1760:
not given that you now claim that it was made in ignorance of manifest facts, do you want to grant validity to someone who casts such aspersions you acknowledge are ill-founded and only then can come up with a "weak" keep apparently based on the aspersions you no longer endorse. And the nominator's withdrawal is not a "keep", a nominator's withdrawal is a withdrawal - it may be neutral, it may be that he just didn't want to be maligned by false accusations, you read more between the lines than are there, I'm afraid. We should read the comments and arguments not just the "votes" - the neutral which I didn't count as keep despite what you say (you did that, really) - wanted to see something that no one could or did provide. Again, you ackowledge that the sources as to his notability do not pass
1794:- all he's saying is that they could be better. With regard to the neutral commentator, I think he mis-typed, and what he meant to do was take issue with your claim that it was effectively a "delete", which is patently false. With respect to the nominator, suggesting that he withdrew his nomination because of a throwaway suggestion of bias (understandable given the somewhat aggressive tone of his nomination) is absurd. Regarding the more substantive point, while AfD is not of course a vote, the balance of commentators often helps to gauge community consensus on an issue. In this case, sources were produced which purported to demonstrate the subject's notability. It was claimed that they did not pass
1696:
businessperson. A position inherently rejected here given that we have notability guidelines for some of these none of which suggest that 2 blurbs is sufficient to show notability - in fact the hurdles are significantly higher. Given their inability to do so during the week this was on afd, I cannot expect that they can do so now. I would like to see someone cite these reliable sources in this DRV since no one bothered to add them to the article nor cite any during the Afd, rather than take it on trust that they'll magically appear.
801:) she is also mentioned in movie short stub Coven (short film) She is currently working on the Playground Project with George Clooney, I think the article should at least be "unsalted", it was originally "salted", as I am new to all of this and did not know the proper protacol, regarding recreating of an article..I thought if you edited it properly you could remove the deletion tags..sorry this was originally removed because of notability requirments, but Vogue is a highly regarded publication.
624:. Denialism (or if one prefers, "denial") of significant historical events or significant verifiable facts, is a legitimate category which has in common some motive, or set of motives, that creates bias w.r.t. empirical or objective historical inquiry conducted by separate, independent, objective researchers, and to the reporting of clearly established objective results of such inquiry. What appears to have been missed in the CfD is that each article in the category must pass muster as to
2014:? Was it one of the four retracted nominational arguments? The first is not really a deletion argument; the second is unevidenced, contradicted by links which were listed in the AfD discussion, and not a reason for deletion anyway; the third was again unsupported and not a reason for deletion; and the fourth was a complaint/warning about sneaky websites. If I may quote Descartes, there doesn't seem to be any "argument so strong that it can never be shaken by a stronger argument ." —
1727:. He then proceeded to point out why the subject appeared to be notable. I think his comment suggests that he was leaning Keep, but for the sake of impartiality let's consider it a neutral vote, since that's what he said it was. The vote was very clearly a 3-3, with 1 neutral--and there was no nominator support for the deletion, so if we're comparing this to AfD standards where the nominator contributes a sort of "ghost vote" for delete it's effectively the same as a 3-2 for Keep.
1764:. Not surprising because he is not notable and borderline speedy because nothing in the article asserts his notability. The 2/3 rule is you cite: Where is that noted? Where can I find that? And if that's the stated protocol, then to hell with comments, why doesn't everyone just vote (as apposed to !vote) because under such a rule, it's purely a head count. I belive that there is no 2/3 rule and that the community has spoken in consensus by adopting the
1214:
facts on what he was convicted of are not disputed--and even if they were, he was convicted and the appeal denied. The fact that he made the legal challenges he made is not disputed, & neither is the disposition of them. An example of BLP gone wrong once more by being used in an arbitrary way--there was no support for it at the BLP noticeboard. Another example of interfering with an ongoing AfD in a way that causes more trouble in the end.
1517:– Deletion endorsed, without prejudice to a recreation that 1) has a clear assertion of notability and 2) is sourced, which the last draft was not. I note that in the AFD some sources (of debatable quality) were used that showed the article as written contained significant errors - but nobody chose to improve the article. The deciding factor, in the end, is that if there had never been an AFD I'd be willing to speedy delete under
1658:: the article lacking sources say he's a product evangelist for a big company - that is not inherently notable: evangelist is a fancy word for marketing guy; First (a) it's not a vote; majority doesn't win or necessarily give a consensus; and even the editor bringing this to DRV (along with the other keep voice) could only muster "weak keeps", again acknowledging the problem of notability, and the other containing a thinly veiled
1692:) we expect to demonstrate notability; moreover, a brief blurb about somebody does not show notability. So in a nose count one could say 3 deletes + 1 neutral questioning notability = 4 vs. 0.5 (a weak keep), letting the nominator and keeper claiming bias thereof cancelling each other out. But we're not counting noses, we're evaluating the arguments, of which the deleters had by far the stronger position.
1740:
bureaucratic vote-shooting, but it's still a fair guideline to follow as long as the votes express reasonable judgments and no illicit tactics were involved or what not. In this case there was either a 3-3-1 tie (no consensus) or a 3-2-1 keep, depending on how you look at it. You gave yourself a super-vote by closing the AfD as Delete given a clear lack of consensus. This is very much against
1937:. While the subject's notability may be rather dubious, it's certainly arguable on both sides, and I don't see anything remotely resembling a consensus in the AfD, especially since two of the deletes were submitted before some of the sources came to light, and the final delete cites as its sole rationale the nominator, who had withdrawn his somewhat curiously-argued nomination.
1776:- is it troubling no one that this is an unsourced article about a living person? So if 1/3 of the people, plus one, who show up and comment during the week to say "keep" despite these guidelines then the article is kept - that's neither been the rule nor the outcome here. If you'd like to propose adoption of that rule, you should discuss it at the talk page of
1759:
The other keep voice claimed the nominator was biased against the subject, do you credit that? Seems not, but can't be sure given your comments and nose-count. If so, then the nominator's voice is discountable as being acknowledgedly biased. If you don't credit that claim, and it seems that you might
1730:
Granted, the AfD forum is not a vote. But with exceptions for extreme cases (sockpuppetry, clear copyright violation, etc.), it's up to the community to judge whether a subject meets standards of notability and the like. Your own assessment of notability does not trump the community's. The subject of
1917:
but someone else will have to sponsor the deletion rather than the original nominator, for he withdrew the nomination in the course of the debate. I have no opinion on the merits, which seem equivocal, but a delete in the face of that seems a little excessive. (I agree it was not an automatic speedy
1674:
If we were purely counting noses there were 3 deletes, 1 neutral, the nominator who wanted to withdraw the nomination, and 2 weak keeps, one claiming that the nominator was biased. The delete voices - including the nominator - while focusing on the spamminess of the article, also noted there was no
1185:
Well, I've been actively editing and have sources establishing his position as an activist and "amateur researcher" (with publications in about as major a publication as one gets in a fringe field) in the entheogenic movement (people who say that hallucinogens and psychedelics can be beneficial) and
930:
without prejudice to relisting. This is really just an issue of how stringently we judge notability. The AfD was already very borderline with 7 Delete votes and 5 Keep votes, four of which were expressed as Strong Keeps. I would have closed it as no consensus, though I wouldn't complain since it was
1710:
is peculiar logic, since (A) they both supported keeping the article and (B) the claim of possible bias seems to have been made without noticing that the nominator had retracted his position, so we can ignore the claim for the purpose of evaluating consensus. Counting a weak keep as only half of an
1630:
I think this AfD should have been closed as no consensus, or as withdrawn by nominator. There were three Delete votes, and two regular Keep votes. The nominator then retracted his position, changing it from Delete to Keep, making the vote count 3-3 tie or arguably 3-2 Keep depending on how you look
1116:
The BLP discussion's last post was that it was being left alone for now as it was being improved. Several sources had been added, POV made more neutral, and edits pending establishing further notability, beyond the arrest and court case. This was noted on the AFD page as well as the edit log of the
596:
per GRBerry, and reminders to everyone that if something is on Xfd, and has no "...being considered for deletion" tag, ADD the darn thing - I'm going to Agf and hope it wasn't an agenda-driven sneak. I have half a mind to violate WP:SPAM to all those who unanimously voted "delete" on the Cfd. Puppy
1739:
with flying colors, but there is no obvious reason why it wouldn't, and no such argument was brought up in the AfD. The traditional requirement is that deleting an article requires a two-thirds vote. The two-thirds rule is now essentially deprecated to encourage constructive discussion rather than
1213:
and relist at AfD. I was about to !vote delete on this, as I have some doubts about real notability. But I do not see what BLP concerns there were: the man was convicted of drug manufacturing on a rather large scale, and appealed on unlikely but far-reaching grounds regarding the UK drug laws. The
1293:
Under no circumstances should the AfD be overturned without an DRV, and under no circumstances should the article be restored unless said DRV has taken place. There is an established process for contesting an AfD. I have no prejudice in regards to reopening this DRV to contest the original AfD. –
1847:
Mathmo, I think, made his comment without noticing that Rursus had retracted his nomination. It was understandable since the original nomination was, as David said, rather aggressive, and Rursus's retraction wasn't highlighted with big bold letters. Also, let's not exaggerate what Mathmo said --
531:
Please. The
Category was listed by an anon for CFD, and the Category page was never tagged, meaning interested parties were never aware of the CFD. Very sneaky. Also, as an aside about a standing problem in AFD/CFD: Why should anyone even bother making arguments to Keep when valid arguments like
368:
I haven't made up my mind about the above comments, but I do note from looking at the deleted history of the category that there was no note on the category page that this was being discussed. Categories are hard enough to keep track of without having no notice on the category page and no notice
2025:
You'd have to ask the closing admin for his reasoning, but your statement again begins with a fallacy. If there is an "overwhelmingly compelling" argument, that does not "justify overriding consensus", but instead it means that consensus lies with the argument. Consensus does not consist of the
1695:
I wouldn't mind a relisting or a recreation, if those who !voted keep can demonstrate meeting WP:N with independent reliable sources - not the business or trade press that if we took 2 blurbs = notability would give notability to virtally every professor, band, high school athlete, patentee, or
2055:
Since when has the "consensus" position been taken to mean the closing admin's idea of the stronger position? The role of the closer is not to determine which side s/he fancies, it is to gauge consensus based on the opinions expressed in the AfD. There can be exceptions in light of
458:- I think this is a useful category, and I would have voted to keep it. Still, I don't think that a tag on the category page would have changed the outcome of this CfD. Perhaps we could relist in hopes of exposure to a wider audience (which tends to appear following a DRV)? —
303:
The
Category was listed by an anon for CFD, but the Category page was never tagged, meaning interested parties were never aware of the CFD. Very sneaky. Reasonings given for deletion in the CFD appear specious and out of step with policy, guideline, convention and reality.
2144:
completely, and contained assertions of notability that were very thin -- an abuse of administrative discretion. I could imagine some folks using CSD G11 to delete this; although I wouldn't support that, it also wouldn't be absurd. As it stands, the draft is quite weak.
1687:
and the nominator fails to waive his hands in the proper order, it doesn't invalidate the argument and position of those who follow. The keeper also provided two websites that mention Jacobi in small articles as evidence of his notability. Those are not reliable sources
1885:"The two-thirds rule is now essentially deprecated to encourage constructive discussion rather than bureaucratic vote-shooting, but it's still a fair guideline to follow as long as the votes express reasonable judgments and no illicit tactics were involved or what not."
1390:
2157:. The deletion debate was side-tracked by secondary issues of COI and AGF but the fact remains that this is a bioagraphy article with no assertion of encyclopedic notability. Thus deletion is so clearly the correct outcome that a relist is unnecessary.
1233:: clearly not a BLP issue: in the first place, the article isn't generally derogatory in tone; in the second, there's no suggestion that the stuff is actually untrue, or that he is averse to publicity; and most importantly, there are several sources, like
1837:
Xoloz or David: What does the parenthetical here mean: "With respect to the nominator, suggesting that he withdrew his nomination because of a throwaway suggestion of bias (understandable given the somewhat aggressive tone of his nomination) is absurd."
1848:"also smells of potential personal bias" is not as strong as "this nomination was biased and made in bad faith." It was a minor communication error and doesn't change the fact that both Rursus and Mathmo supported keeping the article in the end. —
416:
The discussion was open for seven days; no more notice is required beyond tagging the category page with an appropriate template. However, since the discussion happened six months ago (which is six years in
Knowledge (XXG) time), I would support a
1789:
In the first place, the final "keep" commentator relied mostly on the opinion of xDanielx, adding the suggestion of bias merely as an afterthought. In the second, I don't know how you read his comment as acknowledging that the sources don't pass
1662:(b) a nominator may withdraw a nomination, but when contrary voices are heard the withdrawal does not require a close in the nominator's favor; and (c) consensus is demonstrated not only by what is said at the AFD, but by the guidelines including
555:
Sigh, this is one of the problems with category deletion reviews - once we empty them, we can't see what they were actually used for. So I can't see any basis to say that the CFD participants got it right, and I do see a clear process problem.
1731:
the AfD is a published and well-read author, well-known essayist, a CEO, and an overall influential figure in his industry. These attributes have been recognized by reasonably reliable sources which were brought up in the AfD, such as
1407:. An editor unilaterally undid the redirect on August 3. When I noticed the article was back I tagged it for speedy deletion as a repost, but that was denied with the suggestion that it be brought here. I think the original close as
1186:
as an advocate of the freedom to take entheogens. You want me to list them all here? The crazy thing is, it's not as if I hadn't stated this on the page, in the log, and at the AFD. Plus, BLP isn't a speedy deletion criterion. The
1347:
1342:
1351:
1376:
1334:
396:
for lack of notice. No comment on whether or not it should be deleted, but how can an informed discussion be held if interested parties are not present? There should have been a chance for defense.
1744:, especially when your (unstated) reasons for supporting deletion were no different from the reasoning that was already presented, considered, and rejected by a good half of those involved. —
1411:
was correct and the article should be deleted and not preserved as a redirect since no one is ever going to type "List of people known as the father or mother of something" in the Search box.
853:
584:
Seems to be a pretty clear example of someone in the know with an agenda shamelessly abusing the system "anon" and certain admins apparently turning a blind eye. Thanks FM for catching this.
381:
294:
1683:). The neutral expressed concern with the notability issue. The keep voice had more procedural than substantive objections, but this is really not a court of law, and if the subject fails
1338:
1070:
1099:
1330:
1281:
931:
a rather close decision. In light of Tweety's newfound linkage I'm fairly sure the article would pass under another AfD, though if others disagree I'd be happy with relisting. —
2064:), but borderline notability generally isn't one of them, least of all when the argument was already considered by each of the AfD participants and rejected by exactly half. —
913:. I've unsalted in light of the new evidence of notability, but I'm hesitant to restore the original article. Previous versions were written with a heavily promotional tone. --
1867:
Carlos, if you're only interested in attacking straw men then there's not much point in arguing. I did not say that we should count the neutral vote as a keep vote; I said
1631:
at it. The case for deletion was an attack on notability, and the subject's notability as a published author is at least borderline if not unarguably sufficient (see e.g.
1521:. There is strong, project wide consensus against having articles, especially bios of living people, that don't assert encyclopedic significance. This individual
369:
given to the author of the category. At minimum, there should be another CFD, and very likely simple overturning with the option to CfD later makes a lot of sense.
1621:
1457:
original close. Rather than take it back to AfD, I'd recommend just deleting per the already established consensus. Should that be considered a G6 speedy or per
48:
34:
696:– Restore article without prejudice against relisting at AfD. Original AfD seems to have been reasonably closed, but new evidence of notability has surfaced. –
788:
876:
on the basis of Vogue. I suppose even NYC socialites can be notable, though if there ever was a category where WP coverage is a little redundant, this is it.
1421:
I would tend to agree with you; certainly an AfD closing as delete ought to lead to deletion, and the redirect that was made instead seems rather... random.
43:
1438:
I agree it should be deleted, but I don't see why you were directed here--this isn't the AfD enforcement department. It should just have gone back to AfD.
474:
people give some new information in this DRV? What are these arguments that weren't considered in the unanimous CFD? Please don't make this an appeal to "
1117:
page itself. I actaully spent several hours on it last night, and would've done more tonight if I hadn't spent the time trying to steer a course through
1027:
1022:
1899:. I did not say that we ought to follow the 2/3 rule strictly as was done back in 2004. Please read my comments more closely before criticizing them. —
166:
1031:
1896:
1056:
1014:
1238:
1171:
I will not be opposed to an undeletion, if there is a chance that the article can be written in accordance of WP content policies. Let me know.
572:. I agree with GRBerry's argument, and strongly disagree with Radiant's. The problem here was with the process, not the weighing of arguments.
1121:
that would do some good and reduce the amount of bickering, which seemed more immediately important as the AFD only started a day or so ago.
1998:
If I may ask, which argument was it that you found so overwhelmingly compelling so as to justify overriding (lack of) consensus? Was it the
214:– Deletion overturned. Please always tag the article up for an XfD discussion: that is one process-flaw that is universally significant. –
1234:
39:
1242:
644:, etc. So there ought be little danger of an endless collection of "denialisms"; the cat is self-limiting by the basic WP policies. ...
1949:
as no consensus, with no prejudice to re-listing. When the nominator flip-flops, it seems the consensus of other participants should be
280:
1918:
keep, because someone else had spoken for deletion.) I'd have closed no-consensus if I had thought that his withdrawal was wrong.
1798:(which is arguable); several editors considered this claim and rejected it, and no consensus was formed. It's as simple as that.
1578:
1573:
1478:
21:
1582:
745:
740:
1639:, easily found with a very quick search and posted in the AfD), so I think (lack of) consensus should have been followed. —
1157:. As I said, you are welcome to recreate with proper sourced material. If you need a copy of the deleted text, let me know.
1607:
1565:
749:
625:
2172:
1544:
1492:
1313:
1260:
993:
948:
711:
671:
536:
to not count those comments in the final tally in contravention of the established guideline for discounting comments:
229:
189:
89:
17:
1018:
774:
732:
123:
118:
1881:
with flying colors, but there is no obvious reason why it wouldn't, and no such argument was brought up in the AfD."
127:
1245:. The man's notability is something that can legitimately be discussed, but is not in any case a speedy issue.
152:
110:
864:. No prejudice regarding relisting, but there should at least be another discussion before deleting again. --
255:
1466:
629:
1969:
decided by vote counting, and that misunderstanding appears to be the sole reason Daniel brought it here.
1010:
969:
384:. I'm pretty surprised at this nomination, as there was actually a complete consensus to delete this. --
2161:
2149:
2132:
2110:
2099:
2070:
2050:
2020:
2003:
1993:
1957:
1941:
1929:
1905:
1854:
1842:
1832:
1823:
1802:
1784:
1750:
1700:
1645:
1533:
1449:
1430:
1415:
1302:
1249:
1225:
1199:
1180:
1166:
1148:
1130:
1111:
1088:
982:
937:
922:
903:
887:
868:
840:
824:
805:
700:
660:
648:
614:
601:
588:
576:
564:
548:
526:
464:
446:
423:
407:
388:
373:
360:
340:
308:
218:
179:
78:
1807:
I'm still trying to fathom your statement that the allegation of bias was "understandable" in light of
1569:
1118:
176:
1474:
736:
598:
428:
I just looked up the deleted category page, and it was never tagged with a deletion template such as
263:
2128:
as no consensus; neither the weight or numbers nor weight of arguments for deletion is compelling.
1839:
1820:
1781:
1697:
917:
1869:"for the sake of impartiality let's consider it a neutral vote, since that's what he said it was."
1777:
1561:
1513:
1079:
Active discussion (AfD) speedied with no justification given; article was undergoing improvement.
645:
544:
to improperly discount the comments of others, there's really not much point in doing as you ask.
114:
2129:
2076:
2027:
1970:
573:
545:
503:
479:
305:
246:
210:
1808:
728:
692:
798:
1938:
1799:
1719:
Counting a neutral vote as a Keep vote is bizarre, for lack of a better term. The editor said
1246:
837:
821:
797:
Arden Wohl was featured in July 2007 edition of Vogue, fulfilling notability requirments,(see
697:
326:
2061:
1741:
1458:
641:
607:
537:
475:
106:
70:
857:
817:
322:
318:
1816:
1812:
1773:
1717:"I support a Keep but for the sake of courtesy I'll acknowledge that this is a close call."
1680:
1667:
1659:
1529:
article, and any article on him really needs to be written afresh from reliable sources. –
1518:
1288:
1187:
1154:
1095:
861:
637:
633:
541:
533:
2158:
1470:
1426:
1195:
1176:
1162:
1144:
1126:
1107:
1084:
978:
585:
2141:
1878:
1872:
1795:
1791:
1765:
1761:
1736:
1721:"I'd like to see a more thorough and cited discussion regarding this person's notability"
1689:
1614:
1383:
1063:
781:
287:
159:
1954:
914:
900:
865:
657:
560:
and relist, because there is no way to know whether the correct decision was reached.
443:
420:
1769:
1684:
1676:
1663:
1655:
2106:
2066:
2026:
ten-twenty people that participated in any particular AFD, but of the Wiki at large.
2016:
1925:
1901:
1850:
1746:
1641:
1445:
1412:
1404:
1221:
933:
883:
802:
460:
403:
385:
349:
540:. No, we've experienced this one too many times already. Until people stop misusing
1530:
611:
561:
432:
370:
75:
1895:) policy, you can go through the page history or view an archived version such as
1599:
1368:
1048:
766:
144:
1708:"etting the nominator and keeper claiming bias thereof cancelling each other out"
852:
the last version before the AfD deletion, as this individual has had significant
656:
per KC/GRBerry. If it isn't tagged, there's a problem in the deletion process.
1296:
1100:
Knowledge (XXG):Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Casey_William_Hardison
1711:
opinion is rather unfair since the motivation for a Week Keep is generally not
2146:
1829:
1422:
1403:
on July 12 but instead of being deleted the page was redirected on July 13 to
1191:
1172:
1158:
1140:
1122:
1103:
1080:
974:
532:"It's useful" are being improperly discounted by those who insist on invoking
215:
2140:
Simply put, I cannot claim that the deletion of this article -- which lacked
1636:
2002:
argument? If so, it may be worth noting that he never wrote any such book;
1883:
I did not say that the 2/3 guideline is a part of current policy. I said:
1732:
1632:
820:'s analysis of Gsearch results, and the consensus of established editors.
1920:
1440:
1216:
1094:
The article was a useless mess of unsourced material and in violation of
878:
398:
1871:
I did not "ackowledge that the sources as to his notability do not pass
1706:
Your summary of the AfD is many things, but it certainly isn't neutral.
175:
Information on a significant company (Annual
Turnover 4 million euro)
860:
magazine since the AfD discussion and therefore now apparently meets
1190:
page makes it clear that speedy deletion is to be applied narrowly.
1828:
Read that again, Carlos. That isn't what David is saying at all.
1136:
1713:"I don't want my vote to have as much weight as anyone else"
1679:, in fact arguably there is no assertion of notability (see
799:
http://parkavenuepeerage.wordpress.com/2007/06/28/the-hills/
2075:
And that is a false dichotomy, not to mention a straw man.
899:
of
Knowledge (XXG) is to provide redundant information. --
1102:. You can always re-create it with good quality sources.
1595:
1591:
1587:
1364:
1360:
1356:
1044:
1040:
1036:
762:
758:
754:
502:
08:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Never mind, per the below.
271:
267:
259:
251:
140:
136:
132:
317:
per nom. This is a useful category for articles from
1331:
List of people known as father or mother of something
1282:
List of people known as father or mother of something
610:
in that they are a small group of interested people.
2006:doesn't present itself as one, anyway. Was it the
1654:I closed as delete primarily because there is no
2104:A dichotomy of what? Where is the straw man? —
442:the deletion with no prejudice to relisting. --
2000:"'...for Dummies' books aren't notable enough"
74:– deletion by PROD automatically overturned –
8:
1543:The following is an archived debate of the
1312:The following is an archived debate of the
1153:Deleted within the criteria established at
992:The following is an archived debate of the
710:The following is an archived debate of the
228:The following is an archived debate of the
88:The following is an archived debate of the
1506:
1274:
962:
685:
203:
63:
2171:The above is an archived debate of the
1525:merit an article, but he doesn't merit
1491:The above is an archived debate of the
1259:The above is an archived debate of the
947:The above is an archived debate of the
670:The above is an archived debate of the
188:The above is an archived debate of the
606:I don't think that that would violate
2008:"seems to be only marginally notable"
7:
325:. The CfD was not done properly.
597:is cranky; puppy has good reason.
28:
1735:. It may not unquestionably pass
973:– Overturned & reopening AfD
1877:"It may not unquestionably pass
2012:"elete per nom, down with spam"
622:Overturn and reinstate category
478:" but bring in a solid reason.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
1:
2060:policy violations (see, e.g.
1953:clear to justify deletion. --
1725:"this person is not notable"
2162:03:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
2150:15:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
2133:22:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
2111:09:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
2100:08:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
2071:22:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
2051:12:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
2021:11:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
1994:08:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
1958:22:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
1942:15:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
1930:03:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
1906:10:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1855:06:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
1843:19:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1833:03:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1824:23:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
1803:18:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
1785:17:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
1751:09:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
1701:01:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
1646:00:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
1534:12:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
1450:03:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
1431:03:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
1416:03:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
1303:04:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
1287:Re-deleted the article per
1250:15:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
1226:03:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
1200:03:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
1181:03:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
1167:03:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
1149:03:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
1131:03:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
1112:03:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
1089:03:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
983:16:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
938:09:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
923:18:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
904:22:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
888:05:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
869:22:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
841:06:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
836:: given the Vogue article.
825:18:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
806:16:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
701:02:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
661:14:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
649:23:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
615:23:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
602:23:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
589:22:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
577:21:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
565:15:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
549:14:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
527:09:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
465:06:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
447:22:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
424:22:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
408:05:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
389:03:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
374:00:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
361:23:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
341:23:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
309:23:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
219:16:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
180:11:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
79:17:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
2198:
1891:(not to be confused with
1887:If you'd like to see the
1137:speedy deletion criterion
2178:Please do not modify it.
1935:Overturn as no consensus
1550:Please do not modify it.
1498:Please do not modify it.
1319:Please do not modify it.
1266:Please do not modify it.
999:Please do not modify it.
954:Please do not modify it.
717:Please do not modify it.
677:Please do not modify it.
235:Please do not modify it.
195:Please do not modify it.
95:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
1135:For that matter, which
538:WP:DGFA#Rough_consensus
476:process wasn't followed
438:. Therefore, I support
2175:of the article above.
1547:of the article above.
1495:of the article above.
1316:of the article above.
1263:of the article above.
1011:Casey William Hardison
996:of the article above.
970:Casey William Hardison
951:of the article above.
714:of the article above.
674:of the article above.
654:Overturn and reinstate
232:of the article above.
192:of the article above.
92:of the article above.
1666:and policies such as
2058:clear, uncontentious
1652:Endorse my deletion.
642:WP:NPOV#undue_weight
1139:were you applying?
626:WP:Reliable sources
1399:AFD was closed as
895:Ah, but the whole
247:Category:Denialism
211:Category:Denialism
2185:
2184:
1505:
1504:
1483:
1469:comment added by
1273:
1272:
1179:
1165:
1110:
981:
961:
960:
684:
683:
339:
202:
201:
2189:
2180:
2155:Endorse deletion
2138:Endorse deletion
2109:
2096:
2094:
2092:
2090:
2088:
2069:
2047:
2045:
2043:
2041:
2039:
2019:
2004:Pro JSF and AJAX
1990:
1988:
1986:
1984:
1982:
1904:
1853:
1749:
1644:
1617:
1603:
1585:
1552:
1507:
1500:
1482:
1463:
1386:
1372:
1354:
1321:
1299:
1275:
1268:
1175:
1161:
1106:
1066:
1052:
1034:
1001:
977:
963:
956:
936:
920:
816:: valid AfD per
784:
770:
752:
719:
686:
679:
523:
521:
519:
517:
515:
499:
497:
495:
493:
491:
463:
437:
431:
358:
355:
352:
348:per nom and OM.
338:
336:
331:
323:Living dinosaurs
319:Holocaust denial
290:
276:
275:
237:
204:
197:
162:
148:
130:
97:
64:
53:
33:
2197:
2196:
2192:
2191:
2190:
2188:
2187:
2186:
2176:
2173:deletion review
2105:
2086:
2084:
2082:
2080:
2078:
2065:
2037:
2035:
2033:
2031:
2029:
2015:
1980:
1978:
1976:
1974:
1972:
1900:
1849:
1745:
1660:personal attack
1640:
1626:
1620:
1613:
1612:
1606:
1576:
1560:
1548:
1545:deletion review
1496:
1493:deletion review
1464:
1395:
1389:
1382:
1381:
1375:
1345:
1329:
1317:
1314:deletion review
1297:
1264:
1261:deletion review
1241:and especially
1075:
1069:
1062:
1061:
1055:
1025:
1009:
997:
994:deletion review
952:
949:deletion review
932:
918:
793:
787:
780:
779:
773:
743:
727:
715:
712:deletion review
675:
672:deletion review
599:KillerChihuahua
513:
511:
509:
507:
505:
489:
487:
485:
483:
481:
459:
435:
429:
356:
353:
350:
332:
327:
299:
293:
286:
285:
279:
249:
245:
233:
230:deletion review
193:
190:deletion review
171:
165:
158:
157:
151:
121:
105:
93:
90:deletion review
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
2195:
2193:
2183:
2182:
2167:
2166:
2165:
2164:
2152:
2135:
2123:
2122:
2121:
2120:
2119:
2118:
2117:
2116:
2115:
2114:
2113:
2010:statement? Or
1960:
1944:
1932:
1912:
1911:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1865:
1864:
1863:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1858:
1857:
1840:Carlossuarez46
1821:Carlossuarez46
1782:Carlossuarez46
1754:
1753:
1728:
1698:Carlossuarez46
1672:
1671:
1628:
1627:
1624:
1618:
1610:
1604:
1555:
1554:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1503:
1502:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1452:
1433:
1397:
1396:
1393:
1387:
1379:
1373:
1324:
1323:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1271:
1270:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1228:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1169:
1133:
1077:
1076:
1073:
1067:
1059:
1053:
1004:
1003:
988:
987:
986:
985:
959:
958:
943:
942:
941:
940:
925:
908:
907:
906:
871:
854:media coverage
846:
845:
844:
843:
828:
827:
795:
794:
791:
785:
777:
771:
722:
721:
706:
705:
704:
703:
682:
681:
666:
665:
664:
663:
651:
619:
618:
617:
591:
579:
567:
553:
552:
551:
471:Endorse unless
467:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
391:
376:
363:
357:sch•
351:•Jim
343:
301:
300:
297:
291:
283:
277:
240:
239:
224:
223:
222:
221:
200:
199:
184:
183:
173:
172:
169:
163:
155:
149:
100:
99:
84:
83:
82:
81:
61:
59:11 August 2007
56:
49:2007 August 12
47:
38:
35:2007 August 10
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2194:
2181:
2179:
2174:
2169:
2168:
2163:
2160:
2156:
2153:
2151:
2148:
2143:
2139:
2136:
2134:
2131:
2127:
2124:
2112:
2108:
2103:
2102:
2101:
2098:
2097:
2074:
2073:
2072:
2068:
2063:
2059:
2054:
2053:
2052:
2049:
2048:
2024:
2023:
2022:
2018:
2013:
2009:
2005:
2001:
1997:
1996:
1995:
1992:
1991:
1968:
1964:
1961:
1959:
1956:
1952:
1948:
1945:
1943:
1940:
1936:
1933:
1931:
1927:
1923:
1922:
1916:
1913:
1907:
1903:
1898:
1894:
1890:
1886:
1882:
1880:
1874:
1870:
1866:
1856:
1852:
1846:
1845:
1844:
1841:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1831:
1827:
1826:
1825:
1822:
1818:
1814:
1810:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1801:
1797:
1793:
1788:
1787:
1786:
1783:
1779:
1775:
1771:
1767:
1763:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1752:
1748:
1743:
1738:
1734:
1729:
1726:
1722:
1718:
1714:
1709:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1699:
1693:
1691:
1686:
1682:
1678:
1669:
1665:
1661:
1657:
1653:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1643:
1638:
1634:
1623:
1616:
1609:
1601:
1597:
1593:
1589:
1584:
1580:
1575:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1553:
1551:
1546:
1541:
1540:
1535:
1532:
1528:
1524:
1520:
1516:
1515:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1501:
1499:
1494:
1489:
1488:
1480:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1460:
1456:
1453:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1442:
1437:
1434:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1414:
1410:
1406:
1405:Pater Patriae
1402:
1392:
1385:
1378:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1353:
1349:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1322:
1320:
1315:
1310:
1309:
1304:
1301:
1300:
1292:
1290:
1284:
1283:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1269:
1267:
1262:
1257:
1256:
1251:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1229:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1218:
1212:
1209:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1072:
1065:
1058:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1033:
1029:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1002:
1000:
995:
990:
989:
984:
980:
976:
972:
971:
967:
966:
965:
964:
957:
955:
950:
945:
944:
939:
935:
929:
926:
924:
921:
916:
912:
909:
905:
902:
898:
894:
891:
890:
889:
885:
881:
880:
875:
872:
870:
867:
863:
859:
855:
851:
848:
847:
842:
839:
835:
832:
831:
830:
829:
826:
823:
819:
815:
814:
810:
809:
808:
807:
804:
800:
790:
783:
776:
768:
764:
760:
756:
751:
747:
742:
738:
734:
730:
726:
725:
724:
723:
720:
718:
713:
708:
707:
702:
699:
695:
694:
690:
689:
688:
687:
680:
678:
673:
668:
667:
662:
659:
655:
652:
650:
647:
643:
639:
635:
631:
630:WP:notability
627:
623:
620:
616:
613:
609:
605:
604:
603:
600:
595:
592:
590:
587:
583:
580:
578:
575:
571:
568:
566:
563:
559:
554:
550:
547:
546:FeloniousMonk
543:
539:
535:
530:
529:
528:
525:
524:
501:
500:
477:
473:
472:
468:
466:
462:
457:
454:
448:
445:
441:
434:
427:
426:
425:
422:
418:
414:
411:
410:
409:
405:
401:
400:
395:
392:
390:
387:
383:
380:
377:
375:
372:
367:
364:
362:
359:
347:
344:
342:
337:
335:
330:
324:
320:
316:
313:
312:
311:
310:
307:
306:FeloniousMonk
296:
289:
282:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
248:
244:
243:
242:
241:
238:
236:
231:
226:
225:
220:
217:
213:
212:
208:
207:
206:
205:
198:
196:
191:
186:
185:
182:
181:
178:
168:
161:
154:
146:
142:
138:
134:
129:
125:
120:
116:
112:
108:
104:
103:
102:
101:
98:
96:
91:
86:
85:
80:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
2177:
2170:
2154:
2137:
2125:
2077:
2057:
2028:
2011:
2007:
1999:
1971:
1966:
1962:
1950:
1946:
1939:David Mestel
1934:
1919:
1914:
1892:
1888:
1884:
1876:
1875:". I quote:
1868:
1800:David Mestel
1724:
1720:
1716:
1712:
1707:
1694:
1673:
1651:
1629:
1562:Jonas Jacobi
1549:
1542:
1526:
1522:
1514:Jonas Jacobi
1512:
1497:
1490:
1465:— Preceding
1454:
1439:
1435:
1408:
1400:
1398:
1318:
1311:
1295:
1286:
1280:
1265:
1258:
1247:David Mestel
1230:
1215:
1210:
1078:
998:
991:
968:
953:
946:
927:
910:
896:
892:
877:
873:
849:
838:David Mestel
833:
822:David Mestel
812:
811:
796:
716:
709:
698:IronGargoyle
691:
676:
669:
653:
621:
593:
581:
569:
557:
504:
480:
470:
469:
455:
439:
415:
412:
397:
393:
378:
365:
345:
333:
328:
314:
302:
234:
227:
209:
194:
187:
174:
94:
87:
69:
58:
1715:but rather
818:Morgan Wick
440:overturning
177:88.96.137.6
44:2007 August
2159:Eluchil404
1889:deprecated
1677:Notability
1471:Eluchil404
729:Arden Wohl
693:Arden Wohl
586:Odd nature
417:relisting.
1965:, AFD is
1955:Ginkgo100
1951:extremely
1893:"current"
1778:WP:DELETE
1681:WP:CSD#A7
1519:WP:CSD#A7
1173:≈ jossi ≈
1159:≈ jossi ≈
1104:≈ jossi ≈
975:≈ jossi ≈
901:Ginkgo100
866:Ginkgo100
658:Guettarda
444:Ginkgo100
421:Ginkgo100
2126:Overturn
2107:xDanielx
2067:xDanielx
2017:xDanielx
1947:Overturn
1902:xDanielx
1897:this one
1851:xDanielx
1809:WP:CIVIL
1747:xDanielx
1733:this one
1642:xDanielx
1479:contribs
1467:unsigned
1461:? : -->
1436:question
1413:Otto4711
1231:Overturn
1211:Overturn
934:xDanielx
834:Overturn
803:Tweety21
594:Overturn
582:Overturn
570:Overturn
558:Overturn
461:xDanielx
394:Overturn
386:Kbdank71
382:deletion
366:overturn
346:Overturn
315:Overturn
20: |
2062:WP:DGFA
1963:Endorse
1742:WP:DGFA
1608:restore
1579:protect
1574:history
1531:GRBerry
1459:WP:SNOW
1455:Endorse
1377:restore
1348:protect
1343:history
1057:restore
1028:protect
1023:history
928:Restore
911:Comment
897:purpose
893:Comment
874:Restore
850:Restore
813:Endorse
775:restore
746:protect
741:history
646:Kenosis
612:JoshuaZ
608:WP:SPAM
562:GRBerry
456:Neutral
413:Comment
379:Endorse
371:JoshuaZ
281:restore
260:history
153:restore
124:protect
119:history
107:Doseuro
76:GRBerry
71:Doseuro
2130:Evouga
1915:Relist
1817:WP:AGF
1813:WP:NPA
1774:WP:BLP
1723:, not
1668:WP:BLP
1583:delete
1409:delete
1401:delete
1352:delete
1298:Kurykh
1289:CSD G4
1188:WP:CSD
1177:(talk)
1163:(talk)
1155:WP:BLP
1119:WT:COI
1108:(talk)
1098:. See
1096:WP:BLP
1032:delete
979:(talk)
862:WP:BIO
750:delete
638:WP:NOR
634:WP:VER
574:Evouga
542:WP:ATA
534:WP:ATA
334:Marlin
329:Orange
128:delete
2147:Xoloz
2142:WP:RS
2079:: -->
2030:: -->
1973:: -->
1879:WP:RS
1873:WP:RS
1830:Xoloz
1796:WP:RS
1792:WP:RS
1766:WP:RS
1762:WP:RS
1737:WP:RS
1690:WP:RS
1615:cache
1600:views
1592:watch
1588:links
1423:SamBC
1384:cache
1369:views
1361:watch
1357:links
1192:SamBC
1141:SamBC
1123:SamBC
1081:SamBC
1064:cache
1049:views
1041:watch
1037:links
919:desat
858:Vogue
782:cache
767:views
759:watch
755:links
506:: -->
482:: -->
288:cache
268:watch
264:links
216:Xoloz
160:cache
145:views
137:watch
133:links
52:: -->
16:<
2095:<
2046:<
1989:<
1926:talk
1815:and
1811:and
1772:and
1770:WP:N
1768:and
1685:WP:N
1664:WP:N
1656:WP:N
1637:this
1635:and
1633:this
1596:logs
1570:talk
1566:edit
1527:that
1475:talk
1462::-)
1446:talk
1427:talk
1365:logs
1339:talk
1335:edit
1243:this
1239:this
1235:this
1222:talk
1196:talk
1145:talk
1127:talk
1085:talk
1045:logs
1019:talk
1015:edit
915:Core
884:talk
763:logs
737:talk
733:edit
522:<
498:<
404:talk
272:logs
256:talk
252:edit
141:logs
115:talk
111:edit
32:<
1967:not
1921:DGG
1622:AfD
1523:may
1441:DGG
1391:AfD
1217:DGG
1071:AfD
879:DGG
856:in
789:AfD
433:csd
399:DGG
321:to
295:CfD
167:AfD
22:Log
1928:)
1819:.
1780:.
1598:|
1594:|
1590:|
1586:|
1581:|
1577:|
1572:|
1568:|
1481:)
1477:•
1448:)
1429:)
1367:|
1363:|
1359:|
1355:|
1350:|
1346:|
1341:|
1337:|
1285:–
1237:,
1224:)
1198:)
1147:)
1129:)
1087:)
1047:|
1043:|
1039:|
1035:|
1030:|
1026:|
1021:|
1017:|
886:)
765:|
761:|
757:|
753:|
748:|
744:|
739:|
735:|
640:,
636:,
632:,
628:,
436:}}
430:{{
419:--
406:)
354:62
270:|
266:|
262:|
258:|
254:|
143:|
139:|
135:|
131:|
126:|
122:|
117:|
113:|
42::
2093:t
2091:n
2089:a
2087:i
2085:d
2083:a
2081:R
2044:t
2042:n
2040:a
2038:i
2036:d
2034:a
2032:R
1987:t
1985:n
1983:a
1981:i
1979:d
1977:a
1975:R
1924:(
1688:(
1670:.
1625:)
1619:|
1611:|
1605:(
1602:)
1564:(
1473:(
1444:(
1425:(
1394:)
1388:|
1380:|
1374:(
1371:)
1333:(
1291:.
1220:(
1194:(
1143:(
1125:(
1083:(
1074:)
1068:|
1060:|
1054:(
1051:)
1013:(
882:(
792:)
786:|
778:|
772:(
769:)
731:(
520:t
518:n
516:a
514:i
512:d
510:a
508:R
496:t
494:n
492:a
490:i
488:d
486:a
484:R
402:(
298:)
292:|
284:|
278:(
274:)
250:(
170:)
164:|
156:|
150:(
147:)
109:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.