Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Cassandra Whitehead (3rd nomination) - Knowledge (XXG)

Source đź“ť

771:
fact the article subject (we've had cases before where trolls have pretended to be article subjects and tried to get articles deleted) c) her primary reason for desiring deletion was " I have emailed Wiki about fixing there errors and deleting the page. Please keep it deleted until it can be resolved, as the information is false." She doesn't object to having an article. She objects to an inaccurate one. The proper approach to that is correcting the article. In fact, it appears that editors are working on that right now. Deleting it is thus not a productive response.
835:"Reality TV contestant has tantrum, leaves show, does bit parts. Notability is where?" Notability is in the various sources, whether those on the article, those on the Google News search (for example, the Dallas newspaper article), and others that can be found on a simple Google search. So what if she fails the entertainers criteria? One can be notable simply by receiving plenty of coverage, which she has. Failing the entertainers criteria doesn't automatically make someone nonnotable: after all, 892:
preference only), we should take it to AFD to demonstrate good faith, but with a deaf ear and judge the article solely on the content and our own guidelines. In this particular circumstance, the article should be judged with a deaf ear as no claim of damage or victimization is claimed or demonstrated. Based on the content of the article, quality and quantity of sources, and the guidelines on notablity the article should be kept. Enforce
749:. Regardless of the fact that the subject (apparently) wants it deleted, I believe that a whole bunch of very minor notable events does not make her notable. Guest-starring on shows for an episode is not really notable. Quitting on ANTM is not really notable outside of the fanbase. Placing in minor pageants is not really notable. If one of these were a bit more substantial (say, multi-episode arc, or at least placing top 3 on 31: 373:
As you all know we do not censor material but we do make it accurate (or as accurate as possible) and towards that end the editor who says she is the subject can assist - however entertaining a third request for deletion because someone who says they are subject and has blanked the page is not a good
770:
Notability is established as per consensus at previous AfDs. Multiple reliable sources. Deletion per the request of the subject is not reasonable in this context because a) she arguably is a willing public figure and b) we don't have direct evidence or confirmation that I am aware of that this is in
646:
This is starting to become a very bad precedent. It really doesn't matter a bit what she thinks of her article. The question is whether we have articles about people that are notable for being reality game show contestants. Since the answer seems to be "yes, we do", then the answer is "yes, we have
664:
I think the jury's still out on whether or not BLP subjects can request that their articles be deleted, however, isn't the usual practice for such AFDs to include an OTRS ticket number? If we are going to consider deleting BLPs on the request of their subjects then there needs to be a reliable way
620:
as a reality television contestant who did not win, has not used her reality TV stint to springboard a career, and whose main claim to fame is leaving the show of her own free will, which isn't that much of a claim to fame. All of the sources are directly related to her reality TV appearance, or
891:
If the subject of a BLP is a victim of crime, a child, or if it can be shown that the article is causing damage to them, or if it is impossible to write the article in a neutral manner, I would agree: delete always. In other cases where the subject requests it (ie: for convenience or personal
621:
generated because of the same. Outside of the show, the other 'claims to fame' given in the article don't pass the notability inclusion bar for me. Winning in a handful of city-wide beauty contests or placing in a handful of region/state-wide contests isn't that big a thing. Her profile at
874:- do we really need another example of someone who ends up voicing their frustrations to the media about a BLP? If she can be engaged on making it accurate, keep. But her most recent blanking seems to indicate that she's given up on out of frustration with prolonged Wikiprocess. 357:
as detailed in the previous AfD's this subject meets notability requirements. I appreciate that some think that notability is borderline but then so are the bio's of so many of these 15 minute TV "stars" and "wannabes". For my money there is enough to keep her here because she
1035:: There's a very big difference in notability between the two individuals. You're comparing a President of the United States with a contestant on a reality show that has 4 million viewers in the United States. It's like comparing Elton John with a losing contestant on 839:
is plainly notable, even though he obviously doesn't pass the entertainers criteria. Simple answer: she receives enough sources to be notable, and blanking by user claiming to be her (whether or not user is telling the truth) doesn't count toward deletion.
936:
discussion - the subject blanks the page because it contains "false" information -- if it does, they should tell us on the talk page what's wrong with it. The subject seems perfectly notable to me - multiple TV show personality and beauty pageant winner.
464:
have. I can only find 3940 google hits, and that's not even unique ones, which people usually prefer, so I don't know what you're doing differently, did you remember to put the two words together in quotes? I use google news as it shows
712:
This has been discussed twice and twice the result has been a keep. Do we even have a confirmation that it's her who blanked the page and not someone else? And to me pageant + ANTM + guests roles + some press about her quitting =
392:
is a high standard to meet, so there is a case for deletion on regular notability grounds. It is not sufficient just to have press coverage. I encourage the editors voting 'Keep' to state which of these three criteria she
1203:
I agree with your logic that we shouldn't be debating PR here. And if Knowledge (XXG) keeps moving toward being an "opt out" encyclopedia, I am not sure everyone will see Knowledge (XXG) as "uncensored" or "neutral".
134: 129: 1188:
could theoretically take care of things if they really saw it as superdamaging. This isn't the place to consider public relations issues: we determine whether the article fits notability, NPOV, and other standards.
1047:/etc.. There's a very clear difference in terms of notability and visibility. Regardless of whether or not she wants the article to be deleted, Knowledge (XXG) policies regarding inclusion must be looked at first. 519:
The Google search does give a different result if you use double quotes. There are only 3,770 hits for the double-quoted string "Cassandra Whitehead". The #1 hit for her name is her Knowledge (XXG) article.
460:
It doesn't matter how many times people have mentioned her on their livejournal or blogger blog etc, not many national papers or anything have mentioned her as far as I know, and only a few minor
319:
She seems perfectly notable, but if she doesn't want an article she shouldn't have to deal with having one (no celebrity should as far as I'm concerned. If this is the case then my vote is
1006:
Knowledge (XXG) may write about them - so long as what is written is properly sourced and not defamatory or otherwise damaging to the subject. Proposed deletion has the potential to set a
625:
leads me to believe that her non-reality TV appearances are all minor roles (i.e. credited for single episode appearances as "Bikini Contestant" or "Murder Victim #1"). Failing deletion,
280:
Seems to be marginally notable. Several people have worked on the article and it has references. If you go on reality television you may become notable and people may write about you.
1143: 599: 195: 124: 1061:
There are no degrees of notability. Either a subject reaches WP's notability threshold or it doesn't. Whitehead may be a minor celebrity, but she is nonetheless notable IMHO. --
576: 896:
in the strictest manner for contentious content, but keep. There appears to be no victims in this case, unless we make Knowledge (XXG) an "opt out" encyclopedia.
1118:
per saberwyn, Gwen Gale. Borderline notability and subject wants it gone. There isn't any great reason to keep an article on this subject, so let's do the favor.
213:
anyway, she's been discussed in such sources as "Denver Post" and "Reality TV world" but nothing more mainstream or national has considered her worth discussing.
40: 974: 82: 732:
solely on the grounds of notability, not because the subject wants it deleted. Absent any BLP issues whatever happened to "Knowledge (XXG) is not censored".
77:. Let it be known that perceived BLP violations have nothing to do with this; whether or not someone wants an article on Knowledge (XXG), they have no say ( 263:
and is otherwise way borderline. Since she's blanked the page, is unhappy with the content and has said she otherwise wants it gone, I'm ok with that.
497:
If she was notable during the show, she's notable afterwards. Personally i think this sort of reality is best ignored altogether, so I'm not !voting.
203: 753:), then keeping would make sense to me, but as of right now...I don't believe the subject to be notable enough to warrant a Knowledge (XXG) page. 162: 157: 166: 1151: 801: 149: 1228: 1198: 1159: 1127: 1110: 1093: 1070: 1056: 1023: 990: 965: 920: 883: 866: 849: 823: 809: 780: 762: 741: 722: 700: 674: 656: 611: 588: 566: 550: 529: 508: 480: 451: 425: 380: 349: 332: 307: 289: 272: 247: 224: 107: 1223: 915: 634: 1249: 17: 1291: 469:, and like I said there are seven local or gosspy internet ones, I mean I don't know what "reality TV world" is, but I can imagine. 665:
for such subjects to identify themselves. Anybody can create an account with the name of a BLP subject and say "I want it gone". --
945: 436: 1257: 1173: 81:
and all that crap); if they're notable, article stays. Luckily for Ms. Whitehead, she's not notable per our guidelines (
1273: 65: 46: 102: 85:
aside from a 404 link and some reality TV site), so I chose to delete this. Also, consensus here seems to be delete.
1164:
100 poorly argued keeps don't matter if just 1 well argued delete exists, e.g. pointing out that the article fails
1089: 973:
Non-notable, borderline notability at most. Subject's preference does not need to be considered. Looking through
285: 1272:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
153: 64:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1155: 814:
No. It should go for the full five days like everything else. 10-5 is hardly a strong consensus for deletion.
805: 1253: 1169: 1014:
because someone on his staff doesn't like the tone or content of the WP article and repeatedly blanks it? --
607: 584: 475: 447: 242: 219: 206: 205:
and subject has blanked the page so would prefer it gone. Unlike what is said to her on her user talkpage,
401:
Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.
1219: 911: 328: 86: 670: 558:
I couldn't care less whether she wants it gone or not, but she just doesn't seem particularly notable.
1106: 1085: 1066: 1019: 879: 525: 421: 281: 209:, yes we can delete a very borderline BLP if people are unhappy about it. I'd say this person is not 718: 696: 303: 268: 145: 113: 1185: 1123: 986: 961: 603: 580: 564: 470: 443: 237: 214: 1205: 1194: 929: 897: 845: 819: 776: 737: 375: 345: 324: 58:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
210: 1052: 862: 758: 666: 1241: 1165: 933: 893: 688: 389: 260: 233: 78: 1102: 1062: 1015: 875: 546: 521: 417: 466: 461: 938: 714: 692: 340:. Reality TV contestant has tantrum, leaves show, does bit parts. Notability is where? 299: 264: 684: 1285: 1119: 1011: 982: 957: 652: 638: 559: 504: 1190: 981:
has the most independent coverage, others are shaky, and a few are already at AfD.
841: 815: 772: 733: 341: 1084:
Certainly seems to be interest in this subject. Substantial number of keep votes.
411:
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
183: 1048: 858: 754: 388:. Subject wants it gone, and this is not really a key part of the encyclopedia. 234:
Knowledge (XXG):ANI#User:Cassandrajean_at_Cassandra_Whitehead._Urgent_BLP_issue
542: 687:
should be deleted by request of the subject. Since this article doesn't meet
978: 836: 648: 499: 622: 977:, most blue-linked individuals are top-3 finishers. Of the rest, 691:, I think it's ok for her input to tip it over into to deletion. 541:
marginal notability at best and subject appears to want it gone.
1266:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1245: 1184:
Remember that, if we keep this and she complains to the media,
25: 788:
Should this discussion would speedy close? Here's the result:
135:
Articles for deletion/Cassandra Whitehead (3rd nomination)
130:
Articles for deletion/Cassandra Whitehead (2nd nomination)
647:
an article about Cassandra Jean/Cassandra Whitehead." —
406:
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
190: 179: 175: 171: 857:
per the above. Couldn't have said it better myself.--
371:
innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
232:
There's been a thread on AN/I about her unhappiness
683:Please keep in mind, I don't think BLPs which meet 637:, the season of the show she participated in. -- 600:list of living people-related deleted discussions 68:). No further edits should be made to this page. 1276:). No further edits should be made to this page. 577:list of Television-related deleted discussions 8: 975:List of America's Next Top Model contestants 442:. The person is not notable after the show. 435:She has many 199,000 searches in Google. 125:Articles for deletion/Cassandra Whitehead 998:. Public figures do not and should not 122: 45:For an explanation of the process, see 1010:bad precedent. What's next? Deleting 598:This debate has been included in the 575:This debate has been included in the 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 120: 1101:strong delete per above reasons.-- 24: 1252:(tho identity not confirmed). -- 635:America's Next Top Model, Cycle 5 1242:Knowledge (XXG):BIO#Entertainers 1166:Knowledge (XXG):BIO#Entertainers 689:Knowledge (XXG):BIO#Entertainers 261:Knowledge (XXG):BIO#Entertainers 202:Extremely borderline notability 41:deletion review on 2009 March 13 29: 298:Then again they may not, much. 47:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review 374:enough reason IMO to delete.-- 1: 1229:17:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC) 1199:14:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC) 1148:Polling discourages consensus 108:23:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC) 1160:20:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC) 1128:19:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC) 1111:13:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC) 1094:10:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC) 1071:15:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC) 1057:08:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC) 1024:08:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC) 991:05:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC) 966:03:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC) 921:01:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC) 884:22:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 867:21:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 850:21:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 824:20:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 810:20:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 781:20:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 763:16:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 742:14:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 723:14:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 701:13:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 675:13:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 657:12:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 612:06:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 589:06:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 567:04:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 551:04:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 530:04:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 509:04:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 481:04:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 452:03:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 426:03:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 381:03:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 350:03:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 333:02:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 308:02:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 290:02:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 273:02:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 248:02:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 225:02:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 1308: 1002:have the right to dictate 1292:Pages at deletion review 1269:Please do not modify it. 61:Please do not modify it. 207:User_talk:Cassandrajean 119:AfDs for this article: 631:recreate as redirect 390:WP:BIO#Entertainers 146:Cassandra Whitehead 114:Cassandra Whitehead 378: 1227: 1214: 1210: 919: 906: 902: 614: 591: 376: 53: 52: 39:was subject to a 1299: 1271: 1250:2008110710002557 1217: 1215: 1212: 1208: 956:per nomination. 941: 909: 907: 904: 900: 594: 571: 193: 187: 169: 100: 73:The result was 63: 33: 32: 26: 1307: 1306: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1274:deletion review 1267: 1206: 1086:ChildofMidnight 958:X MarX the Spot 948: 939: 898: 438:and my vote is 282:ChildofMidnight 189: 160: 144: 141: 139: 117: 105: 104:Call me MoP! :) 87: 66:deletion review 59: 37:This discussion 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 1305: 1303: 1295: 1294: 1284: 1283: 1279: 1278: 1262: 1261: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1152:121.96.114.195 1144:Polls are evil 1142: 1131: 1130: 1113: 1096: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1027: 1026: 993: 968: 950: 944: 923: 886: 869: 852: 829: 828: 827: 826: 802:121.96.101.100 790: 789: 783: 765: 744: 726: 725: 706: 705: 704: 703: 678: 677: 659: 641: 615: 592: 569: 553: 535: 534: 533: 532: 517: 516: 515: 514: 513: 512: 511: 486: 485: 484: 483: 455: 454: 429: 428: 415: 414: 413: 408: 403: 395: 394: 383: 352: 335: 313: 312: 311: 310: 293: 292: 275: 253: 252: 251: 250: 200: 199: 140: 138: 137: 132: 127: 121: 118: 116: 111: 103: 71: 70: 54: 51: 50: 44: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1304: 1293: 1290: 1289: 1287: 1277: 1275: 1270: 1264: 1263: 1259: 1255: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1236: 1235: 1230: 1225: 1221: 1216: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1187: 1183: 1180: 1175: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1157: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1140: 1136: 1133: 1132: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1114: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1100: 1097: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1080: 1079: 1072: 1068: 1064: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1037:American Idol 1034: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1012:George W Bush 1009: 1005: 1001: 997: 994: 992: 988: 984: 980: 976: 972: 969: 967: 963: 959: 955: 951: 947: 942: 935: 931: 927: 924: 922: 917: 913: 908: 895: 890: 887: 885: 881: 877: 873: 870: 868: 864: 860: 856: 853: 851: 847: 843: 838: 834: 831: 830: 825: 821: 817: 813: 812: 811: 807: 803: 799: 795: 792: 791: 787: 784: 782: 778: 774: 769: 766: 764: 760: 756: 752: 748: 745: 743: 739: 735: 731: 728: 727: 724: 720: 716: 711: 708: 707: 702: 698: 694: 690: 686: 682: 681: 680: 679: 676: 672: 668: 663: 660: 658: 654: 650: 645: 642: 640: 636: 632: 628: 624: 619: 616: 613: 609: 605: 604:ApprenticeFan 601: 597: 593: 590: 586: 582: 581:ApprenticeFan 578: 574: 570: 568: 565: 563: 562: 557: 554: 552: 548: 544: 540: 537: 536: 531: 527: 523: 518: 510: 506: 502: 501: 496: 495: 494: 493: 492: 491: 490: 489: 488: 487: 482: 479: 478: 474: 473: 468: 463: 459: 458: 457: 456: 453: 449: 445: 444:ApprenticeFan 441: 437: 434: 431: 430: 427: 423: 419: 416: 412: 409: 407: 404: 402: 399: 398: 397: 396: 391: 387: 384: 382: 379: 372: 370: 364: 361: 356: 353: 351: 347: 343: 339: 336: 334: 330: 326: 322: 318: 315: 314: 309: 305: 301: 297: 296: 295: 294: 291: 287: 283: 279: 276: 274: 270: 266: 262: 259:Doesn't meet 258: 255: 254: 249: 246: 245: 241: 240: 235: 231: 230: 229: 228: 227: 226: 223: 222: 218: 217: 212: 208: 204: 197: 192: 185: 181: 177: 173: 168: 164: 159: 155: 151: 147: 143: 142: 136: 133: 131: 128: 126: 123: 115: 112: 110: 109: 106: 101: 98: 94: 90: 84: 80: 76: 69: 67: 62: 56: 55: 48: 42: 38: 35: 28: 27: 19: 1268: 1265: 1256:, 2008-11-11 1240:for failing 1237: 1181: 1172:, 2008-11-11 1147: 1138: 1134: 1115: 1098: 1081: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1007: 1003: 999: 995: 970: 953: 932:and per the 930:Dennis Brown 925: 888: 871: 854: 832: 797: 793: 785: 767: 750: 746: 729: 709: 661: 643: 630: 626: 617: 595: 572: 560: 555: 538: 498: 476: 471: 439: 432: 410: 405: 400: 385: 368: 366: 362: 359: 354: 337: 320: 316: 277: 256: 243: 238: 220: 215: 201: 96: 92: 88: 74: 72: 60: 57: 36: 996:Strong keep 926:Strong Keep 730:Weak delete 667:Ron Ritzman 325:Melia Nymph 1186:the office 1103:Sugarcubez 1063:Gene_poole 1016:Gene_poole 876:arimareiji 713:notable.-- 522:EdJohnston 418:EdJohnston 393:satisfies: 83:no sources 1248:ticket # 979:Isis King 940:Belinrahs 837:Mike Veon 751:Top Model 715:Whadaheck 693:Gwen Gale 367:prolific 300:Gwen Gale 265:Gwen Gale 1286:Category 1120:Fathomer 1045:X-Factor 1041:Pop Idol 983:Flatscan 946:contribs 639:saberwyn 627:redirect 561:Celarnor 360:has made 196:View log 1254:Jeandré 1191:Nyttend 1182:Comment 1170:Jeandré 1082:Comment 1033:Comment 842:Nyttend 816:JoshuaZ 786:Comment 773:JoshuaZ 734:ukexpat 662:Comment 433:Comment 342:ThuranX 317:Comment 211:notable 163:protect 158:history 1260:11:26z 1238:Delete 1176:11:32z 1135:Delete 1116:Delete 1099:Delete 1049:SKS2K6 971:Delete 954:Delete 952:Sigh. 934:WP:ANI 894:WP:BLP 872:Delete 859:Siemgi 794:Delete 755:SKS2K6 747:Delete 618:Delete 556:Delete 539:Delete 477:Parkin 472:Sticky 440:delete 386:Delete 363:unique 338:Delete 321:delete 257:Delete 244:Parkin 239:Sticky 221:Parkin 216:Sticky 191:delete 167:delete 99:uppets 91:aster 75:delete 1209:ENNIS 1168:. -- 1137:: 15 901:ENNIS 796:: 10 596:NOTE: 573:NOTE: 543:RMHED 467:WP:RS 462:WP:RS 194:) – ( 184:views 176:watch 172:links 16:< 1246:VRTS 1213:ROWN 1195:talk 1156:talk 1141:: 10 1139:Keep 1124:talk 1107:talk 1090:talk 1067:talk 1053:talk 1020:talk 1008:very 1000:ever 987:talk 962:talk 928:per 905:ROWN 889:Keep 880:talk 863:talk 855:Keep 846:talk 833:Keep 820:talk 806:talk 800:: 5 798:Keep 777:talk 768:keep 759:talk 738:talk 719:talk 710:Keep 697:talk 685:WP:N 671:talk 653:talk 644:Keep 623:IMDB 608:talk 585:talk 547:talk 526:talk 505:talk 448:talk 422:talk 355:Keep 346:talk 329:talk 304:talk 286:talk 278:Keep 269:talk 180:logs 154:talk 150:edit 1222:) ( 914:) ( 649:Kww 633:to 629:or 500:DGG 323:. 79:COI 1288:: 1244:. 1197:) 1158:) 1150:. 1146:, 1126:) 1109:) 1092:) 1069:) 1055:) 1022:) 1004:if 989:) 964:) 937:-¤ 882:) 865:) 848:) 822:) 808:) 779:) 761:) 740:) 721:) 699:) 673:) 655:) 610:) 602:. 587:) 579:. 549:) 528:) 507:) 450:) 424:) 377:VS 369:or 365:, 348:) 331:) 306:) 288:) 271:) 236:. 182:| 178:| 174:| 170:| 165:| 161:| 156:| 152:| 95:f 43:. 1258:t 1226:) 1224:C 1220:T 1218:( 1211:B 1207:D 1193:( 1174:t 1154:( 1122:( 1105:( 1088:( 1065:( 1051:( 1043:/ 1039:/ 1018:( 985:( 960:( 949:¤ 943:/ 918:) 916:C 912:T 910:( 903:B 899:D 878:( 861:( 844:( 818:( 804:( 775:( 757:( 736:( 717:( 695:( 669:( 651:( 606:( 583:( 545:( 524:( 503:( 446:( 420:( 344:( 327:( 302:( 284:( 267:( 198:) 188:( 186:) 148:( 97:P 93:o 89:M 49:.

Index

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
deletion review on 2009 March 13
Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
deletion review
COI
no sources
Master of Puppets
Call me MoP! :)
23:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Cassandra Whitehead
Articles for deletion/Cassandra Whitehead
Articles for deletion/Cassandra Whitehead (2nd nomination)
Articles for deletion/Cassandra Whitehead (3rd nomination)
Cassandra Whitehead
edit
talk
history
protect
delete
links
watch
logs
views
delete
View log

User_talk:Cassandrajean
notable
Sticky
Parkin

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑