1536:

due to surveys and research findings from PiPP. Therefor, it seems a little unusual to suggest that PiPP was only 'mentioned in passing'.

55: 50: 2628:

on many of the claims I wish to challenge (mostly I got through politicians starting with A through G). Would be happy if other editors

2979: 2764: 1588: 1372: 3373: 3297: 99: 87: 1650: 2721: 1613: 2712: 982:

win after the original winner was dethroned is also giving her notability. I would suggest that you place her up for AfD instead.--

879: 673: 371: 190: 147: 104: 3133:, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Knowledge (XXG) is acceptable. Please go to 2542: 2404: 1940: 1911: 2227:

IM TAKING IT OFF - GO THE TALK PAGE AND FIND OUT WHY! - Be Profession and have an attitude shift! ☻Ÿ 23:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

2007: 1999:. Neither version would be "broken", so neither requires "fixing". In the absence of an agreement, I think we have two options: 1543:

PiPP is well known in the region, particularly in Australia and among the Pacific Islands and I can assure you it is 'notable'.

1026: 773:, which I think resolves the issue. (In future, if a page needs to be deleted in order for a move to take place, you should use 663: 530: 361: 180: 137: 94: 2850: 1865: 1594:

template, which needs to remain on the page as long as the deletion discussion continues, and for working to find sources. The

2705: 1265:

say anything unexpected that would not be supportable and would prefer that it goes the AFd route rather than the PROD route.

2089: 2071: 1366: 472:

if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the

3036:

is also relevant. My main concern's that the content isn't duplicated and the article isn't split needlessly (i.e., against

2841:

Yeah, I've nothing against the existence of such redirects. The problem is when they hold up actual articles. In this case,

1332: 3092:

as an example, which is defined by articles being spun off with narrower scopes. Anyway, it's obviously not a big deal. –

2692:

If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to

2533: 2243: 1738: 1568: 2693: 1637:

Yeah, I can see how that'd be confusing. Basically, there are three different ways Knowledge (XXG) articles get deleted:

1022: 411: 2989:

Oops, my bad. I saw the typo and fixed it on the article but not on your talk page. I guess you understood it though. –

2316:

page, I have now re-written that part but I do not understand the phrase Prose? Any advice greatly appreciated. Thanks (

538: 2893: 2355:"number" section refers to. But anyway, it was just a suggestion – ultimately it's up to you. Keep up the good work! – 1675: 1463: 2289: 2041: 1322: 587: 3283: 3275: 2507:

Yeah got it, and responded there. Looking forward to working with you on this and any future articles you'd like. --

634: 3510: 3097: 3045: 2994: 2945: 2901: 2866: 2804: 2788: 2583: 2498: 2360: 2129: 2111: 2027: 1926: 1827: 1793: 1764: 1700: 1659: 1621: 1340: 766: 516: 473: 459: 17: 3029: 2014: 3385: 1404: 317: 299: 292: 70: 3134: 3125: 2622: 2853:, which doesn't need the parenthetical disambiguation because there are no other topics called "International 2201:

If you want a third opinion, ask it, but in my opinion it would be sufficient if you quit to troll. Thanks. --

1146:

Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation

254:

In these cases both only had two participants and were devoid of policy-based arguments. What do you think? –

2409: 3357:

on Seattle-related Knowledge (XXG) articles with Knowledge (XXG) tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand.

2975: 2768: 2748: 2264: 2257: 1780:

in edit summaries. While I'm sure it wasn't your intention, typing like that can be understood to represent

1752: 1318: 1234:

template because I think he meets point 4d of the notability guideline. It'd be great if you could help add

570:

which makes it an educational or knowledge resource not make the subject important enough to beat criterion

534: 3502: 2231: 2092:

is about a group ("batch") of students, not their school, so A7 sort of applies. Oddly, the description of

1726: 1556: 1139: 463: 2517: 2476: 2279: 1996: 583: 567: 404: 3279: 2926: 2919: 2752: 2383: 2376: 1902: 1599: 3219: 2941: 2846: 2842: 2784: 2321: 1331:

Thanks for the update and for sorting the articles. I vaguely remember being confused as to the role of

944: 913: 814: 751: 713:

I could create the page manually, but that is not recommended as it loses the edit-history of the page.

486: 416: 3506: 3093: 3041: 3037: 2990: 2897: 2862: 2800: 2579: 2554: 2494: 2356: 2125: 2107: 2023: 1922: 1823: 1789: 1760: 1756: 1696: 1655: 1617: 1336: 469: 3449:

Hi A&H, I've posted a box with more parameters as requested, in case you want to take a look. See

1897:

an organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in

3487: 3381: 3165: 2700:. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration. 2397: 2206: 2187: 2171: 2121: 2067: 1951: 1877: 1649:(AfD), for cases where not everyone is likely to agree with deletion, so broader input is requested. 1454: 1438: 1397: 1307: 1293: 1247: 1176: 1100: 1093: 1069: 1036: 958: 929: 890: 875: 855: 798: 623: 366: 354: 314: 259: 2858: 2760: 2558: 2103: 1202:

Hello - please explain why? This person have works in couple on National Museums - thats something!

2490: 2163: 1683: 1156: 274: 235: 1560: 1395:, but with your withdrawal, there was no longer a valid reason to keep the discussion open. Best, 1196: 1188: 1135: 1128: 246: 2966: 2546: 2313: 2302: 2049: 1981: 1427: 1209: 1118: 642: 599: 343: 76: 3450: 3033: 2347: 1785: 1266: 219:

Sorry for taking a while to get back to you - I've got internet connection troubles currently.

3260: 3239: 3189: 3067: 3018: 2510: 2469: 2285: 2239: 1734: 1722:

There are many notable articles here you have posted to delete? ☻Ÿ 05:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

1564: 1518: 840: 687: 512: 385: 204: 161: 118: 3130: 3085: 3059: 1642: 3514: 3491: 3471: 3459: 3442: 3436: 3415: 3389: 3291: 3264: 3243: 3223: 3215: 3195: 3169: 3101: 3071: 3049: 3022: 2998: 2983: 2953: 2905: 2887: 2870: 2835: 2808: 2792: 2772: 2732: 2647: 2602: 2587: 2571: 2524: 2502: 2483: 2455: 2451: 2364: 2325: 2317: 2296: 2210: 2191: 2175: 2147: 2143: 2133: 2115: 2083: 2079: 2053: 2031: 1985: 1955: 1930: 1881: 1831: 1797: 1768: 1704: 1689: 1663: 1625: 1572: 1522: 1482: 1431: 1407: 1378: 1344: 1326: 1311: 1297: 1274: 1251: 1217: 1213: 1180: 1160: 1122: 1073: 1055: 1051: 1040: 1007: 1003: 991: 987: 962: 948: 940: 933: 917: 909: 894: 859: 844: 818: 810: 802: 777: 755: 747: 691: 646: 627: 603: 559: 542: 490: 482: 389: 347: 320: 278: 263: 239: 208: 165: 122: 74: 72: 31: 3498: 3156:

and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the

1892: 1888: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1748: 1646: 1638: 1595: 1392: 1168: 1016: 611: 575: 571: 3483: 3466: 3454: 3411: 3161: 2717:

Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage

2390: 2202: 2183: 2167: 2003: 1968: 1961: 1947: 1873: 1850: 1843: 1606:

won't have any bearing on whether the article's deleted; however your input is welcome at

1479: 1303: 1289: 1285: 1258: 1243: 1172: 1065: 1032: 954: 925: 886: 851: 794: 662:

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

619: 360:

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

255: 179:

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

136:

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

93:

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

3089: 2615: 2433: 2426: 2350:. So for example, the first line of the honours table might read: "The club have won the 1898: 1598:

discussion will run for a week, and whether the article is deleted will be determined by

1239: 1235: 3317: 2756: 2661:

Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act_provisions

2351: 2336: 2096: 1680: 1270: 1152: 978: 523: 431: 270: 231: 3179:

Since you commented on prods or such of this article before, you may be interested in

2611: 1946:

template as I believe the first reference from Pro-bono Australia asserts notability.

335:

4. does organize real time workshop and events for all south african municipalities.

3432: 2883: 2831: 2643: 2632: 2598: 2567: 2045: 1977: 1654:

deletion of a given article, it's probably safe to ignore all but the most recent. –

1423: 1228: 1114: 787: 707:

The article cannot be created from the AfC process because the redirect page exists.

676:. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from 668: 656: 638: 595: 374:. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from 339: 193:. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from 150:. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from 107:. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from 1302:

Update: I couldn't make my mind up. Check out the talk page if you're interested. –

742:(2) deletion of the page first, so I can move it over with the AfC reviewing script. 3256: 3235: 3185: 3063: 3014: 2235: 1730: 1514: 836: 716:

I agree with you, the redirect is a useful one, and the redirect is preserved : -->

683: 519:. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with 447: 381: 200: 157: 114: 3205: 2747:

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Knowledge (XXG), as you did at

1420:

Anyway I have put the comment on my talk page and hope that you will pick it up.

2729: 2697: 2447: 2139: 2075: 1992: 1972: 1645:, for articles which an editor thinks might be uncontroversially deletable; and 1047: 999: 983: 727:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Anesthesiologist_Assistant&redirect=no

591: 456:.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 185: 173: 3347:

Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104

2728:

Thanks for helping make Knowledge (XXG) better. Enjoy your research! Cheers,

3407: 2124:. It's clearly web content, and clearly doesn't make a claim to notability. – 1814:

do you think it meets? If it doesn't meet any, and can't be shown to meet the

501: 443: 2857:

ffairs". (Article titles which differ only in capitalisation are allowed per

704:

Hi, answering your question. "i don't understand the confusion over the afc"

230:

I hope this explains my actions a bit more, and I'm always happy to clarify!

2182:

Please don't touch the article before the end of the discussion. Thanks. --

1362: 454:

Template:Did you know nominations/A Guide to the New Ruins of Great Britain

338:

I do not understand how, without any discussion, the article was deleted.

2963:

The message you left on my talk page is malformed; please take more care.

3427: 3013:

Anyway if you want to keep it redirected I'm fine with that (for now). --

2878: 2826: 2639: 2594: 2563: 2342:

tag because I think the content would be clearer to readers expressed in

1781: 1777: 1361:

You inserted a tag requesting clarification of a sentence in the lead of

3406:

that doing so puts undue weight on the people who did not participate. -

1641:, for articles which are obviously and uncontroversially inappropriate; 1633:

please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page."

1609:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Pacific Institute of Public Policy

563: 3129:. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under 771:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Articles for creation/Anesthesiologist Assistant

699:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Articles for creation/Anesthesiologist Assistant

614:, then A7 wouldn't be applicable. I haven't been involved in editing 3369: 3276:

User_talk:Vejvančický#Welsh_Socialist_Republican_Movement_and_WP:CSD

830:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Christian Connection (website)

633:

channels. I am putting the article back in place with an RFC on its

562:, indicating on their official websites that they are listed in the 3497:

I'd support deletion or redirecting if the article didn't meet the

725:(1) manual page creation by pasting over the redirect, here --: --> 578:. And how come the subject is important enough to be listed in the 3316: 2343: 1417:

Never clear whether I put my comments on your talk page or mine!

2687: 3234:

i responded to you on my talkpage. please write back, thanks.

637:; please, your comment there will be appreciated. Thank you. — 399: 332: 77: 25: 2618:, need to be removed. I have started the process of tagging 1616:.) Feel free to get back to me with any further questions. – 1282:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Schools

3255:

responded again over on my talkpage. please get back to me.

3204: 3115: 2936: