Knowledge (XXG)

:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/G4 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

1062:: If I understand this correctly, an article that was previously speedy deleted is reposted in its entirety, and instead of being speedy deleted a second time, it goes on to VfD because of the provision in the repost speedy delete criterion. Aren't we trying to reduce load on VfD some? Or am I mistaken with my thought process? Comments would be appreciated. 1686:
If I understand this correctly, an article that was previously speedy deleted is reposted in its entirety, and instead of being speedy deleted a second time, it goes on to VfD because of the provision in the repost speedy delete criterion. Aren't we trying to reduce load on VfD some? Or am I mistaken
1309:
If an article can be speedied by any criterion, then any direct copy of it can be speedied by that very same criterion (just not by this one). That clause serves as a firm reminder that if an invalid article was speedied, then a later created valid article with the same title should not automatically
1333:
just because they get entirely new articles about the same vfd'd-for-notability subject. If this passes, then we won't ever be able to get rid of persistent vanity articles while even pretending to follow policy as written. I should hope legitimate articles previously deleted via vfd for poor
1086:
it will likely fall under another speedy criterion (e.g. 'patent nonsense') and can be redeleted for still being patent nonsense. This proposal does not forbid redeletion of something that was previously speedied, it only requires that you find another criterion than this one for speedying it.
426:
I believe most people reading the speedy criteria would realize that it doesn't make sense for a recreation of a speedied article to be immune to speedy, and would interpret this rule correctly. Rewording to clarify recreation of speedied content is unnecessary but not without merit.
47:"A substantially identical copy, by any title, of an article that was deleted according to the deletion policy. This does not apply to content in userspace, content that was speedily deleted, or to content undeleted according to undeletion policy." 1535:. Current wording is better. Also, some redundancy IMO. Also unhappy with "substantially identical", could well introduce new backdoor for article author(s)/resurrector(s) to draw out arguments; where there's little valid case for non-deletion - ' 1407:. Usually, such articles get speedily restored. It is, after all, common sense not to automatically delete a different article on the same subject - but some people are afraid that it would happen, hence the suggestion of codifying it. 403:. In practice the only difference between the current and proposed wording is that the proposed system would allow a slightly different repost to be deleted, but that does tend to happen already. Seems like a trivial change to me. 75:
If circumstances regarding the content change, e.g. an otherwise unremarkable person suddenly becomes the center of media attention, then the added facts will ensure that the article no longer is a 'substantially identical
1424:
I'm going to remain in opposition. The proposition is substantially weaker than the current wording; current practice is already to speedy restore mistakes, as you say, and codifying that isn't worth having to go through
1170:
for the inevitable errors that will creep in. We need something to increase the throughput of VfD; better to fix a few errors in a quick system than use a slow, expensive (in time/energy) system. Copyvios too.
62:
The intent is to specifically allow a new article to be created if a non-article with the same title was earlier speedily deleted. This has been marked as 'proposed' on the CSD page for a long time.
80: 871: 176: 92: 1381:
All of these are speedyable under both the current and proposed G4's. I was asking for examples where an article is deleted via vfd solely because of its current poor content, and then
288:
This is still an easily circumvented phrasing. I would prefer something like, "if the recreated article does not address concerns expressed during the VfD" or at least something about
1642:. This would allow an admin to respeedy something they had wrongly speedied under the other proposals here. Sometimes mistakes were made and the current wording allows wriggle room. 1577: 1148: 949: 589: 360:
be speedied, despite the protection provided here. The use of the word 'identical' is peculiar, too, but it's tricky to find an alternative that does not suffer the same problem. -
1082:
No, that's not what it says. It says that an article that is recreated after speedy deletion does not fall under criterion G4 (e.g. it cannot be redeleted solely for that reason)
1598:. Too much Wikilawyering brings out the instruction creep. I'd rather have serious discussions over the border cases than someone pointing out the rule saying "but I followed 1466: 32: 21: 222: 356:
Support, but with concerns over the wording. I think it ought to say that, if a speedied and recreated article falls under the same or another speedy criterion it can
55:"Reposted content that was deleted according to Knowledge (XXG) deletion policy. This does not apply to content that was undeleted according to undeletion policy." 1511:
The revised wording is actually more restrictive than the original. If you think that the current G4 is over-applied, why do you oppose narrowing its scope?
691:
of "Trust in thine admins", it is "Explicitly instruct thine admins". We don't need a Knowledge (XXG) law reference manual, we need thoughtful admins.
183:
justifying further speedy deletions, a loophole that exists in the current wording, and that I have seen used as a rationale for speedy deletion at VFD.
1546: 1204: 1069: 17: 343:- although I'm not sure what "substantially identical" is supposed to mean. Either the new article is identical to the old one, or it's not. :) -- 1269:
This criterion conflicts with all other speedy deletion criteria. In essence, this prevents admins from ever re-speedy-deleting anything. --
1569: 1551: 861: 581: 1495:; normal deletion would still apply, just as it does now. Second, all of the other speedy deletion criteria would still apply. 1209: 491: 1672:
Yes, but not if the admin decides it qualifies under some other criterion, if my understanding of the talk page is correct. -
1140: 1074: 941: 168:
content deleted for being a copyright violation, as that is one of the types of deletion that the deletion policy lists.
161: 132: 1651:
No it wouldn't. It specifically states that it "does not apply to content that was speedily deleted". It's the
504: 1697: 1676: 1667: 1646: 1632: 1587: 1555: 1515: 1239: 1189: 1178: 1158: 1130: 1114: 1052: 1043: 1005: 996: 988: 974: 959: 931: 907: 599: 1334:
content don't get slapped with {{deleteagain}}s, nor have those honored. I welcome counterexamples, though. --
1310:
be speedied as a recreation. Of course that's pretty much common sense but it wouldn't hurt to wride it down.
1396: 1028: 501: 1704:
if the new article falls under any other speedy deletion criterion, it can still be deleted for that reason
67:
if the new article falls under any other speedy deletion criterion, it can still be deleted for that reason
1655:
version of G4 that allows speedy deletion on the grounds that something has already been speedy deleted.
1474: 1329:
Per mikka above, but strongly enough to oppose. We shouldn't have to endure constant vfds for stuff like
662: 388: 226: 1106: 858: 632: 349: 1361: 1565: 1235: 1228: 760: 334: 203: 72:
Administrators can (and should) read deleted content in order to verify that it is an identical copy.
1349: 1608: 1295: 1273: 1263: 971: 885: 817: 697: 681: 613: 561: 548: 487: 274: 192: 154: 127: 1353: 1710: 1411: 1368: 1314: 1091: 1024: 733: 523: 459: 307: 296: 1352:
was a howto page transwikied to wikibooks after VFD vote, put back a number of times, verbatim.
59:
This reflects actual practice, in other words the proposal is to reword policy to match reality.
1197:. It's still broader than I'd like, but it's a hell of a lot better than the current version. 875: 1584: 1505: 1470: 1437: 1389: 1385:
articles for the same subject were hounded by spurious deleteagain tags or speedy deletions. —
1345: 1338: 1155: 956: 800: 659: 596: 557:
given the arguments over the interpretation of the current rule, I'll support this amendment.
535: 417: 147: 1348:
was deleted twice by speedy criteria (G1 then A1) and once for being a nonsensical redirect.
1485: 1459: 1017: 823: 748: 674: 647: 629: 577: 570: 435: 344: 319: 245: 140: 1400: 1167: 1643: 1223: 1186: 756: 711: 514: 474: 445: 331: 253: 199: 232:
I suppose that I turst the administrators to know what "substantially identical" means.
1603: 1491:
It wouldn't be a "blank check" for avoiding deletion. First, this is only restricting
1289: 1270: 1260: 1002: 985: 967: 904: 771: 720: 692: 619: 610: 558: 544: 483: 408: 394: 384: 269: 233: 206: 114: 104:
This proposal is no longer open for voting. Voting closed on July 19, 2005 15:11 (UTC).
1707: 1694: 1688: 1526: 1408: 1365: 1311: 1256: 1175: 1136: 1127: 1111: 1088: 1049: 979: 730: 455: 303: 293: 212: 1664: 1629: 1581: 1512: 1496: 1434: 1386: 1335: 1288:
Why does it not apply to speedied content? In any case I prefer existing wording.
1282: 1152: 1034: 953: 937: 928: 805: 795: 593: 532: 414: 371: 282: 184: 169: 292:
of the article. the current phrasing is too weak for easy formal circumventing.
1673: 1481: 1456: 1404: 1040: 1013: 993: 917: 743: 642: 431: 428: 361: 261: 240: 903:. If the proposal is to "reword policy to match reality", I don't see why not. 1618: 706: 471: 325: 313: 250: 1364:
was deleted per VFD and recreated twice with substantially the same content.
179:, I also support the change to the wording that stops prior speedy deletions 1702:
See response to your comment above. Also, see the comment at the very top, "
781: 767: 717: 404: 379: 1713: 1414: 1371: 1317: 1094: 225:... those get ugly in a hurry, and too few people accept a good rewrite. -- 1172: 894: 79:
If you are unsure about this proposal, consider that there is a proposed
143:
4 July 2005 17:17 (UTC). Should also include recreated copyvio content.
1465:
We already do this. Don't need a rule to tell us we can. See also
470:. To many VfDd articles are recreated, then endlessly re-debated. 45:
Speedy deletion criterion G4 should be reworded to the following:
1480:
User space should not be a blank check for avoiding deletion. --
1430: 816:. Proposed wording is better, current wording is too vague. 146:
I agree with Mike Rosoft, should include recreated copyvio.
160:
Please note that content that is "deleted according to the
1687:
with my thought process? Comments would be appreciated.
1259:
without discussion prior to this vote being opened. --
1251:
I object primarily because the wording of this item was
1573: 1558: 1467:
Knowledge (XXG):Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal/Z
1426: 1358:"iain is cool; horay for iain. his birthday is evryday" 1330: 1252: 1212: 1144: 1077: 945: 585: 88: 33:
Knowledge (XXG):Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal
680:Seems straightforward. Trust in thine admins. -- 1356:was speedied six times for having the content 782: 1451:Oppose. I prefer the current wording, and it 8: 18:Knowledge (XXG):Criteria for speedy deletion 482:. get rid of pesky recreation annoyances. 1663:the very loophole that you objecting to. 1455:apply to content in the user namespace. 1576:, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See 1147:, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See 948:, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See 588:, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See 7: 1706:. Just not for being a recreation." 1048:Basically change to current policy. 643: 377:I've seen admins do this anyway. — 1399:would be an example, presently on 223:VfD debates over recreated content 69:. Just not for being a recreation. 28: 1693:I have decide to change my vote. 884:-- better than the old wording. 53:Presently, the criterion reads, 1604: 1525:- current wording is better. -- 1504:Oppose - already overapplied - 1104:Thanks, I was mildly confused. 693: 460: 254: 1023:This clarification is needed. 1: 1230: 712:Luc "Somethingorother" French 536: 801: 648: 1628:vague than the current G4. 1101:07:18, July 13, 2005 (UTC) 806: 796: 1739: 1720:07:22, July 13, 2005 (UTC) 1360:or something similar. And 1037:16:44, July 12, 2005 (UTC) 1030:12:31, July 12, 2005 (UTC) 1020:09:22, July 12, 2005 (UTC) 982:15:17, July 11, 2005 (UTC) 921:22:00, July 10, 2005 (UTC) 763:) July 7, 2005 08:46 (UTC) 500:. A useful clarification. 83:to try it out for a month. 1698:07:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC) 1691:06:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC) 1677:00:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC) 1668:09:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC) 1647:03:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC) 1633:09:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC) 1588:08:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC) 1516:09:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC) 1421:July 5, 2005 10:17 (UTC) 1378:July 5, 2005 08:03 (UTC) 1240:21:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC) 1190:10:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC) 1179:02:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC) 1159:09:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC) 1131:07:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC) 1115:07:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC) 1109:07:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC) 1053:03:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC) 1044:23:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC) 1006:08:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC) 997:06:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC) 989:01:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC) 975:15:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC) 960:13:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC) 932:13:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC) 774:) 7 July 2005 17:55 (UTC) 600:08:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC) 551:) 6 July 2005 11:00 (UTC) 391:) 5 July 2005 15:56 (UTC) 353:) 5 July 2005 12:36 (UTC) 1621:7 July 2005 02:26 (UTC) 1556:02:33, 6 July 2005 (UTC) 1508:5 July 2005 22:00 (UTC) 1488:5 July 2005 16:02 (UTC) 1462:July 5, 2005 14:40 (UTC) 1392:5 July 2005 08:21 (UTC) 1341:5 July 2005 04:54 (UTC) 1324:July 5, 2005 07:54 (UTC) 1306:5 July 2005 04:09 (UTC) 1266:4 July 2005 18:58 (UTC) 908:21:39, 9 July 2005 (UTC) 864:July 8, 2005 09:28 (UTC) 753:July 7, 2005 05:32 (UTC) 684:6 July 2005 16:30 (UTC) 616:July 6, 2005 13:19 (UTC) 573:6 July 2005 13:14 (UTC) 494:July 6, 2005 04:42 (UTC) 448:July 6, 2005 00:37 (UTC) 374:July 5, 2005 14:34 (UTC) 302:Good to reinforce this. 247:July 5, 2005 02:12 (UTC) 195:July 4, 2005 21:00 (UTC) 172:4 July 2005 20:29 (UTC) 150:July 4, 2005 18:57 (UTC) 137:July 4, 2005 15:58 (UTC) 1611:6 July 2005 07:23 (UTC) 1529:5 July 2005 23:34 (UTC) 1499:5 July 2005 16:18 (UTC) 1477:5 July 2005 15:45 (UTC) 1440:6 July 2005 05:10 (UTC) 1397:Constitution of Lebanon 1344:Counterexamples? Okay. 1285:4 July 2005 21:47 (UTC) 1276:5 July 2005 02:48 (UTC) 897:9 July 2005 16:44 (UTC) 888:8 July 2005 21:12 (UTC) 878:8 July 2005 12:13 (UTC) 820:8 July 2005 08:26 (UTC) 810:7 July 2005 21:35 (UTC) 788:7 July 2005 20:51 (UTC) 736:7 July 2005 02:50 (UTC) 727:6 July 2005 22:54 (UTC) 714:6 July 2005 20:40 (UTC) 700:6 July 2005 17:18 (UTC) 677:6 July 2005 15:38 (UTC) 667:6 July 2005 15:23 (UTC) 652:6 July 2005 15:04 (UTC) 635:6 July 2005 14:32 (UTC) 622:6 July 2005 13:50 (UTC) 566:6 July 2005 11:04 (UTC) 540:6 July 2005 09:31 (UTC) 526:6 July 2005 09:00 (UTC) 517:6 July 2005 05:20 (UTC) 507:2005 July 6 04:55 (UTC) 476:6 July 2005 02:34 (UTC) 464:6 July 2005 01:16 (UTC) 438:5 July 2005 22:45 (UTC) 420:5 July 2005 22:37 (UTC) 411:5 July 2005 21:01 (UTC) 397:5 July 2005 19:26 (UTC) 364:5 July 2005 13:17 (UTC) 337:5 July 2005 11:11 (UTC) 328:5 July 2005 09:15 (UTC) 322:5 July 2005 07:27 (UTC) 316:5 July 2005 07:00 (UTC) 310:5 July 2005 03:56 (UTC) 299:5 July 2005 03:28 (UTC) 285:5 July 2005 03:31 (UTC) 278:5 July 2005 03:21 (UTC) 264:5 July 2005 03:03 (UTC) 258:2005 July 5 02:54 (UTC) 236:5 July 2005 01:25 (UTC) 229:4 July 2005 23:51 (UTC) 215:4 July 2005 23:47 (UTC) 209:4 July 2005 21:22 (UTC) 187:5 July 2005 16:18 (UTC) 157:4 July 2005 19:46 (UTC) 872:proposed clarification 658:. Useful rewording. -- 40:G4 (reposted content) 1427:twelve separate vfds 1145:06:55, 13 July 2005 705:Sounds about right. 586:12:28, 10 July 2005 444:. Seems sensible. 281:Existing practice.- 1574:07:33, 6 July 2005 1572:was at (or after) 1570:250th contribution 1281:Too complicated -- 1143:was at (or after) 1141:250th contribution 946:18:25, 9 July 2005 944:was at (or after) 942:250th contribution 584:was at (or after) 582:250th contribution 502:Christopher Parham 1590: 1561: 1362:Dodge The Tomato! 1238: 1215: 1161: 1079: 962: 874:is even better. 602: 564: 290:previous versions 221:... I've been in 135: 130: 125: 121: 117: 1730: 1718: 1606: 1564: 1542: 1419: 1395:Ah okay, sorry. 1376: 1322: 1232: 1227: 1200: 1135: 1099: 1065: 936: 856: 853: 850: 847: 844: 841: 838: 835: 832: 829: 826: 808: 803: 798: 786: 751: 746: 695: 650: 645: 576: 562: 538: 462: 256: 243: 166:already includes 133: 128: 123: 119: 115: 31:This is part of 1738: 1737: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1715: 1493:speedy deletion 1416: 1373: 1319: 1248: 1166:There's always 1096: 868:Strong support. 854: 851: 848: 845: 842: 839: 836: 833: 830: 827: 824: 749: 744: 241: 162:deletion policy 111: 101: 42: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 1736: 1734: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1612: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1562: 1530: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1478: 1463: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1350:Letter writing 1327: 1326: 1325: 1286: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1247: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1192: 1181: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1080: 1046: 1038: 1031: 1021: 1008: 999: 991: 983: 977: 965: 964: 963: 922: 910: 898: 889: 886:Brighterorange 879: 865: 821: 818:Kaibabsquirrel 811: 789: 775: 764: 754: 737: 728: 715: 710: 703: 702: 701: 682:ArmadniGeneral 678: 668: 653: 636: 623: 617: 605: 604: 603: 567: 552: 541: 527: 524:Stewart Adcock 518: 508: 495: 477: 465: 449: 439: 421: 412: 398: 392: 375: 365: 354: 338: 329: 323: 317: 311: 300: 286: 279: 265: 259: 248: 237: 230: 227:Idont Havaname 219:Strong support 216: 210: 196: 193:Dragons flight 190: 189: 188: 177:the discussion 158: 155:A D Monroe III 151: 144: 138: 110: 107: 100: 97: 85: 84: 77: 73: 70: 63: 60: 57: 50: 49: 41: 38: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1735: 1719: 1712: 1709: 1705: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1696: 1692: 1690: 1684: 1683: 1678: 1675: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1645: 1641: 1638: 1634: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1622: 1620: 1617:. Too vague. 1616: 1613: 1610: 1607: 1601: 1597: 1594: 1589: 1586: 1583: 1579: 1575: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1559: 1557: 1553: 1550: 1548: 1541: 1540: 1538: 1534: 1533:Strong Oppose 1531: 1528: 1524: 1521: 1517: 1514: 1510: 1509: 1507: 1503: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1489: 1487: 1483: 1479: 1476: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1461: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1439: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1423: 1422: 1420: 1413: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1394: 1393: 1391: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1379: 1377: 1370: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1342: 1340: 1337: 1332: 1328: 1323: 1316: 1313: 1308: 1307: 1305: 1304: 1301: 1298: 1293: 1292: 1287: 1284: 1280: 1275: 1272: 1268: 1267: 1265: 1262: 1258: 1257:User:Radiant! 1254: 1250: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1237: 1233: 1225: 1222: 1219: 1213: 1211: 1208: 1206: 1199: 1198: 1196: 1193: 1191: 1188: 1185: 1182: 1180: 1177: 1174: 1169: 1165: 1160: 1157: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1129: 1126: 1116: 1113: 1110: 1108: 1107:204.210.195.4 1103: 1102: 1100: 1093: 1090: 1085: 1081: 1078: 1076: 1073: 1071: 1064: 1063: 1061: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1051: 1047: 1045: 1042: 1039: 1036: 1032: 1029: 1026: 1022: 1019: 1015: 1012: 1009: 1007: 1004: 1000: 998: 995: 992: 990: 987: 984: 981: 978: 976: 973: 969: 966: 961: 958: 955: 951: 947: 943: 939: 935: 934: 933: 930: 926: 923: 920: 919: 914: 911: 909: 906: 902: 899: 896: 893: 890: 887: 883: 880: 877: 873: 869: 866: 863: 860: 857: 822: 819: 815: 812: 809: 804: 799: 793: 790: 787: 785: 779: 776: 773: 769: 765: 762: 758: 755: 752: 747: 741: 738: 735: 732: 729: 726: 725: 724: 719: 716: 713: 708: 704: 699: 696: 690: 686: 685: 683: 679: 676: 672: 669: 666: 665: 661: 657: 654: 651: 646: 640: 637: 634: 631: 627: 624: 621: 618: 615: 612: 609: 606: 601: 598: 595: 591: 587: 583: 579: 575: 574: 572: 568: 565: 560: 556: 553: 550: 546: 542: 539: 534: 531: 528: 525: 522: 519: 516: 512: 509: 506: 503: 499: 496: 493: 492:Contributions 489: 485: 481: 478: 475: 473: 469: 466: 463: 457: 453: 450: 447: 443: 440: 437: 433: 429: 425: 422: 419: 416: 413: 410: 406: 402: 399: 396: 393: 390: 386: 382: 381: 376: 373: 369: 366: 363: 359: 355: 352: 351: 346: 342: 339: 336: 333: 330: 327: 324: 321: 318: 315: 312: 309: 305: 301: 298: 295: 291: 287: 284: 280: 277: 276: 272: 271: 266: 263: 260: 257: 252: 249: 246: 244: 238: 235: 231: 228: 224: 220: 217: 214: 211: 208: 205: 202: 201: 197: 194: 191: 186: 182: 181:by themselves 178: 174: 173: 171: 167: 163: 159: 156: 152: 149: 148:Oliver Keenan 145: 142: 139: 136: 131: 126: 113: 112: 108: 106: 105: 98: 96: 95: 94: 90: 82: 78: 74: 71: 68: 64: 61: 58: 56: 52: 51: 48: 44: 43: 39: 37: 36: 34: 23: 19: 1703: 1685: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1639: 1625: 1614: 1599: 1595: 1544: 1536: 1532: 1522: 1506:David Gerard 1492: 1471:Tony Sidaway 1452: 1382: 1357: 1354:Iain_is_cool 1302: 1299: 1296: 1290: 1220: 1202: 1194: 1183: 1105: 1083: 1067: 1059: 1050:David Remahl 1010: 924: 916: 912: 900: 891: 881: 867: 813: 791: 783: 777: 739: 722: 721: 688: 670: 663: 655: 638: 625: 607: 554: 529: 520: 510: 497: 479: 467: 451: 441: 423: 400: 378: 367: 357: 350:cheeks clone 348: 340: 289: 273: 268: 218: 198: 180: 165: 103: 102: 87: 86: 66: 54: 46: 30: 29: 1602:policy..." 1566:Whitehorse1 1552:Whitehorse1 1405:Edip Yuksel 578:Porturology 571:Porturology 320:Vegaswikian 239:Support. -- 141:Mike Rosoft 65:Of course, 1644:Grace Note 1549:comment by 1545:preceding 1224:Flcelloguy 1207:comment by 1203:preceding 1187:EnSamulili 1072:comment by 1068:preceding 1033:Support – 757:Ricky81682 628:, useful. 620:➥the Epopt 515:R. S. Shaw 484:Sasquatch′ 446:Factitious 1659:proposal 1383:different 1291:BLANKFAZE 1271:Netoholic 1261:Netoholic 1210:Superm401 1003:Sn0wflake 986:MarkSweep 968:Johnleemk 905:TheCoffee 559:Sjakkalle 545:Trilobite 395:Acegikmo1 234:NatusRoma 1695:IanManka 1689:IanManka 1653:original 1547:unsigned 1527:Scimitar 1403:. Also, 1346:Crankgod 1205:unsigned 1137:IanManka 1128:IanManka 1112:IanManka 1075:IanManka 1070:unsigned 980:Dsmdgold 731:jpgordon 689:opposite 687:This is 630:James F. 563:(Check!) 533:the wub 456:Asbestos 424:Support. 368:Support. 341:Support. 304:Fuzheado 213:Dmcdevit 81:test run 22:Proposal 20:‎ | 1665:Uncle G 1630:Uncle G 1609:focused 1582:Cryptic 1578:caveats 1513:Uncle G 1497:Uncle G 1435:Cryptic 1387:Cryptic 1336:Cryptic 1283:Henrygb 1253:changed 1221:Support 1195:Support 1184:Support 1153:Cryptic 1149:caveats 1084:however 1060:Comment 1035:Quadell 1011:Support 954:Cryptic 950:caveats 938:Mysidia 929:Mysidia 925:Support 913:Support 901:Support 892:Support 882:support 814:Support 792:Support 740:Support 698:focused 671:Support 664:phoenix 656:Support 639:Support 626:Support 608:Support 594:Cryptic 590:caveats 555:Support 530:Support 521:Support 511:Support 498:Support 480:support 468:Support 452:Support 442:Support 415:Rossami 401:Support 372:Ram-Man 283:gadfium 185:Uncle G 175:As per 170:Uncle G 109:Support 93:discuss 1711:adiant 1674:Splash 1661:closes 1640:Oppose 1615:Oppose 1596:Oppose 1585:(talk) 1537:again' 1523:Oppose 1482:Cyrius 1457:Angela 1453:should 1438:(talk) 1412:adiant 1401:WP:VFU 1390:(talk) 1369:adiant 1339:(talk) 1315:adiant 1246:Oppose 1231:note? 1176:(talk) 1168:WP:VfU 1156:(talk) 1092:adiant 1041:Feydey 1014:Dan100 994:Shanes 957:(talk) 918:Allen3 707:Thanks 675:Sietse 644:Aphaea 633:(talk) 597:(talk) 505:(talk) 472:Jayjg 432:Gwalla 418:(talk) 362:Splash 345:Schnee 335:(Talk) 262:Pburka 242:BD2412 200:humble 76:copy'. 1717:|< 1716:: --> 1624:It's 1619:Nohat 1418:|< 1417:: --> 1375:|< 1374:: --> 1331:these 1321:|< 1320:: --> 1236:Desk 1098:|< 1097:: --> 1018:Talk) 784:Grue 660:Death 611:Baron 537:"?/!" 405:David 389:email 358:still 332:Theo 326:JoJan 314:Xoloz 294:mikka 275:Welch 251:Denni 134:EMAIL 99:Votes 16:< 1657:This 1626:less 1600:this 1475:Talk 1469:. -- 1431:Digg 1429:for 1297:(что 1173:Noel 972:Talk 927:. -- 915:. -- 876:Pwqn 870:The 772:talk 768:SPUI 761:talk 734:∇∆∇∆ 614:Larf 549:Talk 488:Talk 461:Talk 454:. — 436:Talk 409:Talk 385:talk 380:Bcat 308:Talk 270:Phil 204:fool 129:TALK 89:vote 1580:. — 1568:'s 1554:at 1433:. — 1255:by 1151:. — 1139:'s 1025:Mgm 952:. — 940:'s 895:Gwk 862:(c) 859:(t) 807:urε 797:Tεx 778:Aye 750:315 745:ral 742:. 592:. — 580:'s 513:. - 297:(t) 124:01D 1605:Un 1539:. 1300:?? 1294:| 1234:| 1229:A 1001:-- 970:| 794:- 780:. 766:-- 723:CD 718:AB 709:, 694:Un 641:-- 569:-- 543:— 458:| 434:| 430:— 407:| 387:| 370:— 306:| 267:— 164:" 153:-- 91:– 1714:_ 1708:R 1560:) 1543:( 1486:✎ 1484:| 1473:| 1460:. 1415:_ 1409:R 1372:_ 1366:R 1318:_ 1312:R 1303:) 1274:@ 1264:@ 1226:| 1214:) 1201:( 1095:_ 1089:R 1066:( 1027:| 1016:( 855:n 852:a 849:i 846:g 843:n 840:i 837:v 834:o 831:r 828:e 825:M 802:τ 770:( 759:( 673:. 649:* 547:( 490:↔ 486:↔ 383:( 347:( 255:☯ 207:® 122:я 120:D 118:и 116:A 35:.

Index

Knowledge (XXG):Criteria for speedy deletion
Proposal
Knowledge (XXG):Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal
test run
vote
discuss
AиDя01D
TALK
EMAIL
Mike Rosoft
Oliver Keenan
A D Monroe III
deletion policy
Uncle G
the discussion
Uncle G
Dragons flight
humble
fool
®
Dmcdevit
VfD debates over recreated content
Idont Havaname
NatusRoma
 BD2412

Denni

Pburka
Phil

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