1215:
editor that wants to delete only the Rudd article), I can see that the points for or against both articles are similar so there is some logic to having a joint AFD. The basic question, keep, merge, or delete boils down to notability (and the notability guidelines are flawed, being repaired, but won't be done in time). Under the initial part of the guidelines, both have some qualities that start to be notable but fail several important criteria and are, therefore, non-notable. That points to "Delete both". As far as keep, only the loosest interpretation of the latter part of the notability (events) guideline can explain a keep decision and, in that case, both should be kept. Preliminary assessment of the forming consensus of the notability (events) guidelines is that most or all criteria must be satisfied, so this is a delete both. Some references may be preserved so the deciding administrator should keep a copy of the article for a few days and ask the authoring editors to help merge some facts.
217:
sources that say the Obama visit was a stop, too, after the Asia
Pacific Summit. There were serious issues and a publicity point (whaling issue) for the Rudd visit but it was short. The Obama trip was a little longer but little was accomplished. It could have been notable if Obama publically demanded that the PRC force North Korea to act or demanded that the PRC buy American cars or shame them on human rights but it was an uneventful, non-notable trip. Both border on news but both also have multiple news sources (newspapers report the news, not necessarily notable on an encyclopedic level). The Obama visit was covered in several countries, the Rudd visit covered in at least Australia, Japan, UK, France, India, Pakistan, Singapore, United States. So there is no clear answer to this except that both are very similar articles.
496:
as the actual practice of
Knowledge (XXG), both articles qualify. The problem seems to be that the guidelines are a bit too vague which I will be looking into in the near future. Since there is no consensus just within me (there are conflicting policies, guidelines, and actual practice) I will work to help reduce the problem systemwide but this will take more time than the AFD allows. For the time being, a no censensus is a default to keep, which isn't bad because these two articles are not the worst of tabloid news but are a little on the news-y side. My new vote is personally no censensus (I'm talking about me) so it is a keep with suggestions to have the authors strongly consider merging.
698:. Really, "A black man, wearing a black coat, in a dark night, holding a black umbrella, walks into a black country". Wow. And it has apparently become an Internet catch phrase!!! Yes, really! Knowledge (XXG) says so, so it must be true!!! Oh yes, it's sourced, to be sure. I'm not quarreling with that. But does it deserve a place in an encyclopedia? Well, for that matter, does it deserve any mention at all, anywhere, except in these so-called "blogs"??? --
1273:, no one could then include any of the relevant information in the Reid article. That seems rather much. Certainly any notable content (however small) could be scraped into the main Ruud article, while deleting the completely pointless trip article. Otherwise, what's to keep a POINT-y editor from taking your overly strict reading of policy to its extreme?
653:. Individual speeches by heads of state (except perhaps certain annual speeches, like State of the Union, or historically notable ones) should be merged, and the same goes for visits to foreign countries that have no persistent coverage. The nomination may be somewhat POINTy, but there's still a reason to merge both.
956:
stop over in Tokyo on
Tuesday on his way to the United Nations conference on climate change. In Japan, will meet Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama and address a senior business audience on the Australian economy." Such a brief encounter ("stop over") with no discernible outcome means the article fails
216:
I see two articles that are similar and of questionable notability. I can't say 100% that it is a keep so a AFD is noted. (The converse is that I can't say it's a 100% delete either). Both articles are very much like news. One editor said that the Rudd visit was merely a stop. There are reliable
955:
a month ago, I would not object to a "keep", but I fully acknowledge that it would be absurd to have an article on every state visit by a head of state. Re the second article: Reference #3 ("Rudd to visit Japan en route to
Denmark") is a rehash of a press release that essentially says: "Mr Rudd will
820:
Actually, I don't think that inclusion in an encyclopedia is measured in the number of stacks of books written about the subject. I think that whether it's 1, or 10, or 100, or 1000 stacks of books written about the subject, is not the real question. As I have said above, some subjects definitely
788:
In other words, the answer is "yes"—you feel that the subjects would not be notable even if ten stacks of books were written about them. Well, needless to say, I think it's preposterous to say that a subject cannot be notable no matter how much attention it receives. In order to have some reasonable
1179:
I believe the closing admin has the option to close the discussion as "delete X, but merge Y" or even "delete X, restart AFD on Y", if they're particularly convinced by the arguments against one article, but not the other. At that point, the AFD could be restarted for the one, if the latter was the
830:
Mr. Rudd's 2009 visit to Japan, are worthy of their own articles, for the simple reason that they are not important enough to be included in a general-purpose encyclopedia. Don't confuse
Knowledge (XXG) with an archive of past news stories! But then, of course, as I must freely confess, I'm not
731:
be sourced from reliable sources, yes. But that doesn't mean that everything that can be sourced automatically gets a place in the encyclopedia! That is not the meaning of the term "encyclopedia". The subjects covered here should have real, long-term importance. So it does not matter if 2, or 20,
539:
that Barack Obama does is going to inspire someone to be the first kid on the block to say something about it. If the man catches a cold, someone will probably write an article called "2010 Barack Obama use of
Kleenex". I think that JB50000 is entirely right in getting us to consider how we treat
495:
Thank you for pointing this out which will lead to a discussion about the guideline. As far as this AFD, these two articles seem to lack historical significance but there is a possibility that the Rudd visit may mark a turning point on the whaling issue, but this is a very speculative now. As far
83:
in mind. I note that all the references in the article are from
November 2009, and that much of the content is worded in terms of events that are about to happen – a successful merge would include a source summing up the impact of the visit, as that is unclear from the material in the article as it
1214:
Redoing or relisting the AFD will only prolong drama. As far as the notability guidelines, there's currently a serious contradiction so there is a problem of using that guideline to determine the fate of the articles. Despite the editors' conflicts just before this AFD was started (including one
235:
but keep 49.99%. Several people are for delete. I spent a whole lot of time to write the Rudd article but I don't know. I do know it is similar to the Obama article but written better and a tiny bit more notable because of the whaling kowtow and now Rudd trying to bring up the fight again after
1356:
Great impact of Obama trip to China. That is laughable. The Rudd trip made more impact because of the high profile whaling issue and nuclear report. Unequal treatment of the two is really bad, particularly keeping the least notable (Obama) trip. If people want to merge some information, I can
769:
a coverage in an encyclopedia. Likewise, there are a lot of extremely popular topics (such as speculations about popular singers' sex life, breast size, or whatever) that should never, never have an encyclopedic article (however much is written/blogged/tweeted/whatever about that). So, the mere
534:
I would prefer to see articles of this type be about a world leader's entire tour, rather than about the about part of the visit. I'm afraid that the way that the nomination was phrased, it doesn't sound like a request for deletion, and this does seem to be a case of "and while we're at it..."
726:
I think that the very question, "what level of press coverage ... would be sufficient to demonstrate notability" is wrong. I think people are so much focused on the notion of "coverage in reliable sources" that they forget what this project is ultimately about -- not building an archive of news
365:
This AFD caught my eye because there are 3 consecutive speedy comments, which one can see very easily even if one is scrolling the page at a very high rate of speed. Furthermore, the AFD covers a new
Knowledge (XXG) guideline that I participated in discussion. The speedy comments may be well
1129:
My point is that -- for the Rudd article particularly -- there's absolutely no net detriment to losing the history of the article. It shouldn't have been written to begin with. And in all honesty, these should be two separate AFDs, as my views on the merits of the Obama article are a bit less
399:
Based on the tone of the discussion, the involved parties should attempt to work together because I sense a lack of comraderie that is nice to have. I plan to discuss this AFD with the lead author of the notability guideline or other editors before making additional recommendations, if any.
92:
and would like to view the content to make such a merge I would be willing to userfy the content for them. I will comment that it is unhelpful to list two unrelated articles in the same AfD, though I will not comment on the possible motives for this as I as sume good faith on the part of the
825:
represented in the popular literature do not really deserve encyclopedic articles. That is the main danger of what is called "Recentism"... I must say though that this is getting rather far away from the original question. I should say that I don't think either Obama's 2009 visit to China,
510:
After study of the
Notability (events) guideline, there is a significant flaw that I am discussing with others who edit that talk page. As a result, I cannot reference that guideline to offer a valid opinion. According to part of the guideline, both articles pass but according to another
764:
No; I think that the mere question of "amount of attention from the external world" has nothing do to with being entitled to inclusion in an encyclopedia. There are plenty of subjects that would never be covered in popular press -- various advanced scientific topics -- that definitely
1428:, which you started and are the primary author for, so that's hardly a balance. Between that, combined with the fact that multiple editors have warned you against lumped together AFDs like this, I'm sure you can probably at least understand why it's hard to assume good faith, right? —
1094:
the articles are deleted, any useful content should be scraped into a parent article. As the second part of my recommendation, I think the articles should be deleted. My terminology seems like it was perhaps incorrect, so I've fixed that in my recommendation.
375:
Mandsford's merger (below) comments and recentism comments are sensible. This is a difficult question since both articles are about subjects that probably have no historical significance but do meet
Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for notability based on reliable
563:
559:
586:. Although nobody had yet voiced any strong support for a merge, a proposal like the one you voiced above about combining it with Obama's entire tour (which I actually think is a good idea) could have, and should have, been discussed there... —
383:, a new Knowledge (XXG) guideline for event notability (full credit should be given to User:The Wordsmith, I basically posed discussion questions and copy edited but did not author the guideline). Both articles meet the guidelines per
1150:
I agree that they should be two separate AFDs. I'm not sure, but is it possible that the administrator who closes this could actually decide, if there is no consensus, that they could be split and two separate AFDs could start over? —
1421:
732:
or 200 papers report about some news event -- if it does not have real, long-term significance, it has no place in this encyclopedia. That's the crux of the matter. If you disagree, with all respect I think you should be editing
977:(both). One of the votes seems to be a personal quarrel because that person was for and then ran into some conflict and is now against. Both articles are just obscure articles with some online newspaper articles as references.
555:
75:. Such a merge would need to be done with care as there is too much material in 2009 Barack Obama visit to China to merge wholesale into Sino-American relations. Consideration of what material to be kept should bear
1405:
No, I am saying that neither article meets the criteria for notability but that the Obama article fails it stronger. I am fair because I edited both articles and most of the editing for the Rudd article is mine.
789:
inclusion standards, we need to be able to identify some level of attention at which we consider an event notable, even if some individual editors think it's a silly or inconsequential topic. Let's determine what
952:
874:
579:
60:
387:. Whether the guidelines needs to be re-written is certainly a valid point. I have discussed even after the guidelines were approved that the guidelines should be more specific in order to be a good roadmap.
865:. I had been in favor of keeping the Rudd decision because I thought JB50k was doing a pretty decent job of improving the article, and that he planned to continue. However, since he is now actually the one
951:. Re the first article: The Obama visit was four days and had some substance, and the article has a (weak) "reactions" section, so an argument for keeping it could be made. In view of the "no consensus"
1048:
It is becoming more and more clear to me that this is a POINT-y nomination from an editor that is simply angry that the Rudd article is going to be deleted. As such, I'm changing my recommendation to
554:
Unfortunately, it's difficult to take his AFD seriously given his history. When one of his articles are challenged, he responds by trying to delete articles of a similar nature to make a point: see
511:
conflicting part, both articles fail. My goal is to ignore this AFD and let it run to whatever course it runs and spend the next few days fixing the guideline so that it doesn't contradict itself.
1527:
for the Rudd one. Presidential visits, especially US presidents' visit to China, is almost automatically notable, and it gets extensive media coverage. Comparing the Rudd article with it is quite
84:
currently stands, and would cut out the speculation and the future tense (example: “Obama is expected to raise the issue of the Renminbi in his talks with Hu Jintao”). The consensus for
1425:
1130:
strongly-held. But my view remains that what little content might be usable should be simply placed into a parent article. These pages aren't even really all that useful as redirects.
279:-let's-lump-it-nomination by the same editor who tried it before. Besides, this is nominating for deletion and then saying "maybe not"... so which one is it? Delete? Yea? Nay? *sigh*
649:
in that the coverage doesn't seem to have much duration and isn't likely to have lasting notability. For an example of a visit to a foreign country that meets these criteria, see
770:
fact of "attention from the external world", or absence of same, doesn't mean much as far as building a reliable encyclopedia is concerned. Anyway, to answer your question, I
187:
182:
191:
1499:
831:
doing political science; it's quite possible that future generations will really need the information about these events; so there's no harm done in retaining them here. --
566:. Further, when the Rudd article started coming under fire, he had started making threats, or at the very least alluding to the fact that he would eventually do this: see
141:
136:
621:
174:
145:
1255:
If the article is deleted, any merging of the content is out of the question. It's against policy. Content can only be merged if the article histories are preserved.
128:
1578:
1554:
1540:
1514:
1486:
1451:
1415:
1398:
1366:
1347:
1302:
1288:
1264:
1224:
1195:
1174:
1145:
1124:
1110:
1085:
1071:
1022:
986:
969:
927:
918:
904:
840:
815:
806:
783:
759:
745:
721:
707:
678:
661:
636:
609:
549:
520:
505:
488:
461:
409:
357:
308:
283:
265:
245:
226:
106:
774:
think there's some particular amount of attention from the "external world" beyond which we should automatically have an article about the subject. --
430:, after he started making what I perceived as threats against the China article if his Rudd article were to be deleted. I tried to inform him about
1038:
of notable content (reliably-sourced, of course), that could be valuable in the parent articles. As such, the second part of my recommendation is
1357:
see. But to have a really non-notable trip (Obama) and a slightly more notable trip (Rudd) killed is a very political move by Knowledge (XXG).
253:
923:
The other "fear" would be that you will continue to pull similar stunts as all the previous AfDs you've launched. Can you address that fear?
870:
583:
178:
64:
1293:
You could still add the information, but you couldn't simply copy-paste it into the other article. You'd need to write it from scratch.
821:
need to be covered in this encyclopedia, even if they are not well-represened in the popular media; but, conversely, some subjects that
423:
17:
1440:
1387:
1163:
1011:
893:
598:
450:
346:
694:
or whatever. I must say that the majority of respectable news agencies would have been ashamed to inflict upon us something like
1324:
941:
669:. These are clearly notable events that generated plenty of press coverage, and I wish we could just consider the issue settled.
170:
112:
68:
47:
1270:
76:
909:
I will continue to improve the article if the community decides to keep this article. This addresses the fear of Hunter Kahn.
750:
In other words, you feel that no amount of attention from the external world would warrant the inclusion of these articles?
89:
645:
into appropriate articles on the foreign policy or foreign visits by both people. The both seem to run into problems with
571:
418:
made attempts to work together with this user, and will continue to do so. I reached out to him after the Hawaii deletion
435:
296:
132:
1220:
516:
501:
483:
405:
299:. I'd close it myself, but I'm on the record as writing that the Rudd article should be deleted, so I'm not uninvolved.
1593:
877:, is why I feel the Obama article shouldn't have been nominated for deletion at all. Let the merge discussion that was
36:
1445:
1392:
1168:
1016:
898:
603:
455:
351:
727:
stories (however well-sourced), but building an encyclopedia. Please mark the difference. Knowledge (XXG) articles
712:
What level of press coverage, if any, do you feel would be sufficient to demonstrate the notability of the subjects?
396:. However, I would be more happy if the authors could discuss it among themselves and come up with a merge decision.
331:
1331:
948:
124:
116:
85:
55:
1335:
650:
1592:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1566:
1550:
1216:
512:
497:
475:
401:
72:
51:
1372:
323:
88:
is to delete it, and I will go with consensus, though if somebody wishes to make a mention of the visit in
1435:
1382:
1158:
1056:, and as such, not every trip (not even the major ones) that a political leader takes needs an article.
1006:
888:
593:
575:
445:
341:
471:
431:
384:
1076:
You can't vote to merge and delete. You can vote to merge and redirect, but not to merge and delete.
982:
438:, which other users have also informed him of. So there have been attempts, by me and by others... —
1053:
80:
1373:
if there is an article about the Obama trip, there should be an article about the Rudd trip as well
1298:
1279:
1260:
1186:
1136:
1120:
1101:
1081:
1062:
836:
802:
779:
755:
741:
717:
703:
674:
545:
1467:
686:
both, with all due deference to all those who have commented above. I think some people are very,
367:
1574:
1546:
1536:
1510:
965:
655:
103:
1528:
646:
467:
426:, a stronger page that had the backing of consensus. I also made an attempt to reach out to him
380:
327:
292:
276:
690:
confused about the difference between an encyclopedia and a news site such as (whatsitscalled)
414:
SuomiFinland, I have no problem whatsoever with your vote. However, I want to point out that I
1411:
1362:
1343:
914:
632:
427:
419:
261:
241:
222:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1269:
I hardly think that's what the policy was designed to do. Taken to its extreme, if I started
1430:
1377:
1153:
1001:
924:
883:
812:
588:
567:
440:
336:
304:
280:
869:
it for deletion, that is obviously not the case, so I vote delete. As for Obama, there was
996:
978:
1482:
1294:
1274:
1256:
1181:
1131:
1116:
1096:
1077:
1057:
832:
798:
775:
751:
737:
713:
699:
670:
541:
957:
1570:
1532:
1506:
961:
96:
1407:
1358:
1339:
910:
628:
257:
237:
218:
474:
does not give a free pass to an event; all of the criteria need to be considered.
208:
162:
422:, and I actually thought we made some progress because it led to the creation of
300:
67:
alongside the comments on this AfD, there is an actionable consensus to merge
1477:
999:
hasn't made any votes in the last several months except at this AFD... —
733:
871:
already a merge discussion ongoing before this AFD was brought forward
63:
for Barack Obama’s visit, the existing merge tag and comments on the
1470:
to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
390:
Based on the notability (events) guidelines, both articles are a
1586:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
535:
Needless to say, Knowledge (XXG) is so heavy on recentism that
1115:
That's the same as "merge and delete". It loses the history.
863:
Delete Rudd, Keep Obama to allow merge discussion to continue
873:, and that, combined with the fact the POINTy-ness and the
254:
21st century visits of Western politicians to the Far East
875:
fact that its already gone through an AFD pretty recently
580:
this China article has already gone through a recent AFD
695:
379:
Recently, I participated in helping some re-writing of
204:
200:
196:
158:
154:
150:
1040:
scour the articles for a bit of content that might be
1569:, this is not anywhere near a "non-notable event".
1475:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
861:Since the Speedy Close is obviously not happening,
1030:This is a two-part recommendation. These articles
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1596:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1500:list of Australia-related deletion discussions
1327:based on great impact and ongoing importance.
995:vote seems awful suspicious in itself, since
622:list of Politics-related deletion discussions
584:an ongoing merger discussion on the talk page
8:
691:
1494:
1271:Harry Reid's statements about Obama's race
616:
291:Per Seb_az86556. I agree, this is a clear
1498:: This debate has been included in the
620:: This debate has been included in the
1422:you only edited the Obama article twice
1034:, in my view. However, each may have a
322:Unfortunately, I've tried to point out
811:You're twisting his words quite well.
366:intentioned but speedy may violating
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1545:The world is more than just the US.
578:. Plus, putting aside the fact that
297:Talk:2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan
77:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (events)
424:Barack Obama assassination threats
332:He doesn't seem to want to hear it
59:. Considering the comments on the
24:
252:On 2nd thought, maybe merge with
48:2009 Barack Obama visit to China
1426:you edited the Rudd one 37 times
1325:2009 Barack Obama visit to China
942:2009 Barack Obama visit to China
330:to JB50k on multiple occasions.
171:2009 Barack Obama visit to China
113:2009 Barack Obama visit to China
69:2009 Barack Obama visit to China
1565:It is, but given the nature of
1338:based on relative importance.
1054:Knowledge (XXG) is not WikiNews
1371:It sounds like you are saying
1332:2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan
1090:What I'm recommending is that
949:2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan
125:2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan
117:2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan
86:2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan
56:2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan
1:
1579:18:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
1555:15:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
1541:14:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
1515:11:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
1487:10:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
1452:14:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
1416:06:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
1399:17:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
1367:07:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
1348:04:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
1303:01:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
1289:01:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
1265:01:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
1225:22:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
1196:21:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
1175:19:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
1146:16:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
1125:15:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
1111:14:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
1086:07:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
1072:06:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
1023:06:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
987:00:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
107:20:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
970:02:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
928:08:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
919:08:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
905:06:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
841:08:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
816:08:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
807:07:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
784:06:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
760:06:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
746:05:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
722:04:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
708:02:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
679:00:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
662:22:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
637:17:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
610:15:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
550:15:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
521:22:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
506:16:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
489:23:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
462:17:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
410:16:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
358:14:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
309:10:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
284:07:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
266:07:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
246:07:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
227:07:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
1613:
1523:for the Obama article and
1336:Australia-Japan relations
651:1972 Nixon visit to China
90:Australia–Japan relations
1589:Please do not modify it.
1050:delete Rudd, merge Obama
925:ChoyooĹ‚ĘĽÄŻÄŻhĂ:Seb az86556
813:ChoyooĹ‚ĘĽÄŻÄŻhĂ:Seb az86556
281:ChoyooĹ‚ĘĽÄŻÄŻhĂ:Seb az86556
32:Please do not modify it.
1567:Sino-American relations
73:Sino-American relations
52:Sino-American relations
1032:should both be deleted
466:You don't understand
236:looking weak before.
436:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
320:(See my vote below)
1217:Suomi Finland 2009
793:notable, not what
513:Suomi Finland 2009
498:Suomi Finland 2009
402:Suomi Finland 2009
44:The result was
1517:
1503:
1489:
639:
625:
582:, there was also
540:current events.
1604:
1591:
1504:
1474:
1472:
1448:
1443:
1438:
1433:
1395:
1390:
1385:
1380:
1286:
1277:
1193:
1184:
1171:
1166:
1161:
1156:
1143:
1134:
1108:
1099:
1069:
1060:
1019:
1014:
1009:
1004:
901:
896:
891:
886:
660:
626:
606:
601:
596:
591:
486:
482:
478:
458:
453:
448:
443:
354:
349:
344:
339:
295:violation (see:
212:
194:
166:
148:
105:
99:
34:
1612:
1611:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1594:deletion review
1587:
1465:
1446:
1441:
1436:
1431:
1393:
1388:
1383:
1378:
1280:
1275:
1187:
1182:
1169:
1164:
1159:
1154:
1137:
1132:
1102:
1097:
1063:
1058:
1017:
1012:
1007:
1002:
899:
894:
889:
884:
879:already ongoing
654:
604:
599:
594:
589:
484:
480:
476:
456:
451:
446:
441:
352:
347:
342:
337:
185:
169:
139:
123:
120:
97:
94:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1610:
1608:
1599:
1598:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1518:
1491:
1490:
1473:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1402:
1401:
1351:
1350:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1027:
1026:
1025:
972:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
881:continue... —
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
681:
664:
640:
614:
613:
612:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
492:
491:
464:
397:
388:
377:
372:
371:
360:
311:
286:
275:Once again, a
269:
268:
249:
248:
214:
213:
167:
119:
110:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1609:
1597:
1595:
1590:
1584:
1580:
1576:
1572:
1568:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1556:
1552:
1548:
1547:duffbeerforme
1544:
1543:
1542:
1538:
1534:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1519:
1516:
1512:
1508:
1501:
1497:
1493:
1492:
1488:
1484:
1480:
1479:
1471:
1469:
1464:
1463:
1453:
1450:
1449:
1444:
1439:
1434:
1427:
1423:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1404:
1403:
1400:
1397:
1396:
1391:
1386:
1381:
1374:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1330:
1326:
1323:
1320:
1319:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1287:
1285:
1284:
1278:
1272:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1226:
1222:
1218:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1197:
1194:
1192:
1191:
1185:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1173:
1172:
1167:
1162:
1157:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1144:
1142:
1141:
1135:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1109:
1107:
1106:
1100:
1093:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1070:
1068:
1067:
1061:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1045:
1043:
1037:
1033:
1028:
1024:
1021:
1020:
1015:
1010:
1005:
998:
994:
990:
989:
988:
984:
980:
976:
973:
971:
967:
963:
959:
954:
950:
947:
943:
940:
937:
936:
929:
926:
922:
921:
920:
916:
912:
908:
907:
906:
903:
902:
897:
892:
887:
880:
876:
872:
868:
864:
860:
859:
842:
838:
834:
829:
824:
819:
818:
817:
814:
810:
809:
808:
804:
800:
796:
792:
787:
786:
785:
781:
777:
773:
768:
763:
762:
761:
757:
753:
749:
748:
747:
743:
739:
736:instdead. --
735:
730:
725:
724:
723:
719:
715:
711:
710:
709:
705:
701:
697:
693:
689:
685:
682:
680:
676:
672:
668:
665:
663:
659:
658:
657:The Wordsmith
652:
648:
644:
641:
638:
634:
630:
623:
619:
615:
611:
608:
607:
602:
597:
592:
585:
581:
577:
573:
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
552:
551:
547:
543:
538:
533:
530:
529:
522:
518:
514:
509:
508:
507:
503:
499:
494:
493:
490:
487:
479:
473:
469:
465:
463:
460:
459:
454:
449:
444:
437:
433:
429:
425:
421:
417:
413:
412:
411:
407:
403:
398:
395:
394:
389:
386:
382:
378:
374:
373:
369:
364:
361:
359:
356:
355:
350:
345:
340:
333:
329:
325:
324:WP:OTHERSTUFF
321:
318:
316:
312:
310:
306:
302:
298:
294:
290:
287:
285:
282:
278:
274:
271:
270:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
250:
247:
243:
239:
234:
233:Delete 50.01%
231:
230:
229:
228:
224:
220:
210:
206:
202:
198:
193:
189:
184:
180:
176:
172:
168:
164:
160:
156:
152:
147:
143:
138:
134:
130:
126:
122:
121:
118:
114:
111:
109:
108:
104:
101:
100:
91:
87:
82:
78:
74:
70:
66:
62:
58:
57:
53:
49:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1588:
1585:
1524:
1520:
1495:
1476:
1466:
1429:
1376:
1328:
1321:
1282:
1281:
1189:
1188:
1152:
1139:
1138:
1104:
1103:
1091:
1065:
1064:
1049:
1041:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1029:
1000:
992:
974:
945:
938:
882:
878:
866:
862:
827:
822:
794:
790:
771:
766:
728:
687:
683:
666:
656:
642:
617:
587:
536:
531:
439:
415:
392:
391:
362:
335:
319:
315:Speedy close
314:
313:
289:Speedy close
288:
273:Speedy Close
272:
232:
215:
95:
61:previous AfD
45:
43:
31:
28:
472:WP:GEOSCOPE
432:WP:ONEEVENT
385:WP:GEOSCOPE
93:nominator.
1329:Move/Merge
1180:decision.
979:Goldamania
867:nominating
643:Merge both
470:. Passing
81:WP:NOTNEWS
1521:Weak Keep
1295:Everyking
1257:Everyking
1117:Everyking
1078:Everyking
1042:mergeable
997:this user
833:Ekjon Lok
799:Everyking
797:notable.
795:should be
776:Ekjon Lok
752:Everyking
738:Ekjon Lok
714:Everyking
700:Ekjon Lok
671:Everyking
629:• Gene93k
542:Mandsford
370:reason 7.
368:WP:NOTCSD
293:WP:POINT
54:- Delete
1571:Blodance
1533:Blodance
1468:Relisted
962:Johnuniq
734:Wikinews
692:Wikinews
647:WP:EVENT
537:anything
468:WP:EVENT
381:WP:EVENT
376:sources.
328:WP:POINT
277:WP:POINT
98:SilkTork
65:talkpage
1507:Grahame
1408:JB50000
1359:JB50000
1340:Bearian
911:JB50000
532:Comment
485:Windows
363:Comment
258:JB50000
238:JB50000
219:JB50000
188:protect
183:history
142:protect
137:history
1529:POINTy
1525:Delete
1424:, but
1420:Well,
1092:before
1044:usable
946:delete
729:should
684:Delete
477:Fences
334:... —
301:Nick-D
192:delete
146:delete
46:Merge
1334:into
1283:Anode
1190:Anode
1140:Anode
1105:Anode
1066:Anode
975:Merge
953:close
939:Merge
772:don't
481:&
209:views
201:watch
197:links
163:views
155:watch
151:links
71:into
16:<
1575:talk
1551:talk
1537:talk
1511:talk
1496:Note
1483:talk
1478:Cirt
1412:talk
1375:. —
1363:talk
1344:talk
1322:Keep
1299:talk
1276:Unit
1261:talk
1221:talk
1183:Unit
1133:Unit
1121:talk
1098:Unit
1082:talk
1059:Unit
993:this
991:And
983:talk
966:talk
958:WP:N
944:and
915:talk
837:talk
803:talk
780:talk
767:need
756:talk
742:talk
718:talk
704:talk
696:this
688:very
675:talk
667:Keep
633:talk
618:Note
576:this
574:and
572:this
568:this
564:this
562:and
560:this
556:this
546:talk
517:talk
502:talk
434:and
428:here
420:here
416:have
406:talk
393:Keep
326:and
305:talk
262:talk
256:???
242:talk
223:talk
205:logs
179:talk
175:edit
159:logs
133:talk
129:edit
115:and
79:and
1437:ter
1432:Hun
1384:ter
1379:Hun
1160:ter
1155:Hun
1036:bit
1008:ter
1003:Hun
890:ter
885:Hun
823:are
627:--
595:ter
590:Hun
447:ter
442:Hun
343:ter
338:Hun
50:to
1577:)
1553:)
1539:)
1531:.
1513:)
1502:.
1485:)
1447:hn
1442:Ka
1414:)
1394:hn
1389:Ka
1365:)
1346:)
1301:)
1263:)
1223:)
1170:hn
1165:Ka
1123:)
1084:)
1052:.
1018:hn
1013:Ka
985:)
968:)
960:.
917:)
900:hn
895:Ka
839:)
828:or
805:)
791:is
782:)
758:)
744:)
720:)
706:)
677:)
635:)
624:.
605:hn
600:Ka
570:,
558:,
548:)
519:)
504:)
457:hn
452:Ka
408:)
353:hn
348:Ka
307:)
264:)
244:)
225:)
207:|
203:|
199:|
195:|
190:|
186:|
181:|
177:|
161:|
157:|
153:|
149:|
144:|
140:|
135:|
131:|
1573:(
1549:(
1535:(
1509:(
1505:—
1481:(
1410:(
1361:(
1342:(
1297:(
1259:(
1219:(
1119:(
1080:(
1046:.
981:(
964:(
913:(
835:(
801:(
778:(
754:(
740:(
716:(
702:(
673:(
631:(
544:(
515:(
500:(
404:(
317:.
303:(
260:(
240:(
221:(
211:)
173:(
165:)
127:(
102:*
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.