1633:
journalist who became an important screenwriter. Perhaps he actually has hundreds of items, not just the 30 listed here--many active journalists do, for they write one a week. I wouldn't think it reasonable to include them all either in the article or a separate article. That sort of coverage is for a specialized bibliography, not a general encyclopedia. I have no animus about the man or the article. But I really wonder at such a duplicative article: WP is NOT A FANZINE. I would like an article on every even moderately significant writer--I am certainly an inclusionist about this; but i would like one article, not two.
1388:, which describes how to write a bibliography, discography, etc. I have already invoked it above. I believe that many of your concerns are addressed there. Perhaps a sentence could be added about the necessity of forking at times (this would have to be discussed on the talk page, of course). Obviously many editors have already done this, so there is a lot of precedent (there is even a category, as you know). In fact, the page itself references some lists already. All of which should demonstrate to those debating here that this is an accepted and necessary practice amongst those of us who write about art and artists.
1225:
eyes (meaning only that they have never heard of them because
Dickens was a journalist and wrote a lot of material that we don't read anymore). This is all so silly - these people are included in wikipedia because they are writers. One of the most basic pieces of information is a list of what they wrote. I can't imagine why we would not want to include that. The same is true of composers. Do we only list Beethoven's "famous" pieces? Which are those? Deciding such a thing would lead to POV. I really cannot believe that this position is being argued. Bibliographies are basic pieces of information for any author.
595:: "Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules, programme lists, etc., although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Knowledge is not the yellow pages." - In no way does this page qualify as a directory under this definition.
1550:
opinions of a broad range of people who use these sorts of lists. Since I do not personally know their opinions regarding this issue, I do not believe this is canvassing, but I thought that other editors might interpret it as such. I wanted to post this query before I posted the notices. Do you think it is canvassing to ask other editors who may have in the past created bibliographies both within pages and as separate articles to weigh in on this AfD?
1215:. The question is, what makes this list a directory, when that Shakespeare list is not, and when you don't think a list of Shakespeare's works or Dickens works would be. If it is merely that there are articles on wikipedia, does that mean that a list of all the towns in New York would not be a directory? Or a list of all the actors in Hollywood? Aren't those much more like directories, as you read through the guideline on directories, than this?
352:
has a specific purpose, as it keeps those major lists from become unwieldy. This list is by its nature the work of a single person and not likely to become unwieldy, and I'd apply the same criteria we apply to an article to it. We don't apply notability criteria within an article. Can you point me to any reason why we should eliminate the list based on policy, having heard my objections to the policy reasons you've cited thus far?
330:- do you believe all articles listing works by an author are somehow "directories?" Likewise, notability is criteria for the subject of the article, and I note this subject has a feature article that recently ran on the front page - he is notable. Please, to bring something again this quickly you should have some new information or change in analysis, not just a desire to try again. These points were vetted before.
602:: "All topics should meet a minimum threshold of notability for an article on that topic to be included in Knowledge. Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Notability guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles." - I would argue that this list is essentially a fork from the
1384:
understanding of each subject and only want to reinforce what they already know - why would they not want to learn something new about
William Monahan, for example? Why include only his "famous" works which readers will already come to the page knowing about? Some of us want more than that and wikipedia has a unique opportunity to educate readers. BillDeanCarter, you should check out
1612:
earlier people in the hope of a different decision. Trying for a wider audience seems particularly important after a no consensus--it's not trying to upset the earlier decision, but to get a decision, & the wider participation the better. I was notified, but I would have seen this AfD in any case a few hours later.
623:). Literary and art critics study art of all kinds; they no longer elevate "great" authors, for example. For wikipedia to do so by eliminating lists of this sort would be to place it in the dark ages, essentially; it would certainly be POV and would not reflect the current state of scholarship on authorship.
1611:
I think it's reasonable to list at an obvious wikiproject, and to notify people (like myself) who participated in the earlier AfD. I even think it would be wrong not to notify everyone from the first debate, and of course all should have been notified. (Otherwise it looks like one is trying to avoid
1414:
Normally I'd consider this too soon for another AfD as well, but like the nom I think the closing admin's call on the first AfD was a bad one. There were over two-thirds consensus against keeping the article, but since some editors typed "Delete" and some "Merge" and delete, the admin waffled. That
1383:
Aesthetics is a legitimate argument while notability is not. Sometimes a writer is known for writing in a particular genre but not another genre (to the general public) but that does not make his/her other writings uninteresting. Black Harry, you seem to be assuming that users only want a superficial
1001:
I would have deletion reviewed it, however the only thing I could have challenged was if the timing of the closing was appropriate, not the decision of the closing admin. I have no problem with the timing, but I felt that the closing admin made a bad call. perhaps he wanted to outright keep it, but
576:
This was discussed a mere nine days ago. Another discussion is not going to elicit a manifestly different result unless s/he has new information or arguments (I have seen none as of yet). If Black Harry disagreed with the result of the decision, he should have taken the issue up with deletion review,
341:
I feel that a list of the writings of an author is appropriate where either A) the writings are notable and well-known, or B) A majority of the writings have their own
Wikipages. Clearly, this sin't the case when it comes to this particular page. This debate, to me at least, has nothing to do with
273:
It may be the case that there are no time limits, but there are ways of handling cases like this where someone disagrees with the closing of a debate, and that's deletion review. Arbitrarily saying "Hey, I don't think this was closed right" and dropping it back here at AfD so soon is, in my opinion,
1358:
Hold on, your math is confusing my non-creative, destructive brain (I can be sarcastic too you little shit). But any way, the
Monahan article is currently 43 KB long, while the list is 12 KB long. How does adding the two together double the size of the Monahan article? Grow up and learn how to do
59:
article". The recent deletion debate was closed with a note that if you want to merge you go ahead and merge, and I'm looking at the edit history of the article and I can see no attempt to merge. There's no merge discussion on the talk page either. AFD isn't dispute resolution, and if you want to
1448:
as per RGTraynor; I too believe the first AfD was incorrectly closed (I did not participate in it, so this is not "sour grapes"). As to the substance, this is a laundry list of notable and non-notable works; the more prominent ones should be in the main article, and there should be a link to a more
1224:
Each entry on the list doesn't have to be notable on a bibliography. Editors here claim that they want a bibliography for
Charles Dickens. I suggest that they go look for a bibliography of Charles Dickens (wikipedia currently doesn't have one). It will contain plenty of "non-notable" works to their
874:
I would like to point out that wikipedia encourages editors who have worked extensively on a page that has reached FA to keep it up and even to improve it. That is what I see BillDeanCarter doing. Yes, he should notify everyone, but I still have yet to see you, Black Harry, respond to the arguments
385:
You nominated it for removal; you need to make an argument why it should be removed. Nothing on
Knowledge is necessary - but this is a good faith contribution by a contributor and should not be removed unless there is a good reason to do so. If someone wants to put it in an article, or separately
708:
rather negates this entire debate. It lays out exactly how to display a list a bibliography, a discography, a filmography, etc., thereby implying that such lists are acceptable. It also states "Bibliographies are included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other people who have published
351:
So the key issue is notability of the items on the list, not the directory argument. I see one element of support for this in guidelines, which is the notion that lists of people should be lists of notable people (e.g., a list of
English poets ought not include non-notable poets). That guideline
259:
until WP adopts a policy of a waiting period, there is none. I think there ought to be one, but apparently the WP gurus don't, and they make the rules. A speedy close would be to impose by fiat a time limit that consensus has failed to establish. That said, the nomination is on the table and this
1626:
in spite of the rapid re-nomination, because the earlier one was a no consensus, not a decision. i think the article is absurd,; A separate article for such a list is out of proportion entirely, and a very bad precedent. We have tens of thousands of articles on people of much greater distinction
761:
to be forked, but it does provide advice on making it readable and aesthetic and that is precisely what BillDeanCarter is doing. In fact, he is following much of the advice laid out on that page (even if he didn't know about it). To have the entire bibliography on the article's main page would be
1632:
The man is important, and he has an article. If any of his works can be shown to be important enough to have an article by itself, it could. But that's no reason to have two. Only the most exceptional authors indeed with the longest number of works make sense for that. After all, he is just a
1309:
Am I the only one that finds this whole thing weird? I'm simply trying to do a bibliography about one of
Hollywood's more prominent writers this decade, and I spend more time arguing the validity of literature. My Machiavellian moves (this is sarcasm) were to counter Black Harry's inexplicable
614:
I am sorry that the list of writings of Bruno Maddox was deleted. That is why I think that it is important to consider what is being done here and why. The editors nominating these pages seem to feel that these authors lack "fame" or "importance." But their personal opinion regarding an artist's
1549:
I was going to post a notice at the WikiProjectBooks, WikiProjectFilms and WikiProjectMusic (other suggestions welcome) regarding this AfD because I felt that the editors who participate in those projects are the ones most invested in these sorts of pages. I thought it only right to solicit the
610:
Monahan has to be notable and not every
Monahan writing has to be notable to be included, but Monahan himself has to be notable to be included in wikipedia. He has been proven to be notable as a writer, therefore a list of his writings is important to a complete article about him. Because that
1348:
The quick response is: aesthetics. The long response: Merge back, more than double the length of the main
Monahan article, debate forking bibliography versus paring it down, then return to where we once were (here). (Side Note: The Dickens bibliography will still be nonexistent, while in an
1652:
While the list may only be 12kB it is in fact half as long as the main article itself because of its list format. Therefore it causes aesthetic problems in the main article. As well, it is not yet complete, and it can be expected to double or triple in length. That is the reason for the
547:
You wasted your time with this because the Bill Carter has a fetish for lists, and notified you and your ilk who defended this previously so that he keep his pet project alive. I wasted my time b/c I feel this list is unnecessary, and there is no policy concerning any waiting period
60:
sort this out I suggest you get a mediator in. I can't see any value in rerunning this debate so soon after the last debate, Knowledge is not a game, you don't keep playing until you get the end you want. Take time out, see if you can agree on a merge discussion after listing at
1201:
No, because Shakespeare's list wold more than likely link to other articles, whereas the Monahan one doesn't. And it was brought up in the firsr debate that Dickens (and also Hemingway) don't have lists for there writings, though they are more notable than Monahan.
1247:
Ample reliable and verifiable sources demonstrate notability of the list. I don't buy the "offsetting penalties" logic in implying that two people canvassing opposing sides of the debate cancels out the issue. It would seem that both parties have violated
890:"Phoenix, would you mind chiming in with a Keep again? This list unfortunately 9 days later has been renominated for deletion." This crosses the line from notification to canvassing, and the similiar messages were left to the other users.
156:
1323:
I have nothing against Monahan having a bibliography of his own. But when none of his stories are notable enough to have their own articles, I don't see why a list of them merits its own page. The bibliography belongs on the article.
210:
was the right decision. I would have been ok with a keep in the first debate, but the closing admin didn't have the fortitude to make a definitive decision. And also, check again cuz I wasn't the one who nominated the first one
163:
were both deleted after debates. Also, no page except for the main William Monahan article links to this list (excluding two redirects), and one author has been the only person to edit this page (with the exception of the two
1670:
which says "Notability guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles." meaning that each individual article does not have to be notorious to be included in the
228:
207:
140:
762:
unsightly, as it would be for Charles Dickens (who wrote numerous novels, short stories, magazine articles and co-authored many other pieces of literature). Although more famous, I consider this list no different than
160:
914:
You are not responding. I agreed with you that BillDeanCarter "should notify everyone." But let us move on from this petty canvassing debate to the substance of the charge - you claim that the page violates
1660:
where it is stated that lists should flow chronologically and sometimes be split into groups to keep series together like the Claude La Badarian stories, or articles that were all specific to a publisher.
1183:
actions may merit a review. I also think he could have been more open about what he did, and mentioned his notifications in this debate instead of waiting until he got caught to defend himself.
55:. This isn't a delete request, its a merge discussion, the nominator states as much in the nomination, stating he sees "no good reason for a list of Monahan's works to be separated from the main
1310:
desire to consistently eliminate a list of William Monahan's writings. I came to Knowledge to write articles but I seem to have found myself in the loony section. I think it's time to have a
966:
Another "canvassed" person chiming in. I think when someone violates wikipedia policy to renominate an article for deletion, informing others who may have an interest in the article is legit.
105:
100:
109:
1054:
Thanks for explaining that to me. I understand what you're saying, but do you honestly think a deletion review would work, especially if the original closing admin were the one in charge?
704:
Well, I think that the links actually enhance this article rather than detract from it, since its purpose is to give readers access to the work. But, more importantly, I would say that
92:
718:
I tried to find the that section in the manual of style, but couldn't. But from what you quoted, it says nothing about a bibliography needing to be forked from its proper article.
260:
list should go back to the bio and be deleted; if the list is too voluminous for the article, then pare it down to the essentials, or cut other less important fluff from the bio.
949:
I don't mind coming back here to support the retention of this list; I think it's a worthy cause. For your sixth "victim" of canvassing, I think you intended to link to me, not
518:
specifically states the following: "list articles like List of English writers are expected to include only notable writers." I shouldn't have to explain what this means.
875:
against your deletion. I think you should focus on engaging in the debate. So far, your arguments have not been relevant nor based on wikipedia policy as I understand it.
452:
First off, cite me a policy where any amount of time is given for a waiting period for a renomination. Second, under what other denominations does this need to be kept?
666:: "Knowledge is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files." - I do not see how any of 1-4 applies to this page - which one do you see applying?
1002:
since 2/3 of the votes were for delete or merge, he thought he couldn't get away with an outright keep, he would declare no consensus, which led to a "back-door" keep.
1686:
1675:
1639:
1618:
1603:
1580:
1554:
1534:
1484:
1467:
1453:
1438:
1427:
1392:
1378:
1353:
1343:
1318:
1304:
1280:
1271:
1256:
1229:
1219:
1206:
1196:
1187:
1148:
1108:
1084:
1073:
1047:
1021:
996:
981:
972:
961:
944:
927:
909:
879:
867:
858:
848:
803:
774:
737:
713:
699:
670:
657:
627:
552:
540:
522:
495:
471:
443:
417:
390:
380:
356:
346:
334:
312:
288:
264:
249:
215:
201:
191:
81:
361:
Instead of nit-picking my argument, and criticizing me for not doing what you ask, why don't you explain why this fork from the William Monahn article is necessary.
1476:
which allows us to include these bibliographies rather than limit ourselves to a mere mention of a few works (which would inevitably fail to represent the writer's
132:
1449:
comprehensive bibliography elsewhere: Knowledge is not the right place for attempting exhaustive bibliographies, directories, statistical compilations, etc. --
923:. You must defend your position and explain why those charges apply. I believe that I have shown why they do not. I have responded to your other claim above.
342:
the author's notability (though he is more famous for his screenplays than anything else), and has everything to do with the notability of items on the list.
781:
763:
435:, per above; this debate is surely being held to soon after the last. I'm an inclusionist, but certainly under other denominations this list must be kept. --
1663:
Monahan's bibliography is the reason he has an article at Knowledge, so it's important to have a clear idea of what he wrote, for whom, and in what numbers.
1276:
Thanks, WhiteKongMan. Entirely appropriate and the proper remedy for canvassing. I had urged Mr. Carter to do the same when I received a note on my page.
1041:- namely contacting the closing admin and asking him to reconsider, and taking it to Deletion Review if you can't sort it out through direct discussion
1211:
Actually, on Shakespeare we do several better, with a whole portal, categories, a template of his complete works pasted on multiple articles, and a
611:
complete list would be unaesthetic on the main article page, the editor has (rightly, in my opinion) decided to separate it from the main article.
1166:, and I'd say that this qualifies as a directory. It might not be a phonebook but it simply lists writings which do not have their own articles.
1267:
canvassing, it seemed to be the only way to make this debate fair. I also made it clear that informed the users, and didn't try to hide it.
1472:
Knowledge is precisely the place for a bibliography of a writer since that bibliography (in toto) is what made them notable. Furthermore,
1434:
Is it a straight vote or do the best arguments win? Because I would say that the "delete" votes both then and now have flawed reasoning.
155:, as not a single writing listed in the article in question has its own Knowledge page. Also should be noted that a similar debate over
1158:
I feel this article is an unnecessary list of writings with little or no significance. The important ones should be placed in the main
1575:
1529:
1508:
1373:
1338:
1299:
1103:
1068:
1016:
904:
798:
732:
694:
652:
466:
412:
375:
307:
186:
96:
1212:
503:
17:
780:
How would putting the bibliography at the bottom of the main article make it unreadable. It's a very different scenario than
1463:
says "Notability guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles."-
678:
511:
88:
27:
1089:
The notified the previous debate's closing admin about this renomination and asked for an explanation of the no consensus.
514:
wold be perfectly fine. Perhaps you, or another man who gets a high off of lists would enjoy writing those articles. Also,
709:
books, or substantial portions of books" - note, bibliographies are always complete, not incomplete, representative lists.
1285:
Thanks Amusing for trying to make this a fair debate by telling carter what he did wrong. I didn't realize you did that
1192:
Do you think all bibliographies are directories? Would a list of all the works of Shakespeare or Dickens be a directory?
507:
483:, too soon to open a new AfD, even if there is no fixed policy common sense dictates that some time must pass. As far as
231:. If the nominator disagrees with the closure of that debate then an appropriate course of action is to bring it up on
1171:
And in the interest of full disclosure, I notified the users who voted to delete in the first debate, to help counter
487:
goes it's important to note that it is the article subject that needs to be notable, not everything in the article (
1078:
Yes, I think it'd work. And I'd assume a different admin would be the one in charge of implementing the consensus.
886:
Yes, wiki policy does encourage notification of interested editors, but here is the exact message that Carter left
197:
Black Harry, I am much more interested in why you personally would like to delete this list (for the second time)?-
61:
1701:
43:
1700:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
42:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1311:
817:
68:
and thenm if that all fails come back in a couple of months after it's all been tried seriously and with
1569:
1523:
1502:
1367:
1332:
1293:
1097:
1062:
1010:
950:
898:
792:
726:
688:
646:
460:
406:
369:
301:
180:
1268:
1203:
1184:
286:
247:
767:
533:
1683:
1672:
1464:
1416:
1350:
1315:
1264:
1180:
1172:
941:
887:
825:
261:
198:
955:
863:
Perhaps, Carter could play by the rules, and not notify those who will defend his pet projects.
837:
829:
821:
437:
770:
article does not include this entire list (again, it would be unsightly). It rightly forks it.
1037:
and letting anyone who thinks the original decision was dodgy following the steps outlined in
813:
492:
36:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1561:
Go ahead, they would be able to help solve this. And thanks for asking us before you did so
844:. As of my noting this, five of the people he informed have all voted to keep this article.
532:
As per above. Why are we wasting time with this? The last AfD was less then two weeks ago. -
1563:
1517:
1496:
1361:
1326:
1287:
1249:
1176:
1091:
1056:
1004:
978:
892:
864:
845:
833:
786:
720:
682:
640:
549:
519:
454:
400:
363:
343:
295:
212:
174:
165:
77:
1159:
841:
603:
144:
56:
1667:
1460:
1420:
916:
616:
599:
515:
488:
484:
152:
143:. There is no good reason for a list of Monahan's works to be separated from the main
1657:
1600:
1596:
1551:
1491:
1481:
1435:
1389:
1385:
1277:
1253:
1226:
1216:
1193:
1163:
1038:
1026:
924:
920:
876:
855:
771:
710:
705:
667:
663:
635:
624:
592:
396:
387:
353:
331:
327:
232:
169:
148:
69:
620:
65:
126:
1143:
1079:
1042:
991:
967:
275:
236:
73:
1031:
Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly
395:
Okay, as the article links to no wiki pages, but to outside sources, it fails
1592:
Given that this page has degenerated into name calling and charges of incest,
1635:
1614:
1450:
326:- disruptive to reopen so quickly; also, please indicate how this fails
854:
Perhaps, Black Harry, you should respond to the arguments made above?
606:
article, which clearly passes the notability standard. Not everything
1656:
It complies with WP policies. It follows the List of Works criteria
206:
Its nothing against you, I just don't think that the "no consensus"
147:
article. This list is basically a resume for its author. It fails
516:
WP:NOTE#Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content
489:
WP:NOTE#Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content
1349:
alternate time-line you could actually expend energy creating it)-
757:
I fixed the link above. No, it does not say that the bibliography
274:
a little unilateral of a decision and is improper. That's all.
227:
this nomination as far too soon. The original AfD debate closed
172:
applies here because this list simply links to outside websites.
1694:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1473:
677:
I would say point number one, especially for the section on the
1682:
That is essentially the logic that led me to create this list.-
1599:. Please, people, let's calm down and discuss this rationally.
784:
because that list is 4 times the size of the one in question.
615:
importance is not what is relevant in this debate (please see
1162:
Article, and this silly list and its redirects get deleted.
293:
Isn't the nomination of any article for deletion unilateral?
977:
And exactly what policy did I break when renominating this?
1649:
the list is a legitimate fork of the main Monahan article.
1515:
I retract that statement having not seen the reply above
168:
18:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC). I would like to also add that
1593:
139:
This page was previously nominated, and the result was
122:
118:
114:
1263:
I only informed users to help counter the effect of
46:). No further edits should be made to this page.
634:Would you argue that this article doesn't violate
619:). What is relevant is what reliable sources say (
1704:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1494:? I haven't heard a response to that one yet
1314:so that these arguments can come into focus.-
8:
1419:curiously left me off his canvassing list?
1175:notification of users who voted to keep, so
782:List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven
764:List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven
502:Well, under that argument, articles such as
1179:no longer applies to this debate, though
990:, rather than takign it to Deletion Review
591:This is the definition of "directory" from
235:but renominating it here so fast is silly.
151:and many, if not all, of the writings fail
504:List of Women Wilt Chamberlain Slept With
812:looks like BillDeanCarter is violating
512:List of men who slept with Paris Hilton
89:List of the writings of William Monahan
28:List of the writings of William Monahan
386:in a list, that is up to the editors.
7:
1138:Per reasons listed many times above
508:List of women beaten by Brett Myers
940:I am trying to work on this list.-
24:
161:a list of Bruno Maddox's writings
1213:List of Shakespearean characters
598:This is the first sentence from
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
1595:, I have opened a report at
1627:without a separate article.
1164:Knowledge isn't a directory
679:Claude La Badarian stories.
1721:
1512:) 18:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1415:aside, gosh, I wonder why
562:for the following reasons.
157:the Awards of Aaron Sorkin
62:Knowledge:Proposed mergers
1359:math, you stupid S.O.B.
159:and another one over the
1697:Please do not modify it.
1687:21:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1676:21:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1640:20:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1619:20:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1604:20:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1587:A plea for some civility
1581:20:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1555:20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1535:18:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1485:18:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1468:18:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1454:17:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1439:18:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1428:17:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1393:20:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1379:20:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1354:19:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1344:19:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1319:19:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1305:18:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1281:16:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1272:14:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1257:14:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1230:18:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1220:15:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1207:14:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1197:14:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1188:13:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1149:09:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1109:18:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1085:18:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1074:17:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1048:17:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1022:17:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
997:13:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
982:12:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
973:09:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
962:03:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
945:02:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
928:18:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
910:16:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
880:04:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
868:01:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
859:01:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
849:00:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
804:20:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
775:20:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
738:19:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
714:19:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
700:18:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
671:18:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
658:16:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
628:23:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
553:01:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
541:23:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
523:01:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
496:23:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
472:17:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
444:22:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
418:17:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
391:16:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
381:16:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
357:15:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
347:01:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
335:22:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
313:16:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
289:22:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
265:22:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
250:21:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
216:21:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
202:20:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
192:16:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
82:22:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
39:Please do not modify it.
1474:wikipedia is not paper
986:You renominated after
706:WP:MOS (list of works)
577:as Arkyan pointed out.
816:again. See examples
768:Ludwig van Beethoven
1417:user:BillDeanCarter
208:In the first debate
64:, try the steps at
1156:VERY STRONG DELETE
66:dispute resolution
1537:
1492:WP:NOT#REPOSITORY
1035:closing this AfD'
664:WP:NOT#REPOSITORY
636:WP:NOT#REPOSITORY
397:WP:NOT#REPOSITORY
170:WP:NOT#REPOSITORY
80:
1712:
1699:
1514:
1424:
1146:
1082:
1045:
994:
970:
958:
921:WP:NOT#DIRECTORY
766:. Note that the
593:WP:NOT#DIRECTORY
538:
440:
328:WP:NOT#DIRECTORY
282:
279:
243:
240:
149:WP:NOT#DIRECTORY
130:
112:
76:
41:
1720:
1719:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1708:
1702:deletion review
1695:
1658:WP:LOW#Ordering
1589:
1422:
1312:WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY
1160:William Monahan
1144:
1080:
1043:
992:
968:
956:
604:William Monahan
534:
438:
280:
277:
241:
238:
233:deletion review
145:William Monahan
103:
87:
57:William Monahan
51:The result was
44:deletion review
37:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1718:
1716:
1707:
1706:
1690:
1689:
1684:BillDeanCarter
1680:
1679:
1678:
1673:BillDeanCarter
1664:
1661:
1654:
1643:
1642:
1629:
1628:
1621:
1606:
1588:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1558:
1557:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1465:BillDeanCarter
1457:
1456:
1442:
1441:
1431:
1430:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1381:
1351:BillDeanCarter
1316:BillDeanCarter
1260:
1259:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1168:
1167:
1152:
1151:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1033:. I recommend
975:
947:
942:BillDeanCarter
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
807:
806:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
631:
630:
612:
596:
586:
585:
581:
580:
579:
578:
571:
570:
564:
563:
556:
555:
544:
543:
526:
525:
499:
498:
477:
476:
475:
474:
447:
446:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
338:
337:
320:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
268:
267:
262:Carlossuarez46
253:
252:
221:
220:
219:
218:
199:BillDeanCarter
137:
136:
49:
48:
32:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1717:
1705:
1703:
1698:
1692:
1691:
1688:
1685:
1681:
1677:
1674:
1669:
1665:
1662:
1659:
1655:
1651:
1650:
1648:
1645:
1644:
1641:
1638:
1637:
1631:
1630:
1625:
1622:
1620:
1617:
1616:
1610:
1607:
1605:
1602:
1598:
1594:
1591:
1590:
1586:
1582:
1578:
1577:
1572:
1571:
1566:
1565:
1560:
1559:
1556:
1553:
1548:
1545:
1544:
1536:
1532:
1531:
1526:
1525:
1520:
1519:
1513:
1511:
1510:
1505:
1504:
1499:
1498:
1493:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1483:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1466:
1462:
1459:
1458:
1455:
1452:
1447:
1444:
1443:
1440:
1437:
1433:
1432:
1429:
1426:
1425:
1418:
1413:
1410:
1409:
1394:
1391:
1387:
1382:
1380:
1376:
1375:
1370:
1369:
1364:
1363:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1352:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1341:
1340:
1335:
1334:
1329:
1328:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1317:
1313:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1302:
1301:
1296:
1295:
1290:
1289:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1279:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1261:
1258:
1255:
1251:
1246:
1243:
1242:
1231:
1228:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1205:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1195:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1154:
1153:
1150:
1147:
1141:
1137:
1134:
1133:
1110:
1106:
1105:
1100:
1099:
1094:
1093:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1083:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1071:
1070:
1065:
1064:
1059:
1058:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1046:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1019:
1018:
1013:
1012:
1007:
1006:
1000:
999:
998:
995:
989:
985:
984:
983:
980:
976:
974:
971:
965:
964:
963:
960:
959:
952:
948:
946:
943:
939:
929:
926:
922:
918:
913:
912:
911:
907:
906:
901:
900:
895:
894:
889:
888:User:Phoenix2
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
878:
873:
872:
871:
870:
869:
866:
862:
861:
860:
857:
853:
852:
851:
850:
847:
843:
839:
835:
831:
827:
823:
819:
815:
811:
805:
801:
800:
795:
794:
789:
788:
783:
779:
778:
777:
776:
773:
769:
765:
760:
739:
735:
734:
729:
728:
723:
722:
717:
716:
715:
712:
707:
703:
702:
701:
697:
696:
691:
690:
685:
684:
680:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
669:
665:
662:I quote from
661:
660:
659:
655:
654:
649:
648:
643:
642:
637:
633:
632:
629:
626:
622:
618:
613:
609:
605:
601:
597:
594:
590:
589:
588:
587:
583:
582:
575:
574:
573:
572:
568:
567:
566:
565:
561:
558:
557:
554:
551:
546:
545:
542:
539:
537:
531:
528:
527:
524:
521:
517:
513:
509:
505:
501:
500:
497:
494:
490:
486:
482:
479:
478:
473:
469:
468:
463:
462:
457:
456:
451:
450:
449:
448:
445:
442:
441:
434:
431:
430:
419:
415:
414:
409:
408:
403:
402:
398:
394:
393:
392:
389:
384:
383:
382:
378:
377:
372:
371:
366:
365:
360:
359:
358:
355:
350:
349:
348:
345:
340:
339:
336:
333:
329:
325:
322:
321:
314:
310:
309:
304:
303:
298:
297:
292:
291:
290:
287:
284:
283:
272:
271:
270:
269:
266:
263:
258:
255:
254:
251:
248:
245:
244:
234:
230:
229:nine days ago
226:
223:
222:
217:
214:
209:
205:
204:
203:
200:
196:
195:
194:
193:
189:
188:
183:
182:
177:
176:
171:
167:
162:
158:
154:
150:
146:
142:
134:
128:
124:
120:
116:
111:
107:
102:
98:
94:
90:
86:
85:
84:
83:
79:
75:
71:
67:
63:
58:
54:
47:
45:
40:
34:
33:
29:
26:
19:
1696:
1693:
1646:
1634:
1623:
1613:
1608:
1574:
1568:
1562:
1546:
1528:
1522:
1516:
1507:
1501:
1495:
1489:
1477:
1445:
1421:
1411:
1372:
1366:
1360:
1337:
1331:
1325:
1298:
1292:
1286:
1269:WhiteKongMan
1244:
1204:WhiteKongMan
1185:WhiteKongMan
1155:
1140:way too soon
1139:
1135:
1102:
1096:
1090:
1067:
1061:
1055:
1034:
1030:
1015:
1009:
1003:
987:
954:
903:
897:
891:
809:
808:
797:
791:
785:
758:
756:
731:
725:
719:
693:
687:
681:
651:
645:
639:
607:
584:Substantive:
559:
535:
529:
493:Pax:Vobiscum
480:
465:
459:
453:
436:
432:
411:
405:
399:
374:
368:
362:
323:
306:
300:
294:
276:
256:
237:
225:Speedy close
224:
185:
179:
173:
164:nominations)
141:no consensus
138:
53:Speedy close
52:
50:
38:
35:
1564:Black Harry
1518:Black Harry
1497:Black Harry
1490:what about
1362:Black Harry
1327:Black Harry
1288:Black Harry
1136:Speedy keep
1092:Black Harry
1057:Black Harry
1005:Black Harry
979:Black Harry
893:Black Harry
865:Black Harry
846:Black Harry
787:Black Harry
721:Black Harry
683:Black Harry
641:Black Harry
569:Procedural:
550:Black Harry
530:Speedy keep
520:Black Harry
455:Black Harry
401:Black Harry
364:Black Harry
344:Black Harry
324:Speedy keep
296:Black Harry
285:•
246:•
213:Black Harry
175:Black Harry
166:Black Harry
1423:RGTraynor
814:WP:CANVASS
70:good faith
1250:WP:CANVAS
1177:WP:CANVAS
1601:A Musing
1552:Awadewit
1547:Question
1482:Awadewit
1436:Awadewit
1390:Awadewit
1278:A Musing
1265:Carter's
1254:Alansohn
1227:Awadewit
1217:A Musing
1194:A Musing
1181:Carter's
1173:Carter's
925:Awadewit
877:Awadewit
856:Awadewit
772:Awadewit
711:Awadewit
668:Awadewit
625:Awadewit
388:A Musing
354:A Musing
332:A Musing
133:View log
1668:WP:NOTE
1609:Comment
1461:WP:NOTE
1412:Delete:
1029:states
957:Phoenix
917:WP:NOTE
810:Comment
617:WP:NOTE
600:WP:NOTE
485:WP:NOTE
439:Phoenix
153:WP:NOTE
106:protect
101:history
1671:list.-
1624:Delete
1597:WP:ANI
1478:oeuvre
1446:Delete
1386:WP:LOW
1145:Lurker
1081:Lurker
1044:Lurker
1039:WP:DRV
1027:WP:DRV
993:Lurker
988:9 days
969:Lurker
536:Shudda
257:Delete
110:delete
74:Hiding
1653:fork.
759:needs
621:WP:RS
608:about
510:, or
127:views
119:watch
115:links
16:<
1666:per
1647:Keep
1245:Keep
953:. --
951:here
919:and
560:Keep
481:Keep
433:Keep
123:logs
97:talk
93:edit
78:Talk
1636:DGG
1615:DGG
1480:).
1451:MCB
491:).
281:yan
278:Ark
242:yan
239:Ark
131:– (
1579:)
1533:)
1377:)
1342:)
1303:)
1252:.
1142:.
1107:)
1072:)
1020:)
908:)
840:,
836:,
832:,
828:,
824:,
820:,
802:)
736:)
698:)
656:)
638:?
506:,
470:)
416:)
379:)
311:)
190:)
125:|
121:|
117:|
113:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
72:.
1576:C
1573:|
1570:T
1567:(
1530:C
1527:|
1524:T
1521:(
1509:C
1506:|
1503:T
1500:(
1374:C
1371:|
1368:T
1365:(
1339:C
1336:|
1333:T
1330:(
1300:C
1297:|
1294:T
1291:(
1104:C
1101:|
1098:T
1095:(
1069:C
1066:|
1063:T
1060:(
1017:C
1014:|
1011:T
1008:(
905:C
902:|
899:T
896:(
842:7
838:6
834:5
830:4
826:3
822:2
818:1
799:C
796:|
793:T
790:(
733:C
730:|
727:T
724:(
695:C
692:|
689:T
686:(
653:C
650:|
647:T
644:(
467:C
464:|
461:T
458:(
413:C
410:|
407:T
404:(
376:C
373:|
370:T
367:(
308:C
305:|
302:T
299:(
187:C
184:|
181:T
178:(
135:)
129:)
91:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.