710:, informing editors heavily involved in an article which has been nominated for deletion is a recommended, not a required, practice. I believe that the nominator should have followed this practice, but I believe that not following it is not evidence to use to assert that the nomination should be invalidated, because the practice is not compulsory. As for adding links to previous nominations at the top of this discussion, that has now been done. Also, although it is very long, I understand the nominator's reasoning for posting an explanation the length of what it is for why he has nominated the article. More importantly with regards to the length of the explanation, I am not aware of any Knowledge policy that states that an AFD discussion should be considered for invalidation due to the fact that its introduction is very long. If you can show me such a policy, please do so. I agree that the nominator should have looked at the option of merging, before nominating this article for deletion, but I do not think that is grounds for invalidation of this discussion, though I could be wrong. Thank you for reading.
484:
an inconsistency, to wit: "Where a person is mentioned by name in a
Knowledge article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." This compeltely ignores two other sentences that have equal value and stand separately from that one: "The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry." and "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." You cannot pull one sentence out of the middle of a two paragraph policy and claim that is the entire policy. This distorts the truth. The issues of the notability of the person and whether or not wikipedia has an article on the incident are separate. Furthermore, your claim of an inconsistency because the policy
328:, which state "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted", "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted", and "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event" respectively. I have found not found multiple, reliable, independent, and secondary sources that offer non-trivial coverage of Yamaoka outside of the context of the fall. As a result, I do not believe that this article should remain. Frankly, I am surprised that this article was not deleted earlier. To me, this article is a classic violation of the three guidelines I have used in my argument
1268:(outdent) First of all, I find ColonelWarden's behavior terribly disruptive - he spent four days trying to find some sort of policy problem that to my mind really doesn't exist, even aside from the facts regarding the merger. I suggested the merger, and I got not enough response to do anything with it, despite listing it on the proposed mergers page. So, it really wasn;t necessary for Indrian to consider anything aside from deletion. I also tried redirecting it at one point, and it was undone by an admin for supposed lack of discussion. Informationally, the copied text is fully sourced bare (and indisputable) fact - it has is the basic "who what where when how", and there's really no way to "change" that other than to reorder it.
396:
allows for a thourough discussion of that issue. As for number 2, the BLP policy makes no distinction between events with a separate article and events not covered in a separate article; it merely states that if notability is limited to a single event and there is scant information in reliable sources independent of the event, then a biography is best avoided. As for number 3, it is competely irrelevant because it only states preferred methods of resolution; it is not a binding statement requiring all such articles to be merged rather than deleted.
404:
last nomination was five months ago and resulted in a no consensus with a strong urging by the admin to reorganize the information. A "no consensus" does not have the same force as a "keep" as a discussion ender and none of the suggestions of the closing admin appear to have been followed. I feel that your characterization of the nomination as disruptive may unfortunately be an attempt by you to cover up your weak arguments in unnecessary rhetoric. I hope you can answer my response to your concerns in a more constructive manner.
543:
does not hinge on the existence of another article. Now as I said before, if you want to create a new article on the event, take out certain pieces of information not related to the event, refocus the information so that it does not attetempt to read like a bio, and then make "Kristi
Yamaoka" a redirect, I would not bring the new article up for AfD (though I would consider voting if someone else did so, whether for keep or delete I do not know). I believe this article violates policy, however, and should therefore be deleted.
852:
the AFD has meant that this AFD is ruined. An AFD is around for five days, meaning that an error that occupied it for its first day is not able to ruin the entire duration of its existence. To be frank, I do not believe this discussion about whether the nomination should be invalidated needs to continue. The AFD has been around for a few days, and there does seem to be any strong movement by the community to invalidate this nomination. I suggest we focus on the article at hand, as opposed to its nomination. Thank you.
1189:. Unless that copied text is removed, deleting the Kristi Yamaoka article is not allowed, as Colonel Warden has stated. If the copied text isn't replaced with text conveying the same type of information, then I will vote for a Merge. Also, although it may not warrant invalidation, I think it is incredibly bad form on Indrian's part that he nominated the Kristi Yamaoka article for deletion, when the article clearly showed that a merger was being discussed.
1652:. I just wanted to state here for ease of reference that if the closing admin feels that the GFDL requires that the article be kept as a redirect, I also have no problem with this form of merge. I believe policy requires the article be removed, but it is certainly not important to me whether that removal comes in the form of an outright delete or a merging of the information into another article and a redirect.
270:- I'm just glad someone else besides me felt that this article was a problem. Edit history indicates that not one solid piece of information has really been added to this article since approximately one week after the accident in question. Basic biographical information has always been missing. Simply put, this does not meet BIO, and never did, because it was never about the person to begin with.
444:
step at sticking to issues with your initial post, and I provided counterarguments to the points you raised. If you have the sources I requested above for discussion or wish to argue matters of policy further, I would be happy to continue our dialogue. If all you have to offer is more unhelpful rhetoric such as what I am responding to now, then our conversation is at an end.
178:"Knowledge is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Knowledge article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.
1327:
1350:
201:
United States; I'm with you there; we may have established notability of the event. Now what about the person? Has this person done anything covered by a reliable source that might fit into the nebulous definition of notability? I am not seeing it, but if someone sees an indicia of independent notability, please bring it here to duscuss.
1681:, so it is not necessarily our job to make sure her most public face is this article. I have no real problem with a merger into "dangers of cheerleading", but I leave it up to editors who are interested and knowledgable in the subject matter to do that should the article be kept. I also want to throw in my comment that this nomination is
661:. The AFD header was munged so that it was not properly categorised and the history of vexatious repeat nominations was not visible. The AFD reason was filled with excessive verbiage which is greater in length than the article in question and so has deterred editors from reading it. In short, this AFD is what is commonly known as a
786:
nomination outright. All the other problems you have raised; long introduction, not informing heavily involved editors of the article, and not adding the links to other nominations from the start, are occurences that do not against procedure, as I elaborated upon in an earlier comment in this discussion.
1231:
I didn't mean to be rude when I said that you had acted in "incredibly bad form", but what I said is the truth, imo. 4 seperate people have been involved in the merger discussion in the past 9 days, 2 before the article was nominated. I consider that an active discussion. Having said that, I don't
196:
Criteria two, "reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event" also applies. See above. I have not found any coverage of the individual not related to the fall. If someone can find a reliable source that does so, please feel free to bring it here and we can discuss its
174:
Well, its been five months, so its time for another round I think. This is the sixth time this article has appeared here. The previous five can all be found through the article talk page and I am not going to bother linking them here, though someone less lazy than myself can certainly do so if they
1506:
The garbling of the header so that the links to previous discussions were not visible and the discussion was not correctly categorised was perhaps an inadvertent consequence of the extraordinarily long nomination, as I indicated above. My point is that, if we seem to have a different result on this
1459:
Delete and merger are mutually exclusive, as previously explained - one results in the article being deleted while the other results in it being kept. A consensus to do both is therefore a logical impossibility. The opinions of the numerous editors who commented in previous discussions should also
1285:
I also believe that many of the issues
Colonel Warden has raised are not policy violations, as I have explained to him. As for the merger discussion, I would like to quote what I told Indrian "4 seperate people have been involved in the merger discussion in the past 9 days, 2 before the article was
483:
If you want to make a go at changing this article to one about the incident itself with a rename and change of focus to reflect that, and then redirect the name Kristi
Yamaoka be my guest. This AfD has nothing to do with the incident, only the person. You are focusing on a single sentence to argue
403:
Finally, I take issue with your characterization of this nomination as disprutive. I would agree that MSJapan nominating the article the first three times in fairly rapid succession was not helpful, but this is only the third nomination since 2006 and the first nomination ever put forth by me. The
204:
Well, there you have it, I have posted a wikipedia policy, dissected it, and shown how the subject fails to meet it. If someone can provide a reliable source that establishes either a high profie in the media or a notability independent from the accident bring it here and we can discuss. If all we
192:
Criteria one, "low-profile individual" seems to apply here. The first page of my google hits for "Kristi
Yamaoka" give such hits as wiki and its mirrors, her facebook page, a youtube of the accident, and a few articles on the accident. Going through a few more of my 3,310 hits, I am seeing nothing
683:
Sigh, for every decent policy discussion we have you have to go and say something silly and unproductive that smacks of a surprising desperation to invalidate this discussion. The AfD has been accesible the entire time through links on both the article page and the main AfD page. Just because the
576:
Only claim to notability is an event which in itself wouldn't be considered notable if not for some minor repercussions and news coverage: regarding the event, not specifically the person. Knowledge is not a newspaper. I'm sure the nominator made some other good points, but i didn't actually bother
542:
I think this is really the crux of our disagreement right here. You take the line about a separate article to mean the policy only applies if an article on the event also exists. I can see how the policy can be read that way. I personally think that reading does not make sense because notability
443:
I am sorry your frustration has led you to feel you must take such an uncivil tone, as this derails what could be a debate about policy and turns it into a mud-slinging competition. I have given a measured argument as to why I believe policy dictates this article be deleted. You made a good first
200:
Criteria three, "no independent notability". I realize I have chosen three phrases that essentially mean the same thing and have the same evidence, but I am trying to make a point based in wikipedia policy here, so I think the redundancy is a good idea. Sure the accident made national news in the
181:
If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional
1634:
In response to a comment made by a user, I would like to emphasize that the statement above is not intended by me to be a summary. I did say it was a summary in the edit summary, but I assure you that that was a slip of the tongue. The statement is merely me speaking what's on my mind concerning
1209:
Two things. I really don't care if this is deleted or merged so long as the independent article goes away. Second, I take issue with your determination that a merger discussion was going on. A merger proposal was made a month before the AfD. At the time, one person commented without a vote. A
851:
does not apply to this suituation, and where I said that most of the problems you have highlighted do not go against procedure. As for "The AFD was badly formed and this is another evident procedural error", the AFD has been fixed. In any case, I do not believe that a delay in fixing the code of
209:
policy that states: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." Now lets see if we can have
613:
Your extraordinarily long statement may have broken the formatting for the AFD. I have tried to fix it just now but am not sure that all the tecnicalities are right. It may be properly categorised now but we're still not getting links to all the previous AFD discussions. This technical failure
250:
This article has been nominated for deletion five previous times, and short initial comments have not stopped it from being kept in violation of policy. I think an in depth treatment of why this article fails policy was needed at this point. If afd is really supposed to be about policy rather
815:
I agree that the AFD nomination could have been executed in a much better way, but I still cannot find any
Knowledge policies/guidelines that state that, due to the issues you have raised, this nomination must be invalidated. Please direct me to specific Knowledge policies/guidelines that state
1440:
I do not believe anyone is disputing that you should argue for the article if you believe it should stay. It's just that many of us do not agree with many of the points you have made. MSJapan certainly has nominated this article many times before. However, due to the fact that there would be
742:
Whilst I determine my position regarding your proposal, may I ask, Colonel Warden, if you know any
Knowledge guidelines/policies which state, due to the problems you have listed, that an AFD nomination must be invalidated? atm, I am at a loss to find any Knowledge guidelines/policies that even
395:
As to number 4, please cite so we may discuss here. Your other objections are irrelevant as I see it. As to number one, this issue may have been raised in the past, but it was never the hinge upon which the nomination rested. This new nomination brings the policy debate into better focus and
188:
Now what this means is we should not have a debate here about the fall. Yes it got news coverage, yes it led to changes in the sport, and yes the incident still gets mentioned from time to time today. Does that make it notable? Doesn't matter. We are not here to debate the notability of the
1483:
I take offence at the suggestion that
Indrian concealed the existence of previous discussions. The very first lines of the introduction he made in this discussion was "Well, its been five months, so its time for another round I think. This is the sixth time this article has appeared here. The
785:
concerns articles whose AFD nominations have been concluded, not AFD discussions that are ongoing. Plus, I believe there has only been one procedural error, and that was the nominator not examining a merger first, and I do not believe that if a big enough problem to warrant invalidating this
175:
feel the urge. Now, rather than having a free-for-all, I hope I can focus this debate on a single issue (yeah, I know never going to happen, but I can dream can't I?). There is a wikipedia policy (not guidline, essay, proposal, etc, but honest to God policy) that goes something like this:
519:
does not warrant articles about the many individuals caught up in that event. But in this case, we have a combined article which addresses both the event and the person together and so there is no separate article and so no problem. And then there's other policies like
189:
accident. Now what about this Kristi
Yamaoka herself. Lets focus on a few select quotes from the above-quoted policy: "remains a low-profile individual," "reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event", and "no independent notability."
1507:
occasion, it may be as a result of these technical errors. Consensus in such cases should be judged in a cumulative manner so that the opinions of all editors who have troubled themselves over this case are properly represented. Otherwise we have the injustice of
1008:
Yobmod, the incident is already covered in c]. The Kristi
Yamaoka article is being considered for deletion not because the notability of the accident is being questioned, but because Kristi Yamaoka's notability as a person is being questioned. According to
1154:...regardless of the amount of information kept — should always leave a redirect or, in some cases, a disambiguation page in place. This is often needed to allow proper attribution through the edit history for the page the merged text came from.
315:
Firstly, I would like to re-iterate Indrian's point that "We are not here to debate the notability of the accident." The fall's notability is, to be frank, irrelevant, as this is an article about Yamaoka, not her accident. This article breaks
193:
but stories related to the fall or wiki mirrors. She has not become a celebrity, not become a spokeswoman for the dangers of cheerleading, and has had no media coverage relating to events since the accident. Definately kept a low profile.
1210:
month after MSJApan made that proposal, Colonel Warden gave a response opposing the merger after this AFD had already begun. A month old request on which two people have commented is not in any meaningful way an ongoing merger discussion.
465:. I have continued to work on the article to improve it. Your policy argument is internally inconsistent, as I explained above. You fail to explain why we should not even have a redirect for this title, as the policy you cite advocates.
705:
Colonel Warden, I believe I understand why you think that "If a process is not followed correctly then it is thereby invalidated", but I do not believe Knowledge guidelines communicate the same viewpoint for AFD nominations. According to
800:
We disagree on the facts of the matter. The AFD was badly formed and this is another evident procedural error. The general effects of these errors has been to keep the discussion from interested editors and so they are material.
1414:
has nominated this article for deletion previously four times even though numerous editors said on each occasion that it should be kept. Repeat nominations in the hope of getting a different result are disruptive per our policy
251:
than head counts, sometimes a longer argument is necessary. If nobody wants to read an indepth analysis in a discussion forum intended to illuminate the merits or lack thereof of an article based on policy, then afd is broken.
1286:
nominated. I consider that an active discussion. Having said that, I don't believe that nominating the article for deletion whilst a merger discussion is going on for it, is grounds for invalidation of the nomination."
1013:, if a person is only notable for one event (like a fall), then a biographical article on the person is not usually needed, especially if the event is the subject of another article, as is the case in this suituation.
1074:
If copying/pasting has occured, then the copied text in the Dangers of Cheerleading should be changed. Once that has happened, there is no reason to keep the Kristi Yamaoka article based on the copying/pasting.
1460:
be borne in mind as there do not seem to have been any significant developments since. The nominator made no effort to inform such interested parties and the existence of the previous discussions was concealed.
492:
recourse for a violation is a merge and redirect. I think you might have some problems with that. If you have a counterarguement for why we should ignore the two sentences I have quoted here, I am all ears.
100:
94:
724:
The discussion is only open for 5 days and its quality is suspect if the AFD has not been properly formatted during a significant portion of this short time. This issue might be addressed by relisting it.
106:
89:
420:
I have constructively added sources to the article. You propose that this work be deleted. Please explain how this would improve the project. Notice how a reader came to the article just a few days ago
84:
79:
1148:
No, this issue arises only when the proposal is to keep the content but delete the article. Deletion and merger are contrary processes and several editors here seem to misunderstand this. Please see
591:
I am normally much briefer with my AfD nominations; I just felt that when an article goes up for the sixth time, one needs to carefully explain one's position so no one thinks it is a spam nomination.
970:. The incident is clearly notable, so wikipedia should cover it. Maybe a rename to specify the incident would help, but if most people know the incident from her name, then i see no problem with "
425:
of this person after she was again covered in the news. You would have this reader go away empty-handed and none the wiser. Please be more constructive and withdraw your unhelpful nomination.
781:
states "Purely procedural errors may be substantive and result in an overturn (such as failing to tag a page for its XfD discussion) or irrelevant (such as closing 1 minute early)." However,
991:- as was mentioned, all the relevant material has already been added into the cheerleading article. Why keep and rename when it would be more appropriate to either delete or redirect?
182:
maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person." (see
1419:. My action in drawing attention to the numerous flaws in this nomination are quite proper since it is the purpose of the AFD process to protect content from improper deletion.
167:
1130:
By that reasoning, if I have understood it correctly, no articles at all can be deleted. I don't think that radical argument will hold much ground in this AFD discussion.
665:. When a process is botched to this extent, then it cannot said to be fairly delivering a consensus sufficient to overturn the consensus repeatedly established previously.
206:
236:. (Note to nominator: brevity is the soul of wit. People don't like to plow through paragraph after paragraph of musings in addition to the rationale for deletion).
816:
either that the article must be invalidated, or that the article should be considered for invalidation, due to the issues you have raised. Thank you in advance.
74:
1484:
previous five can all be found through the article talk page". Also, informing interested parties, although it is considered "courteous", is "not required".
1303:
Before I respond fully to the latest points MSJapan and Indrian have made, I would like to state that I am in the process of re-writing the copied text on the
919:. Yes there have been multiple nominations of this article. Yes, the article has been kept. Yes, each result was incorrect. This article needs to be deleted.
205:
get are keep votes that make no attempt to satisfy the policy requirements posted above, I hope the closing admin will remember a particular portion of the
1608:
I think, if I am wrong please let me know, everyone who has contributed to this discussion so far does now agree that an article on Kristi Yamaoka breaks
974:" type of name, assuming the press didn't name it anything more identifiable. I even learned something from this article, which not many pages manage!
657:, contemplating better alternatives such as redirection or merger. The article's creator or other contributors were not courteously notified per
1232:
believe that nominating the article for deletion whilst a merger discussion is going on for it, is grounds for invalidation of the nomination.
1181:
I understand your point now. My apologies for not getting it earlier. I can confirm Colonel Warden's discovery that text has been copied from
943:
Useful search term, but Yamaoka is non-notable per BLP1E. The accident and rules changes are borderline notable, but are adequately covered in
1635:
this discussion. I do not believe it is written as a summary, and I do not believe it should be viewed as one. Sorry for the confusion.
134:
129:
653:
If a process is not followed correctly then it is thereby invalidated. In this case, the nominator failed to follow the process of
138:
515:. The point is that an event does not justify separate articles about the people involved in the event. For example, the event of
373:
There has been renewed reportage regarding her return to cheerleading and the legal aftermath and these constitute multiple events.
1694:
1661:
1644:
1625:
1598:
1574:
1557:
1520:
1495:
1469:
1450:
1428:
1396:
1369:
1343:
1316:
1295:
1277:
1241:
1219:
1198:
1169:
1139:
1118:
1084:
1063:
1040:
1022:
1000:
983:
956:
935:
879:
861:
839:
825:
810:
795:
769:
752:
734:
719:
693:
674:
644:
623:
600:
586:
552:
533:
502:
474:
453:
434:
413:
387:
341:
301:
279:
260:
245:
219:
57:
1584:
121:
17:
1031:(with redirect to DoC if deletion "wins"). I don't see how this article damages the project, but don't care if it goes either!
1356:
It is not so simple. The copied text still exists in that article's history and may be restored or reused at any time. The
971:
925:
1050:
If material from this article has been cut/paste into another article, as indicated by MSJapan, then this violates the
684:
header is not perfect does not invaildate the AfD in any way. Don't know where you are getting these strange ideas.
1709:
870:- the process is invalid as a consequence of not having been followed. What becomes of this remains to be seen.
36:
635:
Colonel Warden, may I ask where it states that this type of a technical fault invalidates this AFD nomination?
1708:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1516:
1465:
1424:
1365:
1165:
1114:
1059:
875:
835:
806:
765:
730:
670:
619:
529:
470:
430:
383:
297:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1054:
which requires attribution for the editors who have contributed. Deletion is quite improper in such a case.
1640:
1621:
1553:
1491:
1446:
1392:
1339:
1312:
1291:
1237:
1194:
1135:
1080:
1018:
857:
821:
791:
748:
715:
640:
337:
1027:
Comment: OK, if the even is covered in enough detail aelsewhere, then i struck out my keep and now say
1612:. The big question now over the article would seem to be, whether the article should be merged with
582:
1512:
1461:
1420:
1361:
1161:
1110:
1109:
No, the full history of contributions should be retained per the GFDL. It is a legal requirement.
1055:
871:
831:
802:
761:
726:
666:
615:
525:
466:
426:
379:
293:
125:
1636:
1617:
1594:
1570:
1549:
1487:
1442:
1388:
1335:
1308:
1287:
1233:
1190:
1131:
1076:
1014:
952:
853:
817:
787:
744:
711:
707:
658:
636:
333:
292:
of this article. Since merger and deletion are contrary actions, your position is inconsistent.
1441:
appear to be a consensus for a delete or a merge, I believe this nomination should remain up.
1334:
I have replaced the copied text. As a result, I believe deletion is now an allowable option.
1690:
1670:
1657:
1273:
1215:
1157:
996:
930:
689:
596:
548:
498:
449:
409:
275:
256:
215:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1616:, or whether it should be deleted outright. I look forward to seeing the admin's decision..
1036:
979:
654:
521:
241:
332:(Struck out due to my decision to support a re-direct (see below)). Thank you for reading.
1609:
1508:
1149:
1010:
916:
578:
350:
321:
317:
233:
183:
1498:
1485:
1182:
117:
63:
1678:
1674:
1590:
1566:
1416:
948:
848:
782:
778:
757:
325:
577:
to read past the first couple of paragraphs, because that really is over the top. -
1686:
1653:
1613:
1545:
1411:
1384:
1304:
1269:
1211:
1186:
992:
944:
920:
685:
592:
544:
494:
445:
405:
289:
271:
252:
229:
211:
52:
47:
743:
recommend invalidating due to the issues you have raised. Thank you in advance.
488:
a redirect is even more bizarre. Show me the place in the policy that states the
155:
760:
indicates that substantive procedural errors are reason to overturn a deletion.
228:
The incident and its effects if any on the rules for cheerleading are covered at
1032:
975:
237:
1548:, over two years later and still only one significant event, a clear BLP1E.
462:
360:
This has already been considered in numerous other failed nominations.
197:
merits. If no one can do this, then criteria two is open and shut.
1702:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1357:
1051:
516:
184:
Knowledge:BLP1E#Articles_about_people_notable_only_for_one_event
1565:
per BLP and NOT NEWS. The nom focuses the issue well.
101:
Articles for deletion/Kristi Yamaoka (second nomination)
95:
Articles for deletion/Kristi Yamaoka (fourth nomination)
422:
162:
151:
147:
143:
107:
Articles for deletion/Kristi Yamaoka (third nomination)
90:
Articles for deletion/Kristi Yamaoka (fifth nomination)
1156:. Note also that we already have a merge proposal at
85:
Articles for deletion/Kristi Yamaoka (6th nomination)
80:
Articles for deletion/Kristi Yamaoka (2nd nomination)
368:a redirect or merge are usually the better options
210:some good old-fashion policy debate on this page.
363:There is no separate article about the one event.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1712:). No further edits should be made to this page.
207:Knowledge:Deletion guidelines for administrators
1585:list of Gymnastics-related deletion discussions
353:is quite inadequate as justification because:
8:
370:" and these are not achieved by deletion.
1583:: This debate has been included in the
72:
1677:. Also consider that the subject is
847:Please see above where I showed that
7:
1614:Cheerleading#Dangers of cheerleading
1546:Cheerleading#Dangers of cheerleading
1385:Cheerleading#Dangers of cheerleading
1305:Cheerleading#Dangers of cheerleading
1187:Cheerleading#Dangers of cheerleading
972:Kristi Yamaoka cheerleading incident
945:Cheerleading#Dangers of cheerleading
230:Cheerleading#Dangers of cheerleading
75:Articles for deletion/Kristi Yamaoka
48:Cheerleading#Dangers of cheerleading
70:
24:
1158:Talk:Cheerleading#Merger proposal
1348:
1325:
1379:True. As a result, I am for a
349:Disruptive repeat nomination.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1160:and so this AFD is redundant.
614:arguably invalidates the AFD.
366:The nomination itself states "
58:01:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
1:
1695:18:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1662:17:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1645:16:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1626:16:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1599:12:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1575:15:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1558:06:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1521:16:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1496:16:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1470:16:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1451:16:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1429:15:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1397:16:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1370:15:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1344:15:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1317:14:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1296:16:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1278:14:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1242:16:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1220:14:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1199:14:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1170:13:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1140:13:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1119:12:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1085:11:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1064:11:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1041:08:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1023:15:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
1001:15:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
984:14:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
957:02:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
936:02:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
880:12:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
862:11:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
840:11:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
826:14:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
811:14:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
796:13:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
770:13:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
753:12:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
735:12:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
720:12:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
694:22:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
675:09:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
645:22:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
624:21:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
601:14:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
587:14:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
553:16:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
534:16:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
503:14:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
475:09:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
454:00:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
435:23:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
414:23:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
388:22:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
342:21:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
302:23:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
280:20:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
261:19:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
246:19:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
220:18:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
1729:
1705:Please do not modify it.
1511:(sixfold in this case).
32:Please do not modify it.
511:Please notice the word
69:AfDs for this article:
868:invalidation process
1679:not a public figure
777:I have found that
423:to look up details
44:The result was
1601:
1588:
56:
1720:
1707:
1589:
1579:
1355:
1352:
1351:
1333:
1329:
1328:
933:
928:
923:
165:
159:
141:
55:
34:
1728:
1727:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1710:deletion review
1703:
1509:double jeopardy
1360:issue remains.
1353:
1349:
1326:
1324:
1152:, for example,
968:rename/redirect
931:
926:
921:
290:proposed merger
161:
132:
116:
113:
111:
103:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1726:
1724:
1715:
1714:
1698:
1697:
1664:
1647:
1603:
1602:
1577:
1560:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1513:Colonel Warden
1501:
1500:
1473:
1472:
1462:Colonel Warden
1454:
1453:
1432:
1431:
1421:Colonel Warden
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1362:Colonel Warden
1322:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1298:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1223:
1222:
1202:
1201:
1183:Kristi Yamaoka
1173:
1172:
1162:Colonel Warden
1143:
1142:
1122:
1121:
1111:Colonel Warden
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1056:Colonel Warden
1045:
1044:
1043:
959:
941:Merge/redirect
938:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
872:Colonel Warden
832:Colonel Warden
803:Colonel Warden
762:Colonel Warden
727:Colonel Warden
697:
696:
680:
679:
678:
677:
667:Colonel Warden
648:
647:
627:
626:
616:Colonel Warden
606:
605:
604:
603:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
537:
536:
526:Colonel Warden
506:
505:
478:
477:
467:Colonel Warden
457:
456:
438:
437:
427:Colonel Warden
400:
399:
398:
397:
380:Colonel Warden
377:
376:
375:
374:
371:
364:
361:
355:
354:
344:
307:
306:
305:
304:
294:Colonel Warden
283:
282:
265:
264:
263:
172:
171:
118:Kristi Yamaoka
112:
110:
109:
104:
99:
97:
92:
87:
82:
77:
71:
68:
66:
64:Kristi Yamaoka
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1725:
1713:
1711:
1706:
1700:
1699:
1696:
1692:
1688:
1684:
1680:
1676:
1672:
1668:
1665:
1663:
1659:
1655:
1651:
1648:
1646:
1642:
1638:
1637:JEdgarFreeman
1633:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1623:
1619:
1618:JEdgarFreeman
1615:
1611:
1607:
1600:
1596:
1592:
1586:
1582:
1578:
1576:
1572:
1568:
1564:
1561:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1550:Richard Pinch
1547:
1543:
1540:
1539:
1522:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1499:
1497:
1493:
1489:
1488:JEdgarFreeman
1486:
1482:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1443:JEdgarFreeman
1439:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1413:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1389:JEdgarFreeman
1386:
1382:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1346:
1345:
1341:
1337:
1336:JEdgarFreeman
1332:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1309:JEdgarFreeman
1306:
1302:
1299:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1288:JEdgarFreeman
1284:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1234:JEdgarFreeman
1230:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1191:JEdgarFreeman
1188:
1184:
1180:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1132:JEdgarFreeman
1129:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1077:JEdgarFreeman
1073:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1015:JEdgarFreeman
1012:
1007:
1004:
1003:
1002:
998:
994:
990:
987:
986:
985:
981:
977:
973:
969:
965:
964:
960:
958:
954:
950:
946:
942:
939:
937:
934:
929:
924:
918:
914:
911:
910:
881:
877:
873:
869:
865:
864:
863:
859:
855:
854:JEdgarFreeman
850:
846:
843:
842:
841:
837:
833:
829:
828:
827:
823:
819:
818:JEdgarFreeman
814:
813:
812:
808:
804:
799:
798:
797:
793:
789:
788:JEdgarFreeman
784:
780:
776:
773:
772:
771:
767:
763:
759:
756:
755:
754:
750:
746:
745:JEdgarFreeman
741:
738:
737:
736:
732:
728:
723:
722:
721:
717:
713:
712:JEdgarFreeman
709:
704:
701:
700:
699:
698:
695:
691:
687:
682:
681:
676:
672:
668:
664:
660:
656:
652:
651:
650:
649:
646:
642:
638:
637:JEdgarFreeman
634:
631:
630:
629:
628:
625:
621:
617:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
602:
598:
594:
590:
589:
588:
584:
580:
575:
572:
571:
554:
550:
546:
541:
540:
539:
538:
535:
531:
527:
523:
518:
514:
510:
509:
508:
507:
504:
500:
496:
491:
487:
482:
481:
480:
479:
476:
472:
468:
464:
461:
460:
459:
458:
455:
451:
447:
442:
441:
440:
439:
436:
432:
428:
424:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
411:
407:
402:
401:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
385:
381:
372:
369:
365:
362:
359:
358:
357:
356:
352:
348:
345:
343:
339:
335:
334:JEdgarFreeman
331:
327:
323:
319:
314:
313:
309:
308:
303:
299:
295:
291:
288:You recently
287:
286:
285:
284:
281:
277:
273:
269:
266:
262:
258:
254:
249:
248:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
224:
223:
222:
221:
217:
213:
208:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
185:
179:
176:
169:
164:
157:
153:
149:
145:
140:
136:
131:
127:
123:
119:
115:
114:
108:
105:
102:
98:
96:
93:
91:
88:
86:
83:
81:
78:
76:
73:
65:
62:
60:
59:
54:
50:
49:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1704:
1701:
1685:disruptive.
1682:
1666:
1649:
1631:
1605:
1604:
1580:
1562:
1541:
1480:
1437:
1412:User:MSJapan
1380:
1347:
1330:
1323:
1300:
1282:
1228:
1178:
1153:
1127:
1071:
1047:
1028:
1005:
988:
967:
962:
961:
940:
912:
867:
866:There is no
844:
774:
739:
702:
662:
632:
573:
512:
489:
485:
378:
367:
346:
330:for deletion
329:
311:
310:
267:
225:
203:
199:
195:
191:
187:
180:
177:
173:
46:redirect to
45:
43:
31:
28:
830:See above.
708:WP:AFDHOWTO
663:train wreck
659:WP:AFDHOWTO
326:WP:NOT#NEWS
1671:WP:NOTNEWS
915:Text book
579:Jimmi Hugh
1381:Re-direct
655:WP:BEFORE
522:WP:BEFORE
463:Tu quoque
1610:WP:BLP1E
1591:ratarsed
1567:Blueboar
1542:Redirect
1150:WP:MERGE
1011:WP:BLP1E
949:Flatscan
917:WP:BLP1E
513:separate
351:WP:BLP1E
322:WP:BIO1E
318:WP:BLP1E
234:WP:BLP1E
168:View log
1687:Protonk
1654:Indrian
1650:Comment
1632:Comment
1606:Comment
1481:Comment
1438:Comment
1301:Comment
1283:Comment
1270:MSJapan
1229:Comment
1212:Indrian
1179:Comment
1128:Comment
1072:Comment
1048:Comment
1029:Neutral
1006:Comment
993:MSJapan
989:Comment
845:Comment
775:Comment
740:Comment
703:Comment
686:Indrian
633:Comment
593:Indrian
545:Indrian
495:Indrian
486:prefers
446:Indrian
406:Indrian
272:MSJapan
253:Indrian
212:Indrian
135:protect
130:history
1675:WP:BLP
1667:Delete
1563:Delete
1417:WP:DEL
1033:Yobmod
976:Yobmod
913:Delete
849:WP:DRV
783:WP:DRV
779:WP:DRV
758:WP:DRV
574:Delete
324:, and
312:Delete
268:Delete
238:Edison
232:. Per
226:Delete
163:delete
139:delete
1185:, to
166:) – (
156:views
148:watch
144:links
16:<
1691:talk
1673:and
1669:per
1658:talk
1641:talk
1622:talk
1595:talk
1581:Note
1571:talk
1554:talk
1517:talk
1492:talk
1466:talk
1447:talk
1425:talk
1393:talk
1366:talk
1358:GFDL
1340:talk
1331:Done
1313:talk
1292:talk
1274:talk
1238:talk
1216:talk
1195:talk
1166:talk
1136:talk
1115:talk
1081:talk
1060:talk
1052:GFDL
1037:talk
1019:talk
997:talk
980:talk
966:and
963:Keep
953:talk
932:Mate
876:talk
858:talk
836:talk
822:talk
807:talk
792:talk
766:talk
749:talk
731:talk
716:talk
690:talk
671:talk
641:talk
620:talk
597:talk
583:talk
549:talk
530:talk
524:...
517:9-11
499:talk
490:only
471:talk
450:talk
431:talk
410:talk
384:talk
347:Keep
338:talk
298:talk
276:talk
257:talk
242:talk
216:talk
152:logs
126:talk
122:edit
1683:not
1587:.
1544:to
1387:.
1383:to
1307:.
1693:)
1660:)
1643:)
1624:)
1597:)
1573:)
1556:)
1519:)
1494:)
1468:)
1449:)
1427:)
1395:)
1368:)
1342:)
1315:)
1294:)
1276:)
1240:)
1218:)
1197:)
1168:)
1138:)
1117:)
1083:)
1062:)
1039:)
1021:)
999:)
982:)
955:)
947:.
927:ni
878:)
860:)
838:)
824:)
809:)
794:)
768:)
751:)
733:)
718:)
692:)
673:)
643:)
622:)
599:)
585:)
551:)
532:)
501:)
473:)
452:)
433:)
412:)
386:)
340:)
320:,
300:)
278:)
259:)
244:)
218:)
154:|
150:|
146:|
142:|
137:|
133:|
128:|
124:|
53:BJ
51:.
1689:(
1656:(
1639:(
1620:(
1593:(
1569:(
1552:(
1515:(
1490:(
1464:(
1445:(
1423:(
1391:(
1364:(
1354:N
1338:(
1311:(
1290:(
1272:(
1236:(
1214:(
1193:(
1164:(
1134:(
1113:(
1079:(
1070:'
1058:(
1035:(
1017:(
995:(
978:(
951:(
922:A
874:(
856:(
834:(
820:(
805:(
790:(
764:(
747:(
729:(
714:(
688:(
669:(
639:(
618:(
595:(
581:(
547:(
528:(
497:(
469:(
448:(
429:(
408:(
382:(
336:(
296:(
274:(
255:(
240:(
214:(
170:)
160:(
158:)
120:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.