Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Angela Beesley

3290:

notable enough for a bio. BTW in response to your question about her increasing noteable the simple response is that there is no difference from any other article deleted because of being not noteable. The fact that something is not noteable at the moment DOES NOT presume it cannot be noteable in the future. If something has increasing noteable then yes it will probably be noteable enough in the future but we should not be making decisions on what may or may not happen in the future (WP:NOTACRYSTALBALL anyone?). There are many possibilities yours may be the most likely but it is not the only one (perhaps she will have a heart attack and die tomorrow, unfortunate but not outside the realm of possibilities). The normal practice as far as I'm aware does not require a DRV. Instead when things have changed enough, someone will recreate an article. If not everyone agrees, there will be another deletion discussion which will either result in the article's deletion or it being kept. The main thing that has changed here is that rather then an article being kept when there is no consensus the article was deleted, per admin's discretion per the fact that she wanted it deleted and there was no consensus to keep it. (The fact that the noteable of things can increase over time has not changed) Even then, it's not guaranteed that it will be deleted, if there is an overwhelming support to keep it even if there's no consensus I suspect the vast majority of admins will keep it. Yes this is hardly ideal but then nor is the alternative. Also, I've always felt that the primary problem currently is we require someone to request their article be deleted which is unfair. However again it's the best solution we have at the moment.

2609:, clearly does not apply.)) This section begins "When closing an AfD about living persons whose notability is ambiguous..." In other words, it applies when closing the AFD, not after the fact. The deleting administrator thus needs a trout because he did not understand the policy he was attempting to apply. Knowledge (XXG), and deletion review in particular, strongly encourage administrators to review there actions and change them where appropriate. It is thus completely acceptable for a closing administrator to go update their close. So what I take Mercury as having really done (because this would be legitimate, and what was said to have been done is clearly not) is to have reclosed the AFD as deleting under that paragraph of WP:BLP. I accept that Angela, while notable, is currently only of marginal notability, and thus that the provision applies right now. Thus Mercury eventually got to an answer within administrative discretion, but by not understanding the policy blundered in both closing the AFD and in the later deletion summary, leading to confusion, upset, and discussion that could have been avoided had the actions exhibited more clue and been better explained. 2799:. This particular deletion is of little consequence to the encyclopedia. I have no strong opinion on whether it should stay deleted. However I do not want this case to set a precedent for other cases in which the subjects of articles want us to stop having articles about them. Our definition of "ambiguous" notability is not well-defined, and in the absence of definition it is liable to creep. Durova's "dead trees standard" is to me way too high; Knowledge (XXG) is uniquely positioned to provide neutral information on controversial figures and we would be seriously abdicating our responsibilities if we started getting rid of them. I strongly share the concern raised by others about a deletion-by-request policy leading to articles being written in a way that avoids angering the subject. Such a policy must eventually be as corrosive to our neutrality as on-site advertising would be. I would like to say that I endorse the deletion as long as it doesn't set a precedent, however because this deletion was requested by a Knowledge (XXG) insider, the reality is that it would be difficult for us to refuse subsequent ones from outsiders. So, reluctantly, 2247:

deleted as a courtesy. You then went above and beyond a simple closure by including a plea for others to examine "the application of the WP:BLP policy in granting the subjects request to delete the article", even though this exact issue was mentioned numerous times in the course of the deletion discussion. As the addendum was a measured editorial comment, I think it was perfectly acceptable. Yet the next day you went on to satisfy your own rhetorical plea by deleting the article, thus taking a stand which conflicted with your closure and the community's input. Had another admin followed your overt suggestion to delete the article on grounds of BLP policy this deletion review might not have taken place. By committing to the awkward maneuver of unilaterally revising your decision not to delete the article you have fostered an impression of impropriety and disregard for process and community input.

1864:

article she pleases, because if not she will ask it be deleted. This is the antithesis of NPOV. As i see it, NPOV requires we may our decisions in total ignorance of the wishes of the subject of the article--no responsible organization can do otherwise and have any claim to reliability. The absurdity of this deletion indicates how low we have fallen--especially as regards WP people. they have the right to be judged as anyone else., they do not have the right to any greater consideration. NPOV is absolute and without it we lose credibility. When we fail to apply it to ourselves, we particularly degenerate into a joke--and WR and its kind can have a chance to say that we includes the failings of everyone except our friends. this is perhaps the strongest example yet. This is a notable web site, like it or not, and the major figures running it are notable.

2499:. Subject requested deletion? Check. Borderline notability? Check. Delete? Check. This is essentially what's happening with the Daniel Brandt debate above. The community is so in love with itself that it *must* have articles on all things of dubious notability (but supported by news sources!!!) simply because of their relation to the project, in complete disregard to any true sense of the word notable or encyclopedic. If you took out "Wikimedia Foundation" and replaced it with "Some charity no one has ever heard of" and took out "Wikia" and said "Some web startup" we wouldn't be having this conversation. She was on the board of a nonprofit and she was a founder of a web start-up company, period. Pretending she's more simply due to her association with the community is ludicrous. 1760:, for two reasons. First, closing as a no consensus delete is ridiculous, particularly given that the decision to delete from the closure was made over 10 hours after the closure. If it's no consensus, it defaults to keep. If you're going to delete it, close it as such and make a rational explanation, not "no consensus". Second, many of those endorsing the closure are arguing for a change in policy. If policy is to be changed, we need to decide as a community to do so. This is not a radical change in policy, but is significant enough that it shouldn't be brought about by one administrator. Honestly, I have no problem with the article being deleted, and would vote to delete it in an AFD, but I can't in good conscience support the way this was brought about. 2195:"The BLP requires no consensus"? Can anyone just do anything then by saying "BLP!" and it can't be reversed? I don't think so. Of course the determination whether BLP applies to any specific case is a matter of consensus as much as any other decision. In theory, that is. In practice, of course, that applies only to things normal users do, while admins get away with anything. I know better ways to waste my time than with a recall for which the admin himself sets the rules. Admins should be term-limited to begin with or at least be subject to a standard recall procedure. 2554:

nobel-prize winning chemist on my campus, and to be honest I can't even recall his name. In any case, the notability question are beside the point at this stage, as AnonE points out. The purpose of AfD is to answer precisely this questions, and if closers are going to be empowered to do whatever they like anyhow, then there's really no need for the pretense of AfD any longer. After all, the sprawling AfD archives represent far more "cruft" than any non-notable articles ever could hope to match. All this gunk clogs up the tubes of the internets, don't you know.;P

2448:- to seek further comments. Acknowledging the subject has the right to request that they not have an article, and that the subject's inherent notability is dubious/marginal. However, the former is very much mitigated by the fact that that party has an extant admittedly minimal biography of her own seeming control elsewhere. It might be acceptable to stub the article, or limit some of the content to similar material there, though. But there do seem to have been perhaps a few nonstandard considerations involved here. 3425:- She clearly falls in the gray area where an article could be justified but is not mandatory, and its non-existence will not leave much of a dent in the complete history of humanity (whatever that means). BLP means that we respect her wishes until she becomes more notable or dies (kind of morbid, I know). Merging the relevant content to Wikia seems to resolve most of the overturn rationales as well. Its pretty hard to think of a reason why she was notable 1515:. I did not "vote" in the original AfD, although I did comment. But DRV is about the process of deletion, not the deletion itself. There is a huge difference between "no consensus, so it stays" and "no consensus, but it is a BLP and subject request for deletion, so I guess I'll delete". These are two very different closes. The fact that the closing admin made one type of close and then 1224:- this is ridiculous. Angela was a board member at Wikimedia foundation, you know, the organization that maintains the largest reference work in the world, and she founded a multi-million company. There are no privacy concerns - she's a public person, appears in media and whatnot. If Angela has any specific concerns with this article, I'm sure that can be handled without deleting it. 2080:), and basing such a high-profile deletion on it is perhaps not a great idea. The section is certainly not carte blanche to start closing every "no consensus" AFD about a biographical article as "delete" from now on, and I fear people will take this poor decision and start using it as justification for many more crappy deletions - it is a poor precedent to set. 503:

disputes this. I have since discussed this with Mercury off-wiki and, mostly, my concerns have been assuaged. As such, I have let this drop. BLP as it is currently drafted seems to allow greater scope for the deletion of non-notable bios than previously and the deletion is therefore grounded in policy as long as the AFD stands as no consensus.

2535:. Unless something happens which has not happened so far (at which point she'd become notable), 50 years from now no one will have heard of her and I have a feeling you will have forgotten her as well. That's not notable. This blind inclusionism of all things borderline notable that happen to have a few news sources must stop. 3637:. "No consensus" should not be interpreted as consensus to leave things entirely to the closer's discretion. While I can understand Mercury's actions, and have no doubt that he did what he thought was best, I do not believe it was the right way to go. A personal interpretation of the applicability of a contentious section of 2436:. Note that I did not comment at the AFD, since her opinion does make a difference for me, even if not the difference. However, the community took the opinion into account, and did not decide to delete. That's the point of having an AFD in the first place, that the community gets to decide these things, not a random admin. -- 3367:

material that was made public and widely available, much of it by the subject herself, and as such there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in this case. I sympathize, but in this case all that's appropriate for us to do is to make sure that the material she made public is presented in a fair and unbiased way. -

2322:

To be very clear, those requirements ("ambiguous claims of notability") were not met - you yourself had to misquote the policy to get around this by saying "marginal notability" - "marginal" and "ambiguous" don't mean the same thing. The claims of notability were unambiguous - they existed, and were

2096:

After reviewing the comments regarding notability, and seeing the article myself, I made a judgment after the close, of marginal notability and questionable sourcing (per the comments). At that point, the BLP permits my discretion. She may be notable with these circles, but outside the circles, no.

1730:

I don't think this falls into the area where we should consider opting out. Considering there really isn't anything negative about the article, and it's very unlikely the attention it would bring her would be negative, reenforces that. The entire concept of considering opting out from the subject has

1239:

Hmmm... I thought we were discussing the deletion per BLP, but I also have to agree with the editors who point out that it was also a breach of the regular deletion process, the article having just passed through a non-consensus AFD. Wikilawyering and venue shopping until you get your way is unseemly

3459:

but mainly per Guy's argument that she is barely if at all notable if you disregard sources that are nothing more than self-references. Calling this a courtesy deletion and invoking BLP has generated more heat than light. Even without BLP there is an utter lack of notability outside of Wikimedia and

1863:

This decision, by which one single admin can enforce his own view over consensus, must be reversed. Even BLP respects consensus about what it is. And our policy on permitting users to decide whether or not they are to have an article also needs overturning. It amounts to saying that AB can have what

2648:

GRBerry, "ambiguous" and "marginal" do not mean the same thing. I don't know why I keep having to write that recently. Ambiguous would mean it is unclear if any assertion of notability exists. Marginal would mean the assertions of notability exist, but their extent is questionable. Angela Beesley

2553:

The "average person" couldn't identify (at least) half of Britannica's biographical entries either, and indeed few people ever achieve significant notice outside their chosen fields. Encyclopedias would be sparse and futile things indeed if they only contained information we already knew. There's a

2250:

The arguments for notability outweighing accommodation have merit, as do the concerns for Beesley's privacy and Knowledge (XXG)'s ethical responsibility. These are interesting editorial dilemmas, but the course and aftermath of your closure have resulted in a complete mess. "No consensus" is a good

2216:

Had this been deleted due to BLP concerns to begin with, I would be in favor of keeping Beesley's article deleted. However, after reviewing a contentious AfD and considering that the primary concern was notability rather than any potential for harm, I can't see the deleting admin's point of closing

955:

in hindsight. I voted to delete, after changing from speaking with Durova. In hindsight I think it was a mistake. Unless Beesley stops doing notable things, what is the point here? We just will be forced to remake the article in 6-12-18 months, and waste time. Why do I say that? Has Beesley stopped

602:

It's simply out of process to come back and change your mind 10 hours later. That's a dangerous precedent which would allow all sorts of pressure and backroom dealing to be brought against any closing admin in order to get them to change their minds, wouldn't you agree? What is done should be done.

3258:

I guess it would be more of a what is right or wrong question, since we can toss out scalable names all day to compare and make pretty notability graphs. I suppose it just boils down to the straight question first: "Can someone reach a point of notability that they shouldn't be able to opt out of

2517:

Quite right, if she were on the board of "some charity no one has ever heard of", she would not be notable. She happens to have been on the board of some charity that runs the #8 most popular web site in the world, and she founded a strongly connected web start up that has gotten a fair amount of

1563:

Mercury, if you needed to sleep on it, then you should not have closed the discussion. It is really that simple. You made two separate and different "close" decisions, one resulting in deletion and the other one not resulting in deletion. You don't get to change your mind after your nap. That is

2690:

Re-list if need be. The original closure of "no consensus - keep" was correct. To change that to a BLP delete 10 hours later is fatally flawed. Sufficiently strong argument was made by the keep !voters about the notability of the subject, enough to trump any claimed BLP policy discretion for the

502:

As far as I can see the substantial discussion has already ended at ANI and I fear that having a DRV will only reignite the drama. I was initially very unhappy with the explanation for the delete and felt that some users might perceive Mercury as lacking independance in this case but he strongly

3366:

I re-read the policy about 5 minutes before posting, thanks very much. I didn't bother to mention that bit because it seems even less relevant than the bit that I did mention. If you'd like to debate that point on the merits, though, sure, that's fine with me. The material in the article is all

2013:

Just counted my way through the AFD to find that some 80 people contributed to that discussion. What makes Mercury so super-smart that his own personal judgement overrides that of the 80 contributors to the AFD? There were good, solid reasons on both sides, and there was a roughly 50-50 split

3289:

Simple, when there is consensus that she's noteable enough for a bio entry (i.e. there is consensus to keep like I said there was none in my original message). Besides that, note that I'm not presupposing we shouldn't have any info on her, just not a bio since there is no consensus that she is

2246:

A discretion you should have, quite frankly, excused yourself from exercising following the initial closure. You correctly interpreted that community input failed to yield to a clear consensus on the two issues behind the nomination, those of notability and Beesley's desire to have the article

2116:

If we ignore the result of the discussion and apply our own determination, what is the point of the discussion taking place? It's not your judgement to make, it's the community's, and while the community could not come to a consensus on keeping the article, it was pretty much in agreeement the

813:- if the BLP has explicitly said that she doesn't want a biography on Knowledge (XXG) (due to real life issues or other), we should respect her wishes. I know that Angela is not the suing type, but if she did decide to take that route, this could have legal implications for the WKM foundation. 2160:- people already considered BLP issues in the AfD, and there was no consensus to delete, thus no consensus BLP applied. Deleting it anyway is just the usual admin abuse. Of course, if they ignore the result of the AfD, they will ignore that of the DRV as well, so this won't achieve anything. 1360:

can't be expanded beyond a stub due to a lack of independent biographical information, then it probably needs to go as well. For what it is worth, I think some people (known mainly for their work) aren't generally covered in biographical terms in independent sources, but we should still have

1474:

is uncalled for and almost ridiculous. I understand cases like Brian Peppers where the person in question has become notable in a completely unwilling fashion, but people who are notable precisely because they have injected themselves into public sphere simply do not have the same rights.

1989:- no consensus to delete. Why do most of the poor kneejerk decisions taken on Knowledge (XXG) these days quote "BLP" as the reason? There was no slander of uncited allegations about a living person here, so BLP doesn't apply. The standard passive-aggressive denial routine of 1) citing 2465:

per many of the arguments above especially by Nick, Ral315 and DGG. Also noting that the deletion discussion was closed early before the full five days had taken place preventing some users from contributing to the discussion providing another reason for overturning the closure.

1631:

Perhaps someone besides yourself, that was uninvolved, should have done it. You do have a stake in this, as you closed the AfD, which was also started by Durova, who nominated you for adminship. You were also one of the single most vocal defenders of her after she harassed

1904:

Unilaterally deleting an article when there is no consensus in the community after 13 AfDs is frankly a flagrant abuse of administrative privileges. I strongly encourage other uninvolved admins to restore the article until a more satisfying compromise can be reached.

2735:. Although I originally endorsed deletion, I feel that the deletion wasn't executed correctly. Mercury shouldn't have been the closing admin, because of his relationship with Durova, and the initial conclusion of "no consensus" appeared to be the correct call. 2672:

If she did not wish her name to be public, it might be reasonable to delete this article. But the issue is clearly not that she doesn't wish notability, only that she doesn't wish to have a Knowledge (XXG) article. And that's not a valid reason to do anything.

1278:

Closing admin invoked but did not explain discretion used in the close except possibly that she asked for it. If a (semi-notable) subjects request for deletion by itself is all that's needed I think that's new ground and needs a little more discussion.

1327:, even going so far as to call herself Wiki-Angela. The was no consensus to delete this page what so ever. Knowledge (XXG) is not some sort of trade directory one opts to be in or out of, it is supposed to be a comprehensive encyclopedia. 2518:

press. That said, DRV is not supposed to be AFD round 2. Deletion review is supposed to be to see whether process was followed. "Let's close the debate as no consensus, then delete the article anyway" is not supposed to be how it works. --

3579:

agree with Hit Bull Win Steak... BLP claim here seems quite irrelevant as content was not contentious. Angela's dislike of having an article is unfortunately not a valid reason to delete it per BLP. Else we wouldn't have an article on

2955:

meant the status quo, meaning keep. We make it perfectly clear we do not delete articles of subject just because they request it. Stop making an exception/going against normal community practice because we know/like this person.

773:

Didn't I just say above I was going to inquire there? If nothing else, this policy should be clarified going forward. "Marginality" shouldn't just become another cloak of ambiguity administrators can wrap their decisions in. --

3270:

Knowledge (XXG), as a comprehensive encyclopedia, shouldn't let WikiAngela's (yes, she calls herself that) personal wishes get in the way of building a "comprehensive encyclopedia". I've seen less notable people with their own

3494:. Deletion was basically unexplained, which exactly BLP problems are. Deletion per wish is very bad precedent for wikipedia integrity. The policyt says personds wishes "should be taken into account", not "followed" `' 616:

is policy here. I have applied the BLP policy properly here. If there is any substance to your accusations, please post them. As far as the rest of your post, it indicates you are not familiar with the AFD or the

1821:

Ok so Angela was confused. You're still reliant on a sub-clause to the BLP policy that did not exist when the policy gained acceptance and which explicitly states there is no consensus on how it should be applied.

3259:

Knowledge (XXG)?" Yes, no, to start, and build from that once that question in and of itself is sorted out. The level can be figured out later. Can that condition exist, though, where someone is just too notable?

2900:, there were no real BLP issues and this AfD ended just like all the AfDs before in a no consensus. No consensus defaults to keep, not to "lets look for another policy by which we can delete this article". -- 1597:

No consensus (therefore delete) and No consensus (therefore keep) are two different results. The different results came 10 hours apart. Closers should only get one kick at the can in determining AfD results.

231: 227: 223: 219: 215: 194:"Since there was no consensus to do anything WP:BLP#BLP_deletion_standards grants me discretion to consider the subjects request. I have done so and deleted the article. We are doing the right thing here." 2271:

in an AfD means an article is kept in my experience, there shouldn't be different rules in this case so that it goes the way Mercury and/or some others want the outcome to be. There was no consensus to

936:

But can of course be recreated at any time as notability grows. As she still shows up in the news over time, she will eventually be completely notable and not eligible for borderline removal eventually.

2323:

very clear, therefore they were not ambiguous. Whether they were marginal or not is a different judgement (based upon their degree rather than their existence) and not a factor BLP currently mentions.

2693:

When closing an AfD about living persons whose notability is ambiguous, the closing administrator should take into account whether the subject of the article being deleted has asked that it be deleted.

956:

speaking about Wikia, a company she co-founded? Or Knowledge (XXG)? Is she still talking to news media? Her name and profile will still rise in such ways, unless she becomes a private person. We have

864:

When someone is borderline notable and they don't want an article then it should be deleted as per WP:BLP. If at some future date Angela becomes a lot more notable then this argument wouldn't hold.

1994: 2217:

it as "no consensus" only to overturn the decision the next day. There's not a single controversial statement in this biography and Beesley's business accomplishments warrant fair coverage. ˉˉ

2064:

That section starts with "closing an AfD about living persons whose notability is ambiguous". The notability is pretty obvious - that section is really talking about non-public figures (q.v.

185: 161: 515:. People complained about the article being kept for the past 2 years. Fewer people complain about the article being deleted now. This is surely the correct decision, and the redirection to 1564:

abuse of process. If you are not sure of what decision is best, then your responsibility is NOT to make a decision, to leave it to any one of the other admins who close contentious AfDs.

3324:

BLP is not just about material that is contentious or sensationalistic. It's also about respecting people's right to privacy amongst other things. Have you actually read BLP recently BTW?

3021:

One per person. :-) The others are different people, they're just saying that Crum375 had a convincing argument that they also endorse. Aye, they be puir wee misguided innocents ... :-) --

3107:- Angela is not that famous that an article on her is a must-have and hence it should be deleted if she requests this. The community has no contrary view, as per no consensus in the VfD. 2014:

between "delete" and "keeps" - this is a classic "no consensus, default to keep". Mercury manages to realise this, and then promptly deletes the article anyway with some waffling about

878:

I am not voting but simply stating that it would be wise to let everyone know that this is happening. Kind of looks like a behind the scenes clandestine affair. Just food for thought.

3584:

either. Angela is a public figure now, if she didn't want the side effects of a public role in Wikia or the Wikimedia Board, she should have considered that before taking those jobs.

1539:

Oh but I did not change my mind. It was a decision I needed to sleep on. Was there a deadline I was not aware of? Do we need to be making these decisions hastily? Whats going on?

640:

I'm not saying that is the case here; I'm happy to believe you have misapplied the "marginal notability" guideline of your own free will. This guideline was intended for people like

3352:

I was simply pointing out that BLP is about much mere then avoiding contentious or sensationalistic material and suggesting anyone not aware of that might want to read the policy

2251:

starting point for now, hopefully discussions of the relevant policies and a clear assessment of notability standards will help us come to a clear consensus in the near future. ˉˉ

2176:

I don't think any of that helped. The BLP requires no consensus. If you suspect admin abuse, I'm open to recall. Request it on my talk page and I'll tell you the requirements.

3440:

Indeed I highly doubt we would even have an article on her were not not for the fact that she was once part of the WMF and wikipedians are unduly fascinated by the WMF and wikia

3007:

Not voting, but I must say, this is almost impossible to find. Further, How many bites of the apple do people like Crum375 get to take? I see more than one vote for that editor?

1438:. Taking the subject's wishes into account in cases where the notability is borderline and there's no clear consensus seems well within admin discretion, and a good use of BLP. 3477:

and undelete per Neil, AnonEMouse, and SarekOfVulcan. There are no BLP issues to speak of, the article was complimentary and documented a public figure using reliable sources.

1949:

and close as no consensus. I can't see a justification to delete, I'm afraid, and people don't get to decide whether they're notable or not. Please stop early-closing this.

557:

AFD was originally closed as no consensus; you don't get to come back and change your mind later. A "do-over" should have required a re-list. Furthermore, the deletion per

371:

I think this was clarified during the AfD. Angela does wish it deleted and had consistently done so. Whether she explicitly asked for this AfD is neither here nor there.--

2527:

Being on the Foundation board is notable? Being a part of a startup is notable? Ask your average person who "Angela Beesley" is and I doubt they'll know (or care!). Ask

211: 1475:

Furthermore, in such cases we as a whole owe our readers to have articles about them. I find this particular disturbing in a case where the subject of the article has

433: 173: 2077: 2073: 685:

as to whether the "marginal notability" guideline was developed with corporate board members in mind, but I think a lot of editors do know the history here. --

1203:

policy for barely notable individuals who express a clear preference, particularly where Knowledge (XXG) appears to be the only biographical source available.

991:' (new opinion below) (I will not say "endorse", this was mishandled) unless the BLP policy is clarified in a way that means she is not "marginally notable". 1523:

issue. We cannot permit AfD closers to go around changing their minds or modifying their decisions. That is what DRV is for - reviewing those decisions.

2531:

outside of those who follow the WMF/wiki communities who she is and I doubt they'll know (or care!). The issue is simply a problem of a lack of notability

2045:

is just some "waffling about" *waves hands as if to imitate*. That is policy I'm afraid. I don't think anyone early closed the AFD. It closed on time.

1470:

I'd rather not have this DRV now but if we're going to have it now overturn. I continue to maintain my position that courtesy deletion for people who are

2602: 827:

there's no consensus that we need this article - in such cases taking the subject's wishes into account is both a reasonable and humane application of

2824:

Per Anetode, and...this is an encyclopedia. To hell with BLP. There was really no negative information in this article and no consensus to delete it.

3313:. BLP seems like kind of a red herring in this case, in that none of the material in the article was particularly contentious or sensationalistic. - 1920: 3184:

per various above. As "no consensus", should have been keep. If there was no unsourced negative info, BLP shouldn't have come into play at all.--

2751:

Wait, no consensus is correct and you endorse deletion, but overturn because you fantasize a relationship between Durova and I? Not clear here.

2649:

is of marginal notability in the greater scheme of things. That notability is not, however, ambiguous. The BLP section he misused didn't apply.

1026:

I hadn't seen that. Since she was apparently not in any contact with Durova, though, Durova's behavior needs to be examined separate from this.—

583:

Nobody did a "do over". A quick look at the comments indicates ambiguity on the AFD. What other projects do, should not affect our project.

3510:

No consensus defaults to keep. Her notability is not ambiguous, so I think any request to remove her article does not apply unfortunately. --

3544:

per Ral315, DGG, Neil, AnonEMouse, and SarekOfVulcan. This is completely irregular and wrong and brings into question the validity of AfD.

2363:

and delete BLP. Any policy which could be construed as justifying this privileged form of vandalism ought to be re-written from scratch. —

900: 879: 3338:

Angela is by no reasonable standard a private person. When you start promoting yourself, you lose quite a bit of your right to privacy. -

3008: 1138: 904: 3604: 536:- (ec) After initial concerns that I brought up at the AN thread, I believe that a deletion may have been in order, as per Crum375. — 118: 113: 612:

You post insinuates that I had changed my mind off site. I have not changed my mind, the AFD close is still no consensus. You know

2555: 122: 2018:. Terrible, terrible decision. I think alleging he closed the AFD that way because Durova was the nominator is rubbish, though. 1105:

Correct, that this forum is not for discussion on the nominator. As an aside, I discounted references to off wiki communication.

3561:

I am not to sure how a feel about the "BLP deletion standards", however it does seem that it is policy and that it was followed.

2483:. Someone had the balls to do what is right instead of tediously following guidelines like they were immutable rules. Kudos to 2812: 147: 105: 1035:

I never said I was not in any contact with Durova. Please stop linking to some comment I wrongly made and instantly reverted.

1324:. This is ridiculous of course she is notable, she even promotes her own achievements complete with pictures on the internet 603:

And while there may not have been consensus to delete, there was a practical consensus that notability was strongly met. --

3065: 2200: 2165: 201:"Please explain exactly how/why the article contravenes BLP. Specifically what unsourced questionable content was there?" 1636:. Based on your possible conflict of interest and personal stake, perhaps you should self-reverse as an involved party. 1312: 545: 390:

The DRV was closed twice early by the same person, and two seperate editors have now undone that as too soon/premature.

326: 3677: 3238: 234:. Let me be clear on the point that I have no opinion either way on this myself, but just wish to avoid further drama. 84: 17: 3276: 1916: 561:

requires that the person's "notability is ambiguous" and yet a near super-majority of editors insisted the person met

65: 3527:. The BLP argumaent as a means for deletion does not hold water, nor was there anywhere near consensus to delete. 3214:

What if there is no consensus to delete it, and at what point of notability do people lose the ability to opt out?

2787: 1721: 3562: 2577:. Marginal notability and she clearly (a) does not think she is notable enough, and (b) has requested deletion. -- 2939: 2917:. Per many above, "No consensus" means we did not decide to delete, not "available for deletion at admin's whim" 2453: 2308:

gives the administrator the ability to exert discretion if certain requirements are met in a no consensus close.

1647:

I don't know how relate my RFA or !!'s block to the AFD or DRV. They are unrelated. I have no personal stake.

1245: 1229: 709:

properly. Is there a deadline that I don't know about? It was closed as no consensus, and still no consensus.

2228:

Nothing was overturned. It is still a no consensus close. Requirements were met that enabled me to use proper

3368: 3314: 3086:

Not only was this a poor use of BLP "discretion", but this should have been left up to a more neutral closer.

2196: 2161: 1284: 896: 883: 847:

is adequate and an independent biography page is not needed. Send the wikilawyers away and let's end this. --

3012: 2097:

And she requested it. This satisfies all conditions required for BLP deletion. This was a good decision.

1648: 1142: 729:

You did not apply the policy properly. Editors at the AFD clearly endorsed the notability of the subject. --

3625: 3608: 3272: 3185: 3095: 2449: 2364: 1912: 1504: 1407: 801: 3150:

per Cleduc, Chowbock, Neil and so many others. No community consensus to delete is no consensus to delete.

2559: 2121:- the word "marginal" does not appear anywhere in the section, and the two do not mean the same thing (see 1908: 1717: 1148: 908: 3549: 3465: 2882: 2859: 2829: 1162: 923: 2424:

whether such articles can generally be deleted. I don't think the discretion rule applies in such cases.—

892: 3035:

per Cleduc &c. This deletion reflects poorly on Knowledge (XXG) and should not be allowed to stand.—

2783: 832: 372: 3545: 3059: 2391: 2069: 1544:

The close was first no consensus, and is still no consensus. I only applied the BLP ten hours later.

741: 68: 3460:

Wikia. The close wasn't perfect as Mercury seems to understand but ultimately he did the right thing.

1777:

let's not play wikipolitics with the encyclopedia. The BLP reasoning seems invalid given this claim -

1453:

Notable enough; and won't the resulting shitstorm harm her reputation more than the article ever did?

565:. Notability is rather obvious as the subject has articles transwiki'd in seven other languages (e.g. 541: 3413: 3242: 3087: 2935: 2922: 2705: 2381: 1378: 3396: 2420:- the lack of consensus at the AFD was as to whether Angela qualifies as "only marginally notable", 745: 3666: 3647: 3629: 3612: 3598: 3571: 3553: 3536: 3532: 3519: 3515: 3502: 3486: 3469: 3449: 3445: 3433: 3417: 3400: 3371: 3361: 3357: 3347: 3333: 3329: 3317: 3299: 3295: 3280: 3265: 3260: 3253: 3232: 3227: 3205: 3201: 3188: 3176: 3159: 3142: 3130: 3125: 3113: 3099: 3077: 3046: 3025: 3016: 3002: 2985: 2974: 2965: 2943: 2926: 2909: 2901: 2886: 2872: 2863: 2849: 2833: 2816: 2808: 2791: 2760: 2744: 2727: 2723: 2710: 2682: 2660: 2643: 2629: 2613: 2586: 2563: 2547: 2522: 2511: 2491: 2475: 2457: 2440: 2428: 2425: 2412: 2395: 2367: 2355: 2334: 2317: 2298: 2255: 2241: 2221: 2204: 2190: 2169: 2140: 2111: 2091: 2065: 2059: 2029: 2008: 1979: 1970: 1958: 1939: 1934: 1924: 1896: 1891: 1875: 1853: 1831: 1827: 1816: 1789: 1785: 1769: 1750: 1745: 1739: 1725: 1708: 1696: 1665: 1642: 1637: 1626: 1607: 1592: 1573: 1558: 1532: 1507: 1488: 1462: 1445: 1430: 1398: 1382: 1336: 1316: 1288: 1280: 1270: 1248: 1232: 1216: 1191: 1186: 1165: 1152: 1119: 1100: 1077: 1042: 1030: 1027: 1021: 998: 995: 970: 965: 943: 938: 926: 887: 873: 856: 852: 835: 819: 805: 778: 762: 733: 723: 689: 671: 652: 641: 635: 607: 597: 576: 549: 528: 507: 494: 490: 469: 440: 427: 415: 410: 396: 391: 375: 366: 337: 303: 262: 109: 73: 3641:

to a particular situation should not override general community consensus, or the lack thereof. –

3055: 2841: 2752: 2695:

There was sufficient argument to counter any notion that notability was ambiguous in this case. --

2635: 2621: 2484: 2309: 2233: 2177: 2098: 2046: 1995:

WP:Early closing every avenue of discussion on specious reasoning until people give up and go away

1803: 1652: 1613: 1579: 1545: 1106: 1087: 1064: 1008: 749: 710: 658: 622: 584: 353: 189: 3663: 3621: 3498: 3139: 2905: 2471: 1976: 1967: 1744:

Unless her public work stops in the next year or more, her notability will only grow. What then?

1501: 1458: 1332: 797: 537: 280: 239: 2593: 1361:

something about them in the relevant articles. In this case, some of the material previously at

1344:- maybe this was mentioned at the AfD, but I'm looking at the other two people mentioned in the 3392: 2782:

article has photos of Jimbo and Larry Sanger. I didn't vote in the AFD if that means anything.

2544: 2508: 648:. I'm simply saying the out of process deletion here would be a dangerous precedent to set. -- 3643: 3592: 3461: 3343: 3172: 3155: 3111: 3041: 2878: 2855: 2825: 2678: 2252: 2218: 2068:). That section's also still being discussed as it's a fairly new addition to the policy (see 1850: 1484: 1442: 920: 814: 465: 3223: 1954: 1765: 1692: 1603: 1569: 1528: 1309: 1039: 569: 320: 3656: 3638: 3388: 2606: 2598: 2305: 2229: 2042: 2015: 1990: 1884: 1846: 1497: 1200: 828: 793: 706: 682: 618: 613: 558: 478: 457: 53: 49: 3409: 3196:

if Angela wants it deleted and there is no consensus to keep it then it should be deleted

3022: 2918: 2740: 2696: 2582: 2519: 2437: 2408: 2376: 2273: 1391: 1374: 1267: 1241: 1225: 869: 62: 181: 154: 964:

more in 6-12-18 months unless she announces she's done with any public corporate roles.

3528: 3511: 3441: 3353: 3325: 3291: 3250: 3215: 3197: 3122: 3073: 2981: 2869: 2804: 2771: 2719: 2655: 2488: 2329: 2135: 2086: 2024: 2003: 1931: 1888: 1823: 1781: 1736: 1705: 1362: 1181: 848: 775: 730: 686: 649: 604: 573: 524: 486: 406: 334: 101: 40: 27: 3246: 562: 3660: 3495: 3482: 2998: 2961: 2778:

article and leave the former deleted with redirect. This will include the photo. The

2467: 1871: 1454: 1328: 1211: 1205: 1134: 2868:

Maybe this can be read as "to hell with the deletion-by-request portion of BLP"? --

1300:

to either this deletion review or the specific AFD? The deleting admin's summary of

3585: 3430: 3339: 3168: 3151: 3108: 3036: 2674: 2634:

To clarify, this summary actually works. I probably should have reclosed the AFD.

2610: 2539: 2503: 1480: 1439: 1357: 1353: 1259: 645: 504: 461: 196: 2779: 1975:

nb: if there are BLP issues w/article, fix'em, but don't delete entire article. --

139: 919:- A valid close based on the administrator's discretionary zone. No issues here. 2351: 1950: 1761: 1688: 1599: 1565: 1524: 1496:. As umpteen people have said already, this seems like a correct application of 1349: 1305: 1036: 316: 272: 52:

is invalid because the subject's notability is not ambiguous (specifically, per

2605:. (The other BLP deletion rule, which is a minor variant on the long standing 1296:

Whatever happens, can we please have some kind of notice in the protection log

3581: 2736: 2578: 2404: 2122: 1264: 865: 57: 796:

policy to delete biographies of marginal notability if the subject requests.

3219: 3069: 2977: 2650: 2403:

Per reasoning in the AFD, notability, and no consensus to delete, deletion.

2324: 2130: 2126: 2081: 2019: 1998: 520: 437: 424: 3408:

because nobody has convincingly explained how her notability is ambigious.

1612:

Deletion was a result of a BLP interpretation. Not the result of the AFD.

2597:

for not managing to record the close accurately. The relevant section of

3478: 2994: 2957: 1866: 1063:

here. Any questions about her might should be brought to her talk page.

2129:. (PS, you can shorten your signature by 27 characters, see your talk). 2877:

Yes. Just saying "forget about BLP. That should not be an issue here."

1687:

Cripes, why bother doing AfD at all if everything is subject to fiat?

1633: 621:

policy. You should know about what you are commenting on. Regards,

3241:

isn't a good staring point either. Maybe other people with their own

2347: 352:

out of that? And why are you posting to the top of this discussion?

2603:

Knowledge (XXG):Biographies of living persons#BLP deletion standards

705:(od)No I closed the AFD once. Then I slept on it, and applied the 2775: 1370: 1345: 1174: 844: 831:. She's only notable for Wikia - and we have a redirect to that.-- 516: 1356:. I know that arguments based on other articles are weak, but if 843:. Common sense suggests that the biographical information now at 275:) claims to have done this at Angela's request; however, Angela 1406:- a good use of BLP for a barely notable biographical article. 2934:, "No consensus" means "keep", and "BLP" is a bogus reason. 1930:

There weren't 13 AFDs. The AFDs in italics are redirects. --

1716:

A generous opt-out policy is the right thing in my view. --

2592:

Keep deleted, adjust AFD closure notes, and award closer a

1966:- notable person. She doesn't want the article? Too bad. -- 1731:

always been poorly defined. It is not something to use for

566: 333:. She makes clear that she wishes the article deleted. - 2620:

Thank you. May have have my trout now. :) Best regards,

1476: 1325: 3237:

Not sure if these comparisons are exactly scalable, and

2993:

application of BLP to subject of negligible notability.

2346:- is this an encyclopedia or a soap opera? I forget. -- 994:; no prejudice towards another AFD if it is requested. — 572:

to read about this person, gotta do what I gotta do. --

184:

from turning ugly, I'm listing this here. After closing

1799: 1778: 1083: 1060: 1004: 992: 679: 677: 500:

Abstain myself but surprisingly leaning towards endorse

421: 349: 330: 276: 204: 135: 131: 127: 3603:

I cannot vote but it sure looks like Angela is back.

1798:I'll assume you read the whole AFD and missed it. 1519:actually changed the type of closing decision is a 460:subject's request and admin's discretion override. 174:

Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2007 December 9

1304:is not enough in a case with such a long history. 676:That you effectively closed the AFD twice? Er, OK. 203:Back-and-forth arguing on the admin board ensued ( 1578:Nope, it has always been a no consensus close. 1003:Did you read the AFD? I'll assume you did and 350:Where do you get a denial of a deletion request 8: 48:Consensus is that the original deletion per 3054:-- I agree with the reasoning put forth by 83:The following is an archived debate of the 1161:. I thought this was deleted ages ago. -- 911:comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC). 279:having made this request. Confusing, no? 3387:proper exercise of admin discretion per 1997:is in motion - will it work? Probably. 1373:, covering the founding of the company. 1477:a website devoted to promoting herself 404:Discussion on DRV early closure is at 271:the editor who started the last AFD ( 7: 3620:. That's what "no consensus" means. 982:overturn as not requested by subject 960:number of sources today, we'll have 657:The burdon of proof is on you then. 210:Earlier AFD discussions resulted in 33: 3680:of the page listed in the heading. 2770:. Let's move all the info from the 1845:. This is precisely the spirit of 2718:per WP:BLP and subject's request. 907:outside this topic. The preceding 432:I moved the closure discussion to 24: 3182:Overturn and relist if necessary 2691:closing admin. Read the policy: 420:Here's the text of the closure: 3676:The above is an archive of the 2854:I apologize for the blasphemy. 2840:I'm sorry... to hell with BLP? 456:. No consensus in AfD, and per 56:, "Any Biography", point 2). – 18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review 1365:should be incorporated into a 1: 3667:13:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC) 3648:05:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC) 3630:02:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC) 3613:00:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC) 3599:20:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC) 3572:17:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC) 3554:15:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC) 3537:08:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC) 3520:07:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC) 3503:07:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC) 3487:06:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC) 3470:05:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC) 3450:06:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC) 3434:04:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC) 3418:01:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC) 3401:00:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC) 3372:14:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC) 3362:07:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC) 3348:06:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC) 3334:06:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC) 3318:23:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 3300:06:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC) 3281:02:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC) 3266:20:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 3254:20:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 3233:20:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 3206:20:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 3189:19:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 3177:19:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 3160:18:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 3143:18:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 3131:09:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 3114:08:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 3100:06:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 3078:05:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 3047:23:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC) 3026:22:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC) 3017:22:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC) 3003:16:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC) 2986:14:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC) 2966:14:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC) 2944:09:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC) 2927:08:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC) 2910:08:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC) 2887:06:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC) 2873:06:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC) 2864:06:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC) 2850:05:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC) 2834:05:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC) 2817:04:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC) 2792:03:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC) 2761:01:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC) 2745:01:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC) 2728:01:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC) 2711:00:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC) 2683:23:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 2661:13:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC) 2644:22:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 2630:22:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 2614:22:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 2587:21:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 2564:11:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 2548:17:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC) 2523:21:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 2512:21:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 2492:21:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 2476:21:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 2458:17:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 2441:16:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 2429:16:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 2413:16:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 2396:15:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 2368:14:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 2356:14:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 2335:16:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 2318:13:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 2306:WP:BLP#BLP_deletion_standards 2299:12:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 2256:14:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 2242:13:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 2222:11:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 2205:12:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 2191:11:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 2170:11:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 2141:11:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 2112:11:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 2092:11:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 2060:10:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 2043:WP:BLP#BLP_deletion_standards 2030:10:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 2009:10:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1980:09:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1971:09:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1959:09:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1940:08:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1925:07:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1897:07:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1876:06:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1854:06:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1832:12:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1817:11:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1790:06:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1770:05:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1751:04:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1740:04:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1726:04:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1709:04:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1697:02:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1666:03:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1643:03:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1627:02:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1608:02:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1593:02:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1574:02:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1559:02:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1533:02:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1508:01:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1498:WP:BLP#BLP deletion standards 1489:01:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1463:01:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1446:01:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1431:00:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1399:00:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1249:12:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1086:. But ask on the talk page. 1043:15:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 971:04:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 559:WP:BLP#BLP_deletion_standards 479:WP:BLP#BLP_deletion_standards 458:WP:BLP#BLP_deletion_standards 441:23:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC) 428:05:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 416:05:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 397:04:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 376:11:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 367:11:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 338:14:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 304:11:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 74:15:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC) 50:WP:BLP#BLP deletion standards 2117:notability asserted was not 1800:seems valid given this claim 1383:23:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 1337:23:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 1317:23:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 1289:23:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 1271:23:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 1233:23:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 1217:22:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 1192:22:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 1166:22:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 1153:22:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 1120:21:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 1101:22:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 1078:22:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 1031:21:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 1022:21:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 999:21:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 944:21:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 927:21:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 888:21:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 874:21:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 857:21:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 836:21:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 820:21:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 806:20:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 779:21:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 763:21:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 734:21:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 724:21:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 690:21:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 672:21:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 653:21:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 636:20:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 608:20:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 598:20:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 577:20:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 550:20:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 529:20:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 508:20:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 495:20:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 470:20:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 263:19:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 3703: 568:). But if I have to learn 519:an entirely sensible one. 54:WP:BIO#Additional criteria 3389:WP:BLP deletion standards 1881:Strongly endorse deletion 792:. Correct application of 180:To avert a discussion on 3683:Please do not modify it. 3245:would make for a better 1390:per Crum375 and others. 228:speedy keep for WP:POINT 90:Please do not modify it. 1649:User:Mercury/OpenLetter 1472:willing public figures 1061:Durova may not respond 315:-- See the comment of 87:of the article above. 3546:Nobody of Consequence 1199:. Proper close, per 905:few or no other edits 434:this page's talk page 3243:category on Wikinews 2951:- No consensus have 644:, not for corporate 407:User_talk:Jc37#DRV_2 3369:Hit bull, win steak 3315:Hit bull, win steak 3138:Don't flip-flop. - 2446:Overturn and relist 2418:overturn and relist 2375:- BLP trumps. EOF. 2197:Bramlet Abercrombie 2162:Bramlet Abercrombie 485:this kind of case. 188:as "no consensus", 3239:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS 2188: 2109: 2057: 1814: 1663: 1624: 1590: 1556: 1117: 1098: 1084:some clarification 1075: 1019: 953:Change to overturn 760: 721: 669: 633: 595: 364: 46:Overturn deletion. 3690: 3689: 3346: 3273:Certified.Gangsta 3128: 2681: 2533:outside her field 2393: 2361:Overturn deletion 2178: 2099: 2047: 1993:and 2) enforcing 1927: 1913:Certified.Gangsta 1911:comment added by 1804: 1704:BLP paranoia. -- 1653: 1614: 1580: 1546: 1397: 1215: 1190: 1180: 1155: 1107: 1088: 1082:This may also be 1065: 1059:Just to be fair, 1009: 912: 750: 742:the blp talk page 711: 659: 623: 614:assume good faith 585: 570:Bahasa Indonesian 384:DRV early closure 354: 3694: 3685: 3653:Endorse Deletion 3597: 3590: 3569: 3567: 3559:Endorse Deletion 3342: 3263: 3230: 3224:Joseph Ratzinger 3194:Endorse deletion 3126: 3105:Endorse deletion 3091: 3052:Endorse deletion 3044: 3039: 2846: 2784:Pocopocopocopoco 2768:Let's compromise 2757: 2716:Endorse Deletion 2708: 2703: 2677: 2640: 2626: 2575:Endorse deletion 2392: 2389: 2388: 2385: 2379: 2314: 2295: 2292: 2289: 2286: 2283: 2280: 2277: 2238: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2138: 2133: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2089: 2084: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2027: 2022: 2006: 2001: 1937: 1906: 1894: 1843:Endorse deletion 1813: 1812: 1811: 1748: 1718:Seth Finkelstein 1714:Endorse deletion 1662: 1661: 1660: 1640: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1494:Endorse deletion 1436:Endorse deletion 1427: 1425: 1423: 1421: 1419: 1404:Endorse deletion 1396: 1394: 1388:Endorse deletion 1269: 1256:Endorse deletion 1209: 1197:Endorse deletion 1184: 1178: 1171:Endorse Deletion 1159:Endorse deletion 1146: 1131:Endorse deletion 1116: 1115: 1114: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1007:. Yes she did. 968: 941: 933:Endorse deletion 917:Endorse deletion 890: 862:Endorse deletion 841:Endorse deletion 825:Endorse deletion 811:Endorse deletion 790:Endorse deletion 759: 758: 757: 720: 719: 718: 681:I'll inquire at 668: 667: 666: 632: 631: 630: 594: 593: 592: 534:Endorse deletion 513:Endorse Deletion 481:was written for 475:Endorse deletion 454:Endorse deletion 413: 394: 363: 362: 361: 300: 298: 296: 294: 292: 259: 257: 255: 253: 251: 157: 143: 125: 92: 34: 3702: 3701: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3693: 3692: 3691: 3681: 3678:deletion review 3595: 3586: 3565: 3563: 3261: 3228: 3216:Angela Beesley 3098: 3089: 3042: 3037: 2936:Discombobulator 2844: 2780:Knowledge (XXG) 2774:article to the 2755: 2706: 2697: 2638: 2624: 2497:Endorse closure 2481:Endorse closure 2386: 2383: 2382: 2377: 2312: 2293: 2290: 2287: 2284: 2281: 2278: 2275: 2236: 2183: 2181: 2179: 2136: 2131: 2104: 2102: 2100: 2087: 2082: 2072:, particularly 2052: 2050: 2048: 2025: 2020: 2004: 1999: 1935: 1892: 1809: 1807: 1805: 1746: 1735:deletions. -- 1658: 1656: 1654: 1638: 1619: 1617: 1615: 1585: 1583: 1581: 1551: 1549: 1547: 1517:ten hours later 1417: 1415: 1413: 1411: 1409: 1392: 1263: 1137:. Let it flop. 1112: 1110: 1108: 1093: 1091: 1089: 1070: 1068: 1066: 1014: 1012: 1010: 1005:missed this gem 966: 939: 755: 753: 751: 740:::So you go to 716: 714: 712: 664: 662: 660: 628: 626: 624: 590: 588: 586: 548: 411: 392: 359: 357: 355: 290: 288: 286: 284: 282: 249: 247: 245: 243: 241: 166: 160: 153: 152: 146: 116: 100: 88: 85:deletion review 72: 32: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3700: 3698: 3688: 3687: 3672: 3671: 3670: 3669: 3650: 3632: 3615: 3601: 3574: 3556: 3539: 3522: 3505: 3489: 3472: 3453: 3452: 3437: 3436: 3420: 3403: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3376: 3375: 3374: 3321: 3320: 3307: 3306: 3305: 3304: 3303: 3302: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3262:Lawrence Cohen 3229:Lawrence Cohen 3209: 3208: 3191: 3179: 3162: 3145: 3133: 3116: 3102: 3094: 3090:DEVS EX MACINA 3081: 3049: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3005: 2988: 2968: 2946: 2929: 2912: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2866: 2837: 2836: 2819: 2794: 2772:Angela Beesley 2764: 2763: 2748: 2747: 2730: 2713: 2685: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2632: 2617: 2616: 2589: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2550: 2514: 2494: 2478: 2460: 2443: 2431: 2415: 2398: 2370: 2358: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2302: 2301: 2267:- a result of 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2248: 2225: 2224: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2173: 2172: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2032: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1961: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1899: 1878: 1857: 1856: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1793: 1792: 1772: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1747:Lawrence Cohen 1742: 1711: 1699: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1639:Lawrence Cohen 1541: 1540: 1536: 1535: 1510: 1502:Angus McLellan 1491: 1465: 1448: 1433: 1401: 1385: 1363:Angela Beesley 1339: 1319: 1291: 1273: 1252: 1251: 1246:picture popups 1236: 1235: 1230:picture popups 1219: 1194: 1168: 1156: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1103: 1080: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 988:do not restore 976: 975: 974: 973: 967:Lawrence Cohen 947: 946: 940:Lawrence Cohen 929: 914: 893:70.242.179.148 880:70.242.179.148 876: 859: 838: 822: 808: 786: 785: 784: 783: 782: 781: 737: 736: 703: 702: 701: 700: 699: 698: 697: 696: 695: 694: 693: 692: 580: 579: 552: 540: 531: 510: 497: 472: 450: 449: 448: 447: 446: 445: 444: 443: 412:Lawrence Cohen 393:Lawrence Cohen 385: 381: 380: 379: 378: 343: 342: 341: 340: 307: 306: 178: 177: 168: 167: 164: 158: 150: 144: 102:Angela Beesley 95: 94: 79: 78: 77: 76: 60: 41:Angela Beesley 31: 28:Angela Beesley 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3699: 3686: 3684: 3679: 3674: 3673: 3668: 3665: 3662: 3658: 3654: 3651: 3649: 3646: 3645: 3640: 3636: 3633: 3631: 3627: 3623: 3622:Marc Shepherd 3619: 3616: 3614: 3610: 3606: 3602: 3600: 3594: 3591: 3589: 3583: 3578: 3575: 3573: 3570: 3560: 3557: 3555: 3551: 3547: 3543: 3540: 3538: 3534: 3530: 3526: 3523: 3521: 3517: 3513: 3509: 3506: 3504: 3501: 3497: 3493: 3490: 3488: 3484: 3480: 3476: 3473: 3471: 3467: 3463: 3458: 3455: 3454: 3451: 3447: 3443: 3439: 3438: 3435: 3432: 3428: 3424: 3421: 3419: 3415: 3411: 3407: 3404: 3402: 3398: 3394: 3390: 3386: 3383: 3382: 3373: 3370: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3359: 3355: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3345: 3341: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3331: 3327: 3323: 3322: 3319: 3316: 3312: 3309: 3308: 3301: 3297: 3293: 3288: 3282: 3278: 3274: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3264: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3252: 3249:argument? -- 3248: 3244: 3240: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3231: 3225: 3221: 3217: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3207: 3203: 3199: 3195: 3192: 3190: 3187: 3186:uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 3183: 3180: 3178: 3174: 3170: 3166: 3163: 3161: 3157: 3153: 3149: 3146: 3144: 3141: 3140:Mailer Diablo 3137: 3134: 3132: 3129: 3124: 3120: 3117: 3115: 3112: 3110: 3106: 3103: 3101: 3097: 3093: 3092: 3085: 3082: 3079: 3075: 3071: 3067: 3064: 3061: 3057: 3053: 3050: 3048: 3045: 3040: 3034: 3031: 3027: 3024: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3014: 3010: 3009:83.45.232.107 3006: 3004: 3000: 2996: 2992: 2989: 2987: 2983: 2979: 2976: 2972: 2969: 2967: 2963: 2959: 2954: 2950: 2947: 2945: 2941: 2937: 2933: 2930: 2928: 2924: 2920: 2916: 2913: 2911: 2907: 2903: 2899: 2896: 2895: 2888: 2884: 2880: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2871: 2867: 2865: 2861: 2857: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2848: 2847: 2839: 2838: 2835: 2831: 2827: 2823: 2820: 2818: 2814: 2810: 2806: 2802: 2798: 2795: 2793: 2789: 2785: 2781: 2777: 2773: 2769: 2766: 2765: 2762: 2759: 2758: 2750: 2749: 2746: 2742: 2738: 2734: 2731: 2729: 2725: 2721: 2717: 2714: 2712: 2709: 2704: 2701: 2694: 2689: 2686: 2684: 2680: 2676: 2671: 2668: 2667: 2662: 2659: 2658: 2654: 2653: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2642: 2641: 2633: 2631: 2628: 2627: 2619: 2618: 2615: 2612: 2608: 2604: 2600: 2596: 2595: 2590: 2588: 2584: 2580: 2576: 2573: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2552: 2551: 2549: 2546: 2545: 2543: 2542: 2538: 2534: 2530: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2521: 2516: 2515: 2513: 2510: 2509: 2507: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2495: 2493: 2490: 2486: 2482: 2479: 2477: 2473: 2469: 2464: 2461: 2459: 2455: 2451: 2447: 2444: 2442: 2439: 2435: 2432: 2430: 2427: 2423: 2419: 2416: 2414: 2410: 2406: 2402: 2399: 2397: 2394: 2390: 2380: 2374: 2371: 2369: 2366: 2365:CharlotteWebb 2362: 2359: 2357: 2353: 2349: 2345: 2342: 2341: 2336: 2333: 2332: 2328: 2327: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2316: 2315: 2307: 2304: 2303: 2300: 2297: 2296: 2270: 2266: 2263: 2262: 2257: 2254: 2249: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2240: 2239: 2231: 2227: 2226: 2223: 2220: 2215: 2212: 2211: 2206: 2202: 2198: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2189: 2175: 2174: 2171: 2167: 2163: 2159: 2156: 2155: 2142: 2139: 2134: 2128: 2124: 2120: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2110: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2090: 2085: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2067: 2066:Brian Peppers 2063: 2062: 2061: 2058: 2044: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2031: 2028: 2023: 2017: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2007: 2002: 1996: 1992: 1988: 1985: 1981: 1978: 1977:Jack Merridew 1974: 1973: 1972: 1969: 1968:Jack Merridew 1965: 1962: 1960: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1945: 1941: 1938: 1933: 1929: 1928: 1926: 1922: 1918: 1914: 1910: 1903: 1900: 1898: 1895: 1890: 1886: 1882: 1879: 1877: 1873: 1869: 1868: 1862: 1859: 1858: 1855: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1841: 1840: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1815: 1801: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1791: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1776: 1773: 1771: 1767: 1763: 1759: 1756: 1752: 1749: 1743: 1741: 1738: 1734: 1733:controversial 1729: 1728: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1712: 1710: 1707: 1703: 1700: 1698: 1694: 1690: 1686: 1683: 1682: 1667: 1664: 1650: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1641: 1635: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1625: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1591: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1571: 1567: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1557: 1543: 1542: 1538: 1537: 1534: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1511: 1509: 1506: 1503: 1499: 1495: 1492: 1490: 1486: 1482: 1478: 1473: 1469: 1466: 1464: 1461: 1460: 1456: 1452: 1449: 1447: 1444: 1441: 1437: 1434: 1432: 1429: 1428: 1405: 1402: 1400: 1395: 1389: 1386: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1364: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1340: 1338: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1323: 1320: 1318: 1314: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1295: 1292: 1290: 1286: 1282: 1277: 1274: 1272: 1268: 1266: 1261: 1257: 1254: 1253: 1250: 1247: 1243: 1238: 1237: 1234: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1220: 1218: 1213: 1208: 1207: 1202: 1198: 1195: 1193: 1189: 1188: 1183: 1176: 1172: 1169: 1167: 1164: 1160: 1157: 1154: 1151:was added at 1150: 1144: 1140: 1139:68.193.198.41 1136: 1135:No more drama 1132: 1129: 1128: 1121: 1118: 1104: 1102: 1099: 1085: 1081: 1079: 1076: 1062: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1044: 1041: 1038: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1029: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1020: 1006: 1002: 1001: 1000: 997: 993: 990: 989: 985:' change to ' 984: 983: 978: 977: 972: 969: 963: 959: 954: 951: 950: 949: 948: 945: 942: 935: 934: 930: 928: 925: 922: 918: 915: 910: 906: 902: 898: 894: 889: 885: 881: 877: 875: 871: 867: 863: 860: 858: 854: 850: 846: 842: 839: 837: 834: 830: 826: 823: 821: 818: 817: 812: 809: 807: 803: 799: 798:Sam Blacketer 795: 791: 788: 787: 780: 777: 772: 771: 770: 769: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 761: 747: 743: 735: 732: 728: 727: 726: 725: 722: 708: 691: 688: 684: 680: 678: 675: 674: 673: 670: 656: 655: 654: 651: 647: 646:board members 643: 642:Brian Peppers 639: 638: 637: 634: 620: 615: 611: 610: 609: 606: 601: 600: 599: 596: 582: 581: 578: 575: 571: 567: 564: 560: 556: 553: 551: 547: 543: 539: 535: 532: 530: 526: 522: 518: 514: 511: 509: 506: 501: 498: 496: 492: 488: 484: 480: 476: 473: 471: 467: 463: 459: 455: 452: 451: 442: 439: 435: 431: 430: 429: 426: 422: 419: 418: 417: 414: 409: 408: 403: 400: 399: 398: 395: 389: 386: 383: 382: 377: 374: 370: 369: 368: 365: 351: 348: 345: 344: 339: 336: 332: 328: 325: 322: 318: 314: 313:Not confusing 311: 310: 309: 308: 305: 302: 301: 278: 274: 270: 267: 266: 265: 264: 261: 260: 237: 233: 229: 225: 221: 217: 213: 208: 206: 202: 198: 195: 192:decided that 191: 187: 183: 176: 175: 170: 169: 163: 156: 149: 141: 137: 133: 129: 124: 120: 115: 111: 107: 103: 99: 98: 97: 96: 93: 91: 86: 81: 80: 75: 70: 67: 64: 59: 55: 51: 47: 43: 42: 38: 37: 36: 35: 29: 26: 19: 3682: 3675: 3652: 3644:Black Falcon 3642: 3634: 3617: 3605:75.47.126.40 3587: 3576: 3558: 3541: 3524: 3507: 3491: 3474: 3462:EconomicsGuy 3456: 3426: 3422: 3405: 3384: 3310: 3193: 3181: 3167:per Neil. - 3164: 3147: 3135: 3118: 3104: 3088: 3083: 3062: 3051: 3032: 2990: 2970: 2952: 2948: 2931: 2914: 2897: 2879:Tim Q. Wells 2856:Tim Q. Wells 2842: 2826:Tim Q. Wells 2821: 2800: 2796: 2767: 2753: 2732: 2715: 2699: 2692: 2687: 2669: 2656: 2651: 2636: 2622: 2591: 2574: 2540: 2536: 2532: 2528: 2504: 2500: 2496: 2485:User:Mercury 2480: 2462: 2445: 2433: 2421: 2417: 2400: 2372: 2360: 2343: 2330: 2325: 2310: 2274: 2269:no consensus 2268: 2264: 2234: 2213: 2157: 2118: 1986: 1963: 1946: 1901: 1880: 1865: 1860: 1842: 1774: 1757: 1732: 1713: 1701: 1684: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1493: 1471: 1467: 1457: 1450: 1435: 1408: 1403: 1387: 1366: 1358:Gil Penchina 1354:Gil Penchina 1341: 1321: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1275: 1255: 1221: 1204: 1196: 1185: 1177:works fine. 1173:Redirect to 1170: 1163:Tony Sidaway 1158: 1130: 987: 986: 981: 980: 961: 957: 952: 932: 931: 921:Sean William 916: 861: 840: 824: 815: 810: 789: 739: 738: 704: 554: 533: 512: 499: 482: 474: 453: 405: 401: 387: 346: 323: 312: 281: 268: 240: 235: 232:no consensus 220:no consensus 209: 200: 197:User:Spartaz 193: 190:User:Mercury 179: 171: 89: 82: 45: 39: 3271:articles.-- 2556:75.36.36.13 2450:John Carter 1907:—Preceding 1369:section of 1350:Jimmy Wales 1306:User:Krator 1240:behaviour. 1147:—Preceding 903:) has made 347:Other Note: 273:User:Durova 172:Moved from 3582:Don Murphy 3427:outside of 3410:hbdragon88 3121:per Neil. 3023:AnonEMouse 2919:Achromatic 2607:WP:CSD#G10 2520:AnonEMouse 2438:AnonEMouse 2230:discretion 1393:SlimVirgin 1375:Carcharoth 3529:RFerreira 3512:Pixelface 3442:Nil Einne 3354:Nil Einne 3326:Nil Einne 3292:Nil Einne 3251:Kendrick7 3226:notable? 3222:notable? 3220:Ray Nagin 3218:notable? 3198:Nil Einne 3123:Sjakkalle 2870:Ned Scott 2720:Ripberger 2670:Overturn. 2489:Isotope23 2426:Random832 2123:ambiguous 2119:ambiguous 1824:Catchpole 1782:Catchpole 1737:Ned Scott 1706:Ned Scott 1348:article: 1182:priyanath 1028:Random832 996:Random832 849:JWSchmidt 776:Kendrick7 731:Kendrick7 687:Kendrick7 650:Kendrick7 605:Kendrick7 574:Kendrick7 487:WAS 4.250 335:Jehochman 205:permalink 3661:Garion96 3635:Overturn 3618:Overturn 3577:Overturn 3542:Overturn 3525:Overturn 3508:Overturn 3492:Overturn 3475:Overturn 3406:Overturn 3311:Overturn 3165:Overturn 3148:overturn 3136:Overturn 3127:(Check!) 3119:Overturn 3084:Overturn 3066:contribs 3033:Overturn 2975:Reinoutr 2971:Overturn 2949:Overturn 2932:Overturn 2915:Overturn 2902:Reinoutr 2898:Overturn 2822:Overturn 2813:contribs 2805:Kla’quot 2801:overturn 2797:Big sigh 2733:Overturn 2688:Overturn 2468:Davewild 2463:Overturn 2434:Overturn 2401:Overturn 2265:Overturn 2214:Overturn 2158:Overturn 2127:marginal 1987:Overturn 1964:Overturn 1947:Overturn 1921:contribs 1909:unsigned 1902:overturn 1861:overturn 1775:Overturn 1758:Overturn 1702:Overturn 1685:Overturn 1513:Overturn 1468:overturn 1455:Zagalejo 1451:Overturn 1322:Overturn 1276:Overturn 1222:Overturn 909:unsigned 901:contribs 744:and ask 555:Overturn 327:contribs 224:snowball 199:wonders 186:this AFD 69:friendly 66:contribs 30:(closed) 3588:ALKIVAR 3457:Endorse 3431:Savidan 3429:Wikia. 3423:Endorse 3385:Endorse 3340:Amarkov 3169:Merzbow 3152:Gothnic 3109:Str1977 3056:Mercury 3038:Chowbok 2991:Endorse 2675:Amarkov 2611:GRBerry 2373:Endorse 2344:Endorse 2272:delete. 1634:User:!! 1521:process 1481:JoshuaZ 1440:ElinorD 1367:history 1342:Comment 1298:linking 1294:Comment 1260:Crum375 1149:comment 816:Miranda 746:support 505:Spartaz 483:exactly 462:Crum375 402:Comment 388:Comment 236:Abstain 148:restore 119:protect 114:history 3664:(talk) 3657:WP:BLP 3639:WP:BLP 2953:always 2845:ercury 2756:ercury 2698:Cactus 2639:ercury 2625:ercury 2599:WP:BLP 2529:anyone 2387:Jester 2313:ercury 2237:ercury 2070:WT:BLP 2016:WP:BLP 1991:WP:BLP 1951:Stifle 1885:WP:BLP 1847:WP:BLP 1762:Ral315 1689:Cleduc 1600:Risker 1566:Risker 1525:Risker 1505:(Talk) 1443:(talk) 1201:WP:BLP 1037:Angela 829:WP:BLP 794:WP:BLP 707:policy 683:WP:BLP 619:WP:BLP 538:Rudget 317:Angela 277:denies 230:, and 123:delete 3499:: --> 3496:Míkka 2776:wikia 2737:Cla68 2594:trout 2579:Bduke 2541:demon 2505:demon 2405:Dureo 1936:desat 1893:desat 1851:Shell 1371:Wikia 1346:Wikia 1329:Giano 1302:"BLP" 1265:A. B. 1242:Zocky 1226:Zocky 1212:Help! 1175:Wikia 866:RMHED 845:Wikia 542:speak 517:Wikia 283:: --> 269:Note: 242:: --> 182:WP:AN 155:cache 140:views 132:watch 128:links 58:Ioeth 16:< 3655:per 3626:talk 3609:talk 3550:talk 3533:talk 3516:talk 3483:talk 3466:talk 3446:talk 3414:talk 3397:talk 3393:Whig 3358:talk 3344:moo! 3330:talk 3296:talk 3277:talk 3247:WP:N 3202:talk 3173:talk 3156:talk 3096:pray 3074:talk 3070:Cirt 3068:). 3060:talk 3013:talk 2999:talk 2982:talk 2978:Rray 2973:Per 2962:talk 2940:talk 2923:talk 2906:talk 2883:talk 2860:talk 2830:talk 2809:talk 2788:talk 2741:talk 2724:talk 2679:moo! 2652:Neıl 2583:talk 2560:talk 2472:talk 2454:talk 2409:talk 2384:SWAT 2352:talk 2326:Neıl 2201:talk 2184:cury 2166:talk 2132:Neil 2125:and 2105:cury 2083:Neil 2078:here 2076:and 2074:here 2053:cury 2021:Neil 2000:Neil 1955:talk 1932:Core 1917:talk 1889:Core 1887:. -- 1883:per 1872:talk 1828:talk 1810:cury 1786:talk 1766:talk 1722:talk 1693:talk 1659:cury 1620:cury 1604:talk 1586:cury 1570:talk 1552:cury 1529:talk 1485:talk 1379:talk 1352:and 1333:talk 1285:talk 1262:. -- 1258:per 1187:talk 1143:talk 1113:cury 1094:cury 1071:cury 1015:cury 897:talk 884:talk 870:talk 853:talk 802:talk 756:cury 717:cury 665:cury 629:cury 591:cury 563:WP:N 546:work 525:talk 521:Nick 491:talk 466:talk 438:jc37 436:. - 425:jc37 423:. - 360:cury 331:here 321:talk 299:< 258:< 216:keep 212:keep 162:AfD7 136:logs 110:talk 106:edit 63:talk 3479:bbx 3391:. — 2995:MLA 2958:KTC 2702:man 2601:is 2487:.-- 2422:not 1867:DGG 1802:. 1459:^^^ 1281:RxS 1206:Guy 1145:) 833:Doc 373:Doc 207:). 3659:. 3628:) 3611:) 3566:!= 3564:1 3552:) 3535:) 3518:) 3485:) 3468:) 3448:) 3416:) 3399:) 3360:) 3332:) 3298:) 3279:) 3204:) 3175:) 3158:) 3076:) 3015:) 3001:) 2984:) 2964:) 2942:) 2925:) 2908:) 2885:) 2862:) 2832:) 2815:) 2811:| 2803:. 2790:) 2743:) 2726:) 2585:) 2562:) 2474:) 2456:) 2411:) 2354:) 2294:um 2279:rk 2276:Me 2253:╦╩ 2232:. 2219:╦╩ 2203:) 2182:er 2168:) 2103:er 2051:er 1957:) 1923:) 1919:• 1874:) 1849:. 1830:) 1808:er 1788:) 1780:. 1768:) 1724:) 1695:) 1657:er 1651:. 1618:er 1606:) 1584:er 1572:) 1550:er 1531:) 1500:. 1487:) 1479:. 1426:te 1424:ai 1422:hw 1420:et 1418:tl 1416:os 1412:an 1410:Ry 1381:) 1335:) 1315:) 1287:) 1244:| 1228:| 1179:~ 1133:. 1111:er 1092:er 1069:er 1013:er 899:• 891:— 886:) 872:) 855:) 804:) 754:er 748:? 715:er 663:er 627:er 589:er 527:) 493:) 477:. 468:) 358:er 329:) 238:. 226:, 222:, 218:, 214:, 138:| 134:| 130:| 126:| 121:| 117:| 112:| 108:| 44:– 3624:( 3607:( 3596:☢ 3593:™ 3568:2 3548:( 3531:( 3514:( 3500:t 3481:( 3464:( 3444:( 3412:( 3395:( 3356:( 3328:( 3294:( 3275:( 3200:( 3171:( 3154:( 3080:. 3072:( 3063:· 3058:( 3043:☠ 3011:( 2997:( 2980:( 2960:( 2938:( 2921:( 2904:( 2881:( 2858:( 2843:M 2828:( 2807:( 2786:( 2754:M 2739:( 2722:( 2707:✍ 2700:. 2673:- 2657:☎ 2637:M 2623:M 2581:( 2558:( 2537:^ 2501:^ 2470:( 2452:( 2407:( 2378:⇒ 2350:( 2348:B 2331:☎ 2311:M 2291:m 2288:s 2285:n 2282:i 2235:M 2199:( 2180:M 2164:( 2137:☎ 2101:M 2088:☎ 2049:M 2026:☎ 2005:☎ 1953:( 1915:( 1870:( 1826:( 1806:M 1784:( 1764:( 1720:( 1691:( 1655:M 1616:M 1602:( 1582:M 1568:( 1548:M 1527:( 1483:( 1414:P 1377:( 1331:( 1313:c 1310:t 1308:( 1283:( 1214:) 1210:( 1141:( 1109:M 1090:M 1067:M 1040:. 1011:M 979:' 962:y 958:x 924:@ 913:. 895:( 882:( 868:( 851:( 800:( 752:M 713:M 661:M 625:M 587:M 544:. 523:( 489:( 464:( 356:M 324:· 319:( 297:t 295:n 293:a 291:i 289:d 287:a 285:R 256:t 254:n 252:a 250:i 248:d 246:a 244:R 165:) 159:| 151:| 145:( 142:) 104:( 71:) 61:(

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Deletion review/Angela Beesley - Knowledge (XXG)

Index