1792:], the concensus appeared to be leaning towards a keep. The closing admin obviously disagreed but rather than contributing to the debate chose close the AfD and to delete the page. I was under the impression that such things were decided by the concensus of the community rather than the opinion of one admin. Surely the reason AfD debates take place is to gauge this concensus not to help one admin make the right decidion. If this is the case the debate should not have be ended by an admin giving a reason why he thinks a particular result is correct but rather by an admin who has seen that a concensus has been reached in the debate and then acts to to uphold it.
1638:, the edit summary should include something about that. Otherwise, my concern is that there could be a perception of a rouge admin going around simply deleting templates they view as unnecessary. Also, this "task force" (such that it is with only me marking templates right now) was designed and implemented to try to clean out the Template namespace due to its obscene amount of nonsense. I don't think every appreciates how much nonsense is inside the Template namespace, which I think is the reason there is a certain level of opposition to this task force. Some treats that have been deleted while searching through the namespace include
2414:, it was the opinion of the closing administrator that the source was not valid but the feeling of other editors that the source was. In some ways then the issue is not whether there can be exceptions to WP:RS but whether an admins view in interpreting it is more valid than that of any other good-faith editor (which it's not). There was definately a debate to be had about the source and it should not have been cut off because of the opinion of one editor. ]
1465:
For a tagger and an admin to be the only people to review that function (and possibly misunderstand it) can be harmful. For other
Wikipedians to review deprecation in the context of the template's function can only help reduce mistakes. It's not that we can't trust the judgment of admins—it's supposed to be about increasing transparency, not decreasing it. Two weeks is an arbitrary amount of time. The more people are aware of the page, the better.
1689:– Deletion endorsed. There are some fine arguments for undeletion here (from DGG); however, other folks arguing for undeletion appear very confused about Knowledge (XXG)'s practice (in particular, the DRV nominator, who harbors the mistaken belief that the five pillars are negotiable.) Such ill-informed opinions cannot command the "strength of argument." It may matter to some observers that, even "by the numbers", the outcome is the same. –
2120:
anything but the consensus the admin is abusing his power. Even if they think the concensus is wrong, that it is based on people misinterpretting the guidelines or that they just know better than the editors taking part in the debate. The closing decision made by the admin should never be based on the admin's own opinion but the contents of the debate - which every admin - like any other editor - is free to contribute to should they choose. ]
857:; from the looks of things, the article didn't give enough reasoning to be kept, and thus the closure of the properly run AFD looks legit. A rewrite wouldn't be amiss, however, as it does look like there's enough reliable sources to indicate the band has some semblance of notability. Ensure that the sources are available in the article this time, however - verification of the tours, media coverage (not gig lists), etc.
578:"The Hawaii Nation (or Nation of Hawaii) is and always has been a sovereign and independent nation defined by a physical land mass in the middle of the Pacific Ocean with agreements, contracts, and treaties with other nations. This particular Knowledge (XXG) entry is NOT related to the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement nor is it related to the State of Hawaii." and the massive POV continues from there.
1042:. However, I think this is an incorrect reasoning for speedy delete, as redirects also serve to populate search engines, and are also search terms. I do not think he acted in bad faith, but I think he acted hastily on a topic he is an involved editor with a deletionist POV for most of the articles, and most of the articles merged into
1400:". On the other, it requires a 2-week waiting period. If a template is an unquestionable G6 candidate, why not just delete/tag it on sight? If a precautionary 2-week period is required, then it's probably not uncontroversial housekeeping and should be sent to TfD. As currently set up, the process seems like
2460:). Surely there is enough evidence of possible notability and enough leeway within Knowledge (XXG) policy and guidelines - as shown above - that the debate should have been kept open until a true consensus had been formed and not stopped by one editor in order to push through their own particular opinion. ]
2385:
and again it's not a policy - it's a guideline. The very fact that it says that there can be exceptions means that it should be brought up as part of the AfD debate not as the rationale for closing the debate. If anything is not explicitly stated in policy - or is a deductive result - as you call it
1933:
AfD is not a vote, it is an attempt to find consensus - I see no evidence that any consensus had been found during the debate. The basic arguements being made for keep may have gone against a guideline but guidelines are not written in stone and it would have been more appropriate for someone with an
1577:
to delete templates that might not require more review is absolutely fine. Well, I do support template prodding (for non-controversial cases, understanding also that the usefulness of a template's function is harder to discern than that of an article's content), but it doesn't have community interest
1464:
We are trying to improve the transparency of housekeeping, G6 (or of deleting possible nonsense G1, or possible test pages G2) by allowing
Wikipedians to review a template's deletion reason. To illustrate this a bit better: the article namespace has content, while the template namespace has function.
1340:
Well, there is some precedent in using MFD to terminate (generally "esperanzify") undesirable processes. Nevertheless this seems like something better resolved in getting more community feedback. Drop a line on the village pump and admin board and see what people think of it. The new process is not a
826:
Breaking Laces may not be on the tip of the 5 deletion reviewer's tongues, but they do meet at least the required one of the notability criteria. I kindly request reinstatement of their wikipedia page, otherwise I'll accept an explanation as to when and under what criteria they may be able to have a
2119:
That may be your opinion but other editors interpretted the information differently, the fact that an admin does not agree with the concensus does not make it wrong. The only reason everyone does not have the power to close an AfD debate is that that power would be abused. By closing a debate based
1910:
That arguement should have been made during an AfD not given as a reason for deletion. Admins have no more say than any other editor in forming the concensus they are just the only ones with the power to act on it and carry out the will of the community. Why even open up the debate to non admins if
1833:
The conclusion was in total opposition to the actual consensus, whether judged by counting or by arguments raised. The opinions given at AfD are not merely advisory, after which the closing admin can decide independently based on his personal views. The role of the closing admin is to determine the
1071:
implausible and has no incoming links, since the article was merged, the redirect and history have to remain for GFDL attribution purposes. To the nominator: You may want to reconsider your wording about whether ChrisO acted in bad faith, as first you say you don't think he did, then you call him a
204:
exists today and has always existed without interuption or disruption or whatevers. To some this is factually true and other people have information to the contrary so have BOTH opinions with each disclaiming the other if necessary. To this end I hereby request that a redirect be created/approved
2201:
All your statement shows is that admins abusing their powers is so commonplace it is accepted. The reason for an admin closing an AdF debate should be based purely on the consensus (with a few exceptions) not on whether they think they page conforms to policy. Unless you think a consensus had been
1088:
I clearly stated that ChrisO didn't act in bad faith, so I do not understand your admonition: you can act hastly in good faith! My point is clearly that because of his involvement, an RfD or a proc might have been better than a speedy delete, or he might have asked another admin to do it... If you
221:
DAY-UMN!! This article was nominated for deletion at 00:43 GMT, and deleted at 04:17; I wish I could have at least looked at it to see if it was truly THAT bad. The only place this was on in primetime was here in
America (middle of the night in Europe). In the USA, a forum that goes on for less
1613:
remains essentially a task force to coordinate cleanup of the template namespace via the speedy deletion criteria (i.e. as long as it doesn't become an actual deletion process), I think it is useful and productive. I am striking my suggestion to overturn the closure. I still don't agree with the
1486:
My primary concern with this process is the degree to which actual taggings will conform to the requirement that tagged templates qualify for deletion under CSD G6. If all taggings stays true to that requirement, then the page is essentially a pseudo-WikiProject/task force for cleaning up the
1314:
1259:
1468:
A fair amount of processes have been started by practice. (For example, temporary user pages.) While I agree that some recent taggings have been a bit, say, enthusiastic, this method of aggregating deletion candidates is not contrary to policy and can make the TfD crowd happier, the template
1426:
It did not fail to gain consensus; it merely failed to gain interest. One of the major complaints was that it is difficult to define the circumstances under which a template might be considered deprecated, or the circumstances under which an orphaned template might be considered unneeded. In
1887:
I checked the sources before deleting, The BBC source is a blog which leads to some independent podcast site which isn't run by the BBC, all the other sources I seen were blogs, youtube, the "official" finger jousting site, associatedcontent which is like a news wiki, etc, there aren't any
1378:
The closing rationale that "MFD is not the venue to determine the validity of a new deletion (sorting?) process" is unfounded. MFD is precisely that and more. MFD is a venue for judging the appropriateness of pages in the project namespace. I can understand speedy closures when it comes to
2095:
This is really for AfD, but I didn't want to pass this by: BBC broadcasts and transcripts are RSs. A blog of reader responses is not. However, this particular thread seems to have been posted editorially by BBCX, & I think the podcast would count--though not the subsequent comments.
1614:
closing rationale (that MFD was not the appropriate venue for discussion), but see no point in re-starting an MFD for a still-active task force, especially considering that the MFD and my initial recommendation seem to have been based on misunderstandings of the purpose of the page. —
1103:. I'm happy to undelete it if needed. For the record, it was deleted under CSD R3 ("Redirects from implausible typos or misnomers that were recently created"). I wasn't aware that the content had been merged, so I take Coredesat's point about the GFDL attribution requirements. --
823:- Breaking Laces have been in regular rotation on XMU (XM Channel 43) since 2003. Their first live set (of 2), and also songs from all their albums, have been played heavily on XMU since 2003. You can contact Tobi, who runs the station, directly at XMU to get confirmation of this.
1805:
not based on vote counting, but based on strength of arguments. The closing admin claims a podcast by the BBC isn't a reliable source. The BBC is run by the
British government, it's basically British state media. What does it matter what format the BBC is broadcasting in?
1297:
have come to a consensus about how to handle articles of this type; if you object, I would suggest talking to them on the talk page, rather than just trying to delete this. This is, in my opinion, basically the "content dispute" equivalent on a policy-action page.
2226:
is an "official policy". Your reasoning for deletion was not a commentary on the debate and the consensus which had been established, it was your opinion which holds no more weight than any other editors and belonged in the debate not the closing arguement.
794:- Because you have a hard time obtaining the CMJ charts from a year ago and three years ago doesn't mean Breaking Laces doesn't fit the criteria. They charted the CMJ Top 200 National charts with two different albums, Sohcahtoa and Lemonade. Its a fact.
2178:
How I am forcing my PoV, this doesn't make sense, I closed the AFD in the reasonable time period with about 20 other AFDs. All I did was give a reason for the deletion about how it doesn't meet policy, like all admins suppose to do in a AFD like that.
1934:
oposing position to point out the guideline in question in the debate and to see whether people wanted to change their opinion based on this information or whether they felt this was a situation where the guideline did not apply or could be ignored. ]
817:- Breaking Laces just landed a spot on the soundtrack for a new documentary coming out titled "Waiting For Hockney". It may not be a major release, but will hit the indie film circuit. The song they are using is "This World" off of the album Lemonade.
1231:
1089:
are concerned about recent vitriol (which I described as "witchhunt") towards him by other editors and admins, he can attest that I defended him against uncalled for attacks in the past, and have a general good opinion of him. Thanks!--
1284:
has very few editors, period. I don't think this is particularly "out of policy"; it basically just lists deprecated templates for a period, then deletes them. In fact, it would be counterproductive in many respects to list them on
2330:- it is not set in stone and there can be exceptions (it says so right at the top of the page). In these cases it could be said that the 'big consensus' was to allow for a differing 'local consensus' in certain circumstances. ]
1387:, but this is a new process that had seen almost no discussion prior to its establishment (certainly not enough to justify a new deletion process). We should allow that discussion to take place at a central location (like MfD).
1206:
472:, to the extent it was about anything that actually ever existed. It is pretty obvious that the article didn't belong in Knowledge (XXG) on a stand alone basis; the sourcing offered might merit a sentence somewhere.
803:
3) Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and
800:- Breaking Laces toured the UK in October 2005 and are now booking a second UK tour for Newyears/january of 2008. The folks at CMEAS.com organized the tour and can forward you reliable sources that reported the tour.
1197:
1161:
1165:– Speedy closure endorsed. We're all happy to see the discussion flourishing, and the fate of the process remains undecided, but deletion fora are not the best places for such discussions, generally speaking. –
2386:- then it is open to interpretation by the community. If any editor - admin or otherwise - disagrees with this interpretation then it is up to them to put forward their case not just shut down the debate. ]
1431:, this is delegated to general speedy deletion criterion 6. You're right that it's mostly redundant to the speedy deletion policy—and it's meant to be. You should be able to tag any of those templates with
265:. I restored the history and the nominator of this deletion review is free to look at it. In addition, I think consensus was adequately reached, with unanimous support for deletion (other than the author).
1838:
the applicable arguments, not because the admin is necessarily the best judge of the issue. An admin who disagrees with the developing consensus should present his arguments, and let someone else close.
1266:'s talk page, "Mistakes have been made." Mistakes based on deleting templates outside the normal avenues. This is a non transparent process, known to only a few editors, operating completely outside the
222:
than 2 and a half hours (on a
Saturday night, no less) is not much of a debate. I'm sure nobody in any other time zone was looking at it either. This is a little too quick on the trigger, I think.
2169:. The closing admin's rationale is an argument for deletion, not an evaluation of consensus. The closing admin should have contributed to the AfD instead of closing it, and forcing his own POV. —
814:
4) Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc...
2265:
2151:
this issue - the quality of the mentioned source - was never brought up in the debate and so counts as new information. If new information is presented in the deletion review then I believe
1245:
1573:, so hopefully no one misconstrues anything—those tagging, or those reviewing tags. As for the two week limit: this system is not exactly based off of prodding, so having admins go through
982:
977:
986:
1011:
969:
543:
for the exceedingly quick closure. A little bit of patience helps to avert situations where these things are brought up on DRV, sent back to AfD and ultimately get deleted anyway.
2222:" if the community or at least part of the community felt that this article should be an expceotion you have no more right than any other editor to overrule this. Incidentally
1781:
785:
773:
747:
1270:, run by a few admins. Why is it that I cannot submit an out of policy page to the deletion process, but the page is allowed to operate outside the deletion process? -
232:
167:
2361:. That's something stated on the page, rather than being part of a template. If there was ever a policy that we should not make exceptions for on this encyclopedia,
192:
area I am VERY impressed with the overall objective approach that was taken to the extent that is possible with existing recognized facts. Especially the notion of
2202:
reached to delete the page, it should not have been deleted. If there is a lac k of consensus as was apparent then the article should have been kept. Incidentally
1214:
48:
34:
1025:
1515:
for 2 weeks" should itself be a reason for deletion. In the absence of broader discussion, actual deletions should only be carried out in accordance with the
43:
2035:
I think you'll find a fundamental principle is "Knowledge (XXG) does not have firm rules except for the five general principles elucidated here" found on
1487:
template namespace ... and that's fine. However, if the process begins to result in deletion of templates based on individual evaluations of usefulness,
1541:
1859:
Policy beats consensus. There were no reliable sources, and nothing any of the Keep voters could come up with was an effective rebuttal of that. --
1255:
776:
with only 5 other people. 1 person said keep. Two others gave no valid reason to delete, and not a single one of them mentioned anything about
2262:
2013:
Really? because I'd say (and it says at the top of the page) that all of
Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines and policies were summed up in the
39:
2293:
It's a loaded question, but I'll bite. Consensus is never wrong, but it isn't always right. Policy always outweighs consensus. Always. --
797:
2) Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources.
1997:
is not only policy but also one of the fundamental principles of the encyclopedia. That's about as rock-solid as it gets around here. --
1738:
1733:
2306:
And policies are established by consensus (and big consensus): hence policy is superconsensus, which overrides local consensus at AfD.
1918:
a vote count, and the sources issue was mentioned in the deletes, and the BBC source is from a blog which links to a independent site.
1742:
704:
699:
1639:
708:
124:
119:
2358:
2284:
An admin's first duty is to obey the superconsensus of nearly all
Wikipedians that's in Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and guidelines.
562:. Although the closure may have been too early, I can't see or imagine any arguments that could have kept this from deletion. ---
1767:
1725:
188:
as a differentiation from both sovereignty and kingdom. However, upon deeper review of the extensive work that was put into the
128:
1317:
deal directly with the editors involved in these decisions, and should be sufficient to determine if this should be accepted or
973:
369:
Four hours is WAY too short enough for everyone to respond -- in fact I am even unclear what the article was specifically about.
21:
1643:
733:
691:
1650:
of unused templates. As for moving the page, I certainly wouldn't have an objection. Anyone else care to weigh in? Cheers. --
153:
111:
2453:
1537:
1313:
as the venue to determine the validity of that process, that is what project talk is for. The discussion area links in the
1411:
Even if a proposed deletion process for templates gains consensus (by the way, such a proposal failed to gain consensus at
965:
925:
2362:
2023:
to me this indicates that so called "fundamental principles" do not actually exist in the form of which you speak of them
2473:
2237:. Jaranda was correct in his assessment of the debate. The lack of reliable sources is what got the article deleted. --
1704:
1664:
1267:
1180:
1140:
948:
904:
670:
630:
90:
17:
196:
existing nations. Perhaps the current active editors of that area may want to provide an opinion to the effect that
1834:
consensus of the policy based arguments. It requires an admin so there can be confidence that the closer knows what
929:– Redirect and history restored by deleting admin, as requested by DRV nominator. No further need for discussion. –
1951:, the keep voters didn't do that while the delete votes had a valid concern, one of the keep votes were an obvious
1646:, also around since May. These are just a few of the templates I've discovered while searching through the list of
2410:
during the debate, this shows that there was no consensus within the community as to whether the article violated
2354:
840:
Seems like consensus was reached for deletion based on the available discussion there. However, no objections to
425:
minimum lengths of time that issues must be discussed, especially not for issues as clear cut as an article fork.
1408:. Its net effect, I think, is to complicate deletion processes and reduce the transparency of template deletions.
2341:
2036:
2014:
1309:
As per my comments when I speedy closed this, I neither support or oppose this process, but don't support using
1047:
1043:
1035:
875:
the closure, but with no prejudice to restoring for some sourcing by the nominator of this deletion review. --
2445:
which whilst a video blog is a notable one - hence the article - and part of the worlds most visited website (
2441:
for blogs to be used as reliable sources. An official BBC blog mentioned the topic, it was also mentioned on
2348:
go against a guideline or policy and life will go on, destroy a pillar and the house will come crumbling down
1446:
2322:
I completely agree - policy needs to be kept to - however the "policy" in question was not a policy at all.
2277:
Does this mean it is ok for an admin to ignore the consensus if they feel that the consensus is incorrect? ]
1396:
page. On the one hand, it states that the page is "only for templates that would unquestionably qualify for
336:, reasonable call given the high level of redundancy here. Redirecting is obviously the way to solve this.
1729:
2425:
2422:
2369:
2366:
2310:
2297:
2294:
2288:
2253:
2241:
2238:
2189:
2173:
2139:
2107:
2083:
2067:
2001:
1998:
1965:
1924:
1898:
1879:
1863:
1860:
1850:
1823:
1815:
The "BBC podcast" appears to be a BBC blog of sorts which links to an outside site with the podcast. Is
1810:
1796:
1693:
1654:
1620:
1594:
1554:
1481:
1421:
1365:
1335:
1302:
1274:
1169:
1127:
1118:
1107:
1093:
1081:
1058:
937:
893:
879:
866:
848:
832:
760:
659:
619:
598:
582:
566:
554:
527:
502:
496:
484:
449:
416:
407:
374:
360:
328:
304:
290:
278:
272:
256:
243:
226:
213:
115:
79:
549:
2170:
1721:
1685:
1559:
Great: one of my concerns is also that taggings will not conform to the speedy deletion criterion. I
784:, this article states that a band must meet "any one" of 12 criteria. In the discussion page of the
2159:
is a guideline, not set in stone and so should be mentioned in the debate not the delete decision. ]
1567:
1509:
1076:
829:
767:
757:
695:
614:
595:
323:
2184:
2064:
1960:
1919:
1893:
1807:
1342:
1333:
1271:
1124:
1104:
862:
523:
465:
426:
384:
337:
240:
2261:. There were no reliable sources, only a link back to youtube and another to fingerjoust.com.
1540:
to include pages in the template namespace? Or ... why not make it a separate deletion process (
1442:
1401:
845:
540:
477:
1289:, since that would (in general) lead to a much quicker deletion. However, this isn't really a
2187:
1963:
1922:
1896:
1876:
1616:
1550:
1417:
1321:
469:
461:
301:
206:
189:
1412:
1380:
781:
777:
591:
513:
422:
412:
It is not about that, but rather about giving the creator + contributors a chance to respond
314:
249:
491:
267:
2223:
2180:
1952:
1635:
1610:
1574:
1545:
1516:
1492:
1428:
1405:
1397:
1393:
1384:
1310:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1281:
1263:
2442:
1583:
1470:
808:
2411:
2407:
2323:
2203:
2156:
2133:
2040:
1994:
1889:
1774:
1238:
1018:
740:
160:
2075:, doesn't appear to actually be verifiable. The whole concept is rather silly, too. --
1469:
namespace cleaner, and housekeeping more transparent. In short: let's see what happens.
1793:
1651:
1435:
1073:
764:
687:
651:
611:
371:
320:
223:
2438:
2307:
2285:
2250:
2103:
1846:
1603:
1530:
1499:
1328:
1115:
1090:
1055:
858:
575:
518:
107:
70:
1820:
1038:, and pointed as a redirect. ChrisO deleted without discussion under this argument
889:
579:
563:
536:
481:
1759:
1003:
725:
145:
1457:
by one admin, who will either delete it or not. That's a good example of what's
931:
544:
2450:
535:
the closure. It is fairly evident where this was headed, but I have to second
2449:). There is also evidence of mentions by some sort of health insurance thing,
2136:
1690:
1299:
1166:
876:
811:'s band. If she is not notable, then maybe you should remove her wiki as well.
656:
413:
287:
253:
252:
can last more than 4 hours, when it's a geographically sensitive snowball. --
210:
76:
1578:
at the moment, and any experimental introduction of it will surely result in
788:
for
Breaking Laces, I pointed out that the band meets five of those criteria:
2076:
184:
I am the originator of the latest attempt to create a page specifically for
1254:
This is a completely new deletion process, basically a prod for templates,
1591:
1478:
1415:
a few months ago), there are more efficient ways of doing it than this. —
2098:
1841:
1392:
I also want to note a contradiction in the fundamental principles of the
1505:
for templates that issues arise. In essence, I don't think "tagged with
1198:
Knowledge (XXG):Templates for deletion/Deprecated and orphaned templates
1162:
Knowledge (XXG):Templates for deletion/Deprecated and orphaned templates
1454:
820:
5) Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.
516:
in surviving the AfD. More time wouldn't have changed the results. --
380:
2446:
1040:"No need for this redirect - nothing in article space links here"
179:
PLEASE CHANGE "Hawaii Nation" TO REDIRECT to "Kingdom of Hawaii"
2457:
317:
can be applied from time to time, but 4 hours isn't long enough.
1542:
Knowledge (XXG):Deprecated and orphaned templates for deletion
2353:
WP:RS is the deductive result of two pillars of the project,
1495:, I have no problem with it. It's when it starts to become a
2421:
An unofficial blog post is by no means a reliable source. --
2249:- AfD is not a vote count. No reliable sources, no article.
1609:
to templates (and to project pages as well). So, as long as
2381:
It says right at the top of the page that there can be the
1453:! No one's stopping you. Then your page will be noticed in
763:
The
Knowledge (XXG) page for Breaking Laces was deleted by
2132:- Keep votes were based on sources that do not qualify as
1634:
When templates are eventually deleted under the scope of
286:
Because 4 hours is not enough for everyone to respond.
248:
I'm not averse to re-opening this and re-listing; even a
2155:
under AfD is the prefered course of action. Additonally
1816:
1755:
1751:
1747:
1560:
1491:
reduces transparency. As long as it stays redundant to
1461:
a transparent way to delete templates via housekeeping.
1222:
1218:
1210:
1202:
999:
995:
991:
721:
717:
713:
141:
137:
133:
2452:, as well as on radio stations in the USA and the UK (
1449:, long page advisory warning) to find such templates,
1445:. If you want to go through the unused template list (
791:
1) Has had a charted hit on any national music chart.
464:(all dates in article from this period) perhaps the
383:, which incidentally we already have an article on.
233:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Hawaii Nation
73:, Hawaii nation, Nation of Hawaii, Nation of hawaii
1947:AFD is attempt to find a consensus by checking if
1790:There was an ongoing debate in the AfD discussion
1256:started based on "consensus" of only a few editors
1123:Done. :-) I think we can close this DRV now... --
1072:deletionist with a POV against these articles. --
2216:and should be treated with common sense and the
1046:that have not been subjected to AfD redirect to
1640:Template:Brians got some problems =) Alex rocks
1054:and if anyone wants, lets have an RfD. Thanks!
421:Yes, and that's not how it works. We don't set
2406:There was ongoing discussion about a possible
807:- Drummer Seth Masarsky toured as a member of
590:Nothing would have save this one and it even
8:
2210:you talk of is actually a guideline "it is
1982:It says at the top of every guideline page
1703:The following is an archived debate of the
1179:The following is an archived debate of the
947:The following is an archived debate of the
669:The following is an archived debate of the
89:The following is an archived debate of the
2019:"Knowledge (XXG) does not have firm rules"
1678:
1379:established policy and process pages like
1154:
918:
644:
63:
1644:Template:I love ponies! (sandbox heading)
512:4 hours or not, it clearly didn't have a
2343:Knowledge (XXG) does not have firm rules
1955:and almost all admins discount that and
1293:issue here -- it's clear that people on
175:
2472:The above is an archived debate of the
1663:The above is an archived debate of the
1139:The above is an archived debate of the
903:The above is an archived debate of the
629:The above is an archived debate of the
476:as the right decision was reached, but
2340:Another things to note would be that
1911:their opinions can just be ignored. ]
1258:. When I brought it up for deletion,
966:Allegations of Puerto Rican apartheid
926:Allegations of Puerto Rican apartheid
7:
2359:Knowledge (XXG):No original research
2063:per nom and DGG. Well said, DGG. --
539:and say that the closer ought to be
200:people think that the Hawaii Nation
1875:per above, and especially per DGG.
1536:for templates, why not just change
606:in light of the POV problems. This
2043:does not seem to be one of them. ]
28:
1548:except without the daily logs? —
1538:Knowledge (XXG):Proposed deletion
2363:Knowledge (XXG):Reliable sources
1642:which was around since May, and
2454:BBC Coventry & Warwickshire
2015:Five Pillars of Knowledge (XXG)
1262:was speedy closed. As noted on
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
2263:Can't sleep, clown will eat me
887:- DRV is plain wikilawyering.
205:for Hawaii Nation to point to
1:
2355:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability
1949:it meets wikipedia guidelines
2037:Knowledge (XXG):Five pillars
1993:Then it's a good thing that
1582:criticism from all sides :)
1404:that is mostly redundant to
1114:Then please do so! Thanks!--
460:Well, actually it was about
2426:19:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
2370:07:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
2311:21:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
2298:21:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
2289:21:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
2266:20:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
2254:19:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
2242:19:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
2190:18:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
2174:13:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
2140:03:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
2108:01:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
2084:01:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
2068:00:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
2002:19:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
1966:18:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
1925:19:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
1899:18:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1880:06:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1864:19:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
1851:05:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1824:17:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1811:04:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1797:02:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1694:01:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
1655:21:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
1621:20:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
1595:19:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
1555:18:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
1482:17:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
1441:and be done with it, but I
1422:17:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
1366:08:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
1336:15:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1303:05:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1275:04:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1170:01:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
1128:15:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1119:10:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1108:07:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1094:10:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1082:07:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1059:06:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
938:18:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
894:19:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
880:23:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
867:20:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
849:19:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
833:08:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
761:08:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
660:01:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
620:18:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
599:00:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
583:22:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
567:17:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
555:16:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
528:13:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
503:19:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
485:13:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
468:and most significantly the
450:08:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
417:03:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
408:12:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
375:10:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
361:08:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
329:08:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
305:04:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
291:03:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
279:03:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
257:02:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
244:01:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
227:01:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
214:21:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
80:01:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
2499:
1892:at all and policy is key.
1406:the speedy deletion policy
2365:is most definitely it. --
1957:guidelines = set in stone
1599:I also support extending
610:have survived the AFD. --
514:snowball's chance in hell
2479:Please do not modify it.
1984:"it is not set in stone"
1710:Please do not modify it.
1670:Please do not modify it.
1517:speedy deletion criteria
1186:Please do not modify it.
1146:Please do not modify it.
1048:Allegations of apartheid
1044:Allegations of apartheid
1036:Allegations of apartheid
1034:Article was merged into
954:Please do not modify it.
910:Please do not modify it.
676:Please do not modify it.
636:Please do not modify it.
478:award the closer a trout
96:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
2206:whihc I believe is the
1819:a reliable source? ---
778:notability requirements
655:– Deletion endorsed. –
480:for closing so early.
75:– Deletion endorsed. –
2476:of the article above.
2437:There is scope within
2383:"occaisonal exception"
1707:of the article above.
1667:of the article above.
1183:of the article above.
1143:of the article above.
951:of the article above.
907:of the article above.
673:of the article above.
633:of the article above.
489:Thanks for the trout.
93:of the article above.
1443:don't advise doing so
1376:, reopen, and relist.
1067:, while the redirect
298:endorse snow deletion
263:endorse snow deletion
237:Endorse snow deletion
2219:occasional exception
2017:, one of them being
1885:Endorse my deletion
1341:priori a bad idea.
772:after a very short
1561:included a mention
466:Republic of Hawaii
2486:
2485:
2181:Assume Good Faith
1677:
1676:
1526:intended to be a
1402:instruction creep
1153:
1152:
1050:. I am proposing
917:
916:
865:
827:page. Thank you.
756:Meets_notability
643:
642:
470:History of Hawaii
462:Kingdom of Hawaii
219:
218:
207:Kingdom of Hawaii
190:Kingdom of Hawaii
2490:
2481:
2423:Hemlock Martinis
2367:Hemlock Martinis
2295:Hemlock Martinis
2247:Endorse deletion
2239:Hemlock Martinis
2213:not set in stone
2130:Endorse Deletion
2081:
1999:Hemlock Martinis
1890:Reliable sources
1861:Hemlock Martinis
1777:
1763:
1745:
1712:
1679:
1672:
1608:
1602:
1593:
1589:
1586:
1572:
1566:
1535:
1529:
1514:
1508:
1504:
1498:
1480:
1476:
1473:
1440:
1434:
1362:
1360:
1358:
1356:
1354:
1331:
1326:
1320:
1241:
1227:
1226:
1188:
1155:
1148:
1079:
1021:
1007:
989:
956:
934:
919:
912:
861:
838:Endorse closure
770:
743:
729:
711:
678:
645:
638:
617:
604:Endorse deletion
588:Endorse deletion
499:
494:
446:
444:
442:
440:
438:
404:
402:
400:
398:
396:
357:
355:
353:
351:
349:
326:
275:
270:
176:
163:
149:
131:
98:
64:
53:
33:
2498:
2497:
2493:
2492:
2491:
2489:
2488:
2487:
2477:
2474:deletion review
2443:THE 9 on Yahoo!
2408:reliable source
2259:Endorse closure
2235:Endorse closure
2171:gorgan_almighty
2117:further comment
2077:
1786:
1780:
1773:
1772:
1766:
1736:
1722:Finger jousting
1720:
1708:
1705:deletion review
1686:Finger jousting
1668:
1665:deletion review
1606:
1600:
1587:
1584:
1570:
1564:
1533:
1527:
1512:
1506:
1502:
1496:
1474:
1471:
1438:
1432:
1352:
1350:
1348:
1346:
1344:
1329:
1324:
1318:
1315:deletion debate
1268:deletion policy
1250:
1244:
1237:
1236:
1230:
1200:
1196:
1184:
1181:deletion review
1144:
1141:deletion review
1077:
1030:
1024:
1017:
1016:
1010:
980:
964:
952:
949:deletion review
932:
908:
905:deletion review
855:Endorse closure
809:Melissa_Ferrick
786:deletion review
782:band notability
774:deletion review
768:
752:
746:
739:
738:
732:
702:
686:
674:
671:deletion review
634:
631:deletion review
615:
574:. Quoting from
497:
492:
436:
434:
432:
430:
428:
394:
392:
390:
388:
386:
347:
345:
343:
341:
339:
324:
313:, I understand
273:
268:
172:
166:
159:
158:
152:
122:
106:
94:
91:deletion review
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
2496:
2494:
2484:
2483:
2468:
2467:
2466:
2465:
2464:
2463:
2462:
2461:
2429:
2428:
2416:
2415:
2400:
2399:
2398:
2397:
2396:
2395:
2394:
2393:
2392:
2391:
2390:
2389:
2388:
2387:
2373:
2372:
2351:
2332:
2331:
2314:
2313:
2301:
2300:
2291:
2279:
2278:
2269:
2268:
2256:
2244:
2231:
2230:
2229:
2228:
2193:
2192:
2176:
2163:
2162:
2161:
2160:
2143:
2142:
2126:
2125:
2124:
2123:
2122:
2121:
2111:
2110:
2087:
2086:
2070:
2057:
2056:
2055:
2054:
2053:
2052:
2051:
2050:
2049:
2048:
2047:
2046:
2045:
2044:
2027:
2026:
2005:
2004:
1988:
1987:
1973:
1972:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1968:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1936:
1935:
1928:
1927:
1912:
1902:
1901:
1882:
1869:
1868:
1867:
1866:
1854:
1853:
1828:
1827:
1826:
1788:
1787:
1784:
1778:
1770:
1764:
1715:
1714:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1675:
1674:
1659:
1658:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1623:
1520:
1466:
1462:
1409:
1389:
1388:
1369:
1368:
1338:
1306:
1305:
1260:the discussion
1252:
1251:
1248:
1242:
1234:
1228:
1191:
1190:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1151:
1150:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1111:
1110:
1097:
1096:
1085:
1084:
1032:
1031:
1028:
1022:
1014:
1008:
959:
958:
943:
942:
941:
940:
915:
914:
899:
898:
897:
896:
882:
869:
844:an an option.
828:
825:
824:
822:
818:
816:
812:
806:
801:
799:
795:
793:
789:
754:
753:
750:
744:
736:
730:
688:Breaking_Laces
681:
680:
665:
664:
663:
662:
652:Breaking_Laces
641:
640:
625:
624:
623:
622:
601:
596:Carlossuarez46
585:
569:
557:
530:
507:
506:
505:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
363:
331:
307:
294:
293:
281:
259:
246:
217:
216:
181:
180:
174:
173:
170:
164:
156:
150:
101:
100:
85:
84:
83:
82:
61:
59:12 August 2007
56:
49:2007 August 13
47:
38:
35:2007 August 11
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2495:
2482:
2480:
2475:
2470:
2469:
2459:
2455:
2451:
2448:
2444:
2440:
2436:
2433:
2432:
2431:
2430:
2427:
2424:
2420:
2419:
2418:
2417:
2413:
2409:
2405:
2402:
2401:
2384:
2380:
2377:
2376:
2375:
2374:
2371:
2368:
2364:
2360:
2356:
2352:
2349:
2345:
2344:
2339:
2336:
2335:
2334:
2333:
2329:
2325:
2321:
2318:
2317:
2316:
2315:
2312:
2309:
2305:
2304:
2303:
2302:
2299:
2296:
2292:
2290:
2287:
2283:
2282:
2281:
2280:
2276:
2273:
2272:
2271:
2270:
2267:
2264:
2260:
2257:
2255:
2252:
2248:
2245:
2243:
2240:
2236:
2233:
2232:
2225:
2221:
2220:
2215:
2214:
2209:
2205:
2200:
2197:
2196:
2195:
2194:
2191:
2188:
2186:
2182:
2177:
2175:
2172:
2168:
2165:
2164:
2158:
2154:
2150:
2147:
2146:
2145:
2144:
2141:
2138:
2135:
2131:
2128:
2127:
2118:
2115:
2114:
2113:
2112:
2109:
2105:
2101:
2100:
2094:
2091:
2090:
2089:
2088:
2085:
2082:
2080:
2074:
2071:
2069:
2066:
2062:
2059:
2058:
2042:
2038:
2034:
2031:
2030:
2029:
2028:
2024:
2020:
2016:
2012:
2009:
2008:
2007:
2006:
2003:
2000:
1996:
1992:
1991:
1990:
1989:
1985:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1978:
1977:
1976:
1975:
1974:
1967:
1964:
1962:
1958:
1954:
1950:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1941:
1932:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1926:
1923:
1921:
1917:
1913:
1909:
1906:
1905:
1904:
1903:
1900:
1897:
1895:
1891:
1886:
1883:
1881:
1878:
1874:
1871:
1870:
1865:
1862:
1858:
1857:
1856:
1855:
1852:
1848:
1844:
1843:
1837:
1832:
1829:
1825:
1822:
1818:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1809:
1804:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1798:
1795:
1791:
1783:
1776:
1769:
1761:
1757:
1753:
1749:
1744:
1740:
1735:
1731:
1727:
1723:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1713:
1711:
1706:
1701:
1700:
1695:
1692:
1688:
1687:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1673:
1671:
1666:
1661:
1660:
1657:
1656:
1653:
1649:
1645:
1641:
1637:
1622:
1619:
1618:
1612:
1605:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1590:
1581:
1576:
1569:
1562:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1553:
1552:
1547:
1544:), mirroring
1543:
1539:
1532:
1525:
1521:
1518:
1511:
1501:
1494:
1490:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1477:
1467:
1463:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1437:
1430:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1420:
1419:
1414:
1410:
1407:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1390:
1386:
1382:
1377:
1375:
1371:
1370:
1367:
1364:
1363:
1339:
1337:
1334:
1332:
1323:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1307:
1304:
1301:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1283:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1247:
1240:
1233:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1199:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1189:
1187:
1182:
1177:
1176:
1171:
1168:
1164:
1163:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1149:
1147:
1142:
1137:
1136:
1129:
1126:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1117:
1113:
1112:
1109:
1106:
1102:
1099:
1098:
1095:
1092:
1087:
1086:
1083:
1080:
1075:
1070:
1066:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1027:
1020:
1013:
1005:
1001:
997:
993:
988:
984:
979:
975:
971:
967:
963:
962:
961:
960:
957:
955:
950:
945:
944:
939:
936:
935:
928:
927:
923:
922:
921:
920:
913:
911:
906:
901:
900:
895:
892:
891:
886:
883:
881:
878:
874:
870:
868:
864:
860:
856:
853:
852:
851:
850:
847:
843:
842:Relisting AFD
839:
835:
834:
831:
821:
815:
810:
805:
798:
792:
787:
783:
779:
775:
771:
766:
762:
759:
749:
742:
735:
727:
723:
719:
715:
710:
706:
701:
697:
693:
689:
685:
684:
683:
682:
679:
677:
672:
667:
666:
661:
658:
654:
653:
649:
648:
647:
646:
639:
637:
632:
627:
626:
621:
618:
613:
609:
605:
602:
600:
597:
593:
589:
586:
584:
581:
577:
576:Hawaii Nation
573:
570:
568:
565:
561:
558:
556:
553:
552:
548:
547:
542:
541:trout-slapped
538:
534:
531:
529:
525:
521:
520:
515:
511:
508:
504:
501:
500:
495:
488:
487:
486:
483:
479:
475:
471:
467:
463:
459:
451:
448:
447:
424:
420:
419:
418:
415:
411:
410:
409:
406:
405:
382:
379:It was about
378:
377:
376:
373:
370:
368:
367:Speedy relist
364:
362:
359:
358:
335:
332:
330:
327:
322:
318:
316:
312:
311:Speedy relist
308:
306:
303:
299:
296:
295:
292:
289:
285:
282:
280:
277:
276:
271:
264:
260:
258:
255:
251:
247:
245:
242:
238:
234:
231:
230:
229:
228:
225:
215:
212:
208:
203:
199:
195:
191:
187:
186:Hawaii Nation
183:
182:
178:
177:
169:
162:
155:
147:
143:
139:
135:
130:
126:
121:
117:
113:
109:
108:Hawaii Nation
105:
104:
103:
102:
99:
97:
92:
87:
86:
81:
78:
74:
72:
71:Hawaii Nation
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
2478:
2471:
2434:
2403:
2382:
2378:
2347:
2342:
2337:
2327:
2319:
2274:
2258:
2246:
2234:
2218:
2217:
2212:
2211:
2207:
2198:
2166:
2152:
2148:
2129:
2116:
2097:
2092:
2078:
2073:Keep deleted
2072:
2060:
2032:
2022:
2018:
2010:
1983:
1956:
1948:
1915:
1907:
1884:
1877:David Mestel
1872:
1840:
1835:
1830:
1802:
1789:
1709:
1702:
1684:
1669:
1662:
1647:
1633:
1617:Black Falcon
1615:
1579:
1551:Black Falcon
1549:
1523:
1488:
1458:
1450:
1418:Black Falcon
1416:
1373:
1372:
1343:
1253:
1185:
1178:
1160:
1145:
1138:
1100:
1068:
1064:
1051:
1039:
1033:
953:
946:
930:
924:
909:
902:
888:
884:
872:
854:
841:
837:
836:
819:
813:
802:
796:
790:
755:
675:
668:
650:
635:
628:
607:
603:
587:
572:keep deleted
571:
560:Keep deleted
559:
550:
545:
533:Weak endorse
532:
517:
510:Endorse snow
509:
490:
474:Keep deleted
473:
427:
385:
366:
365:
338:
333:
310:
309:
302:JereKrischel
297:
283:
266:
262:
236:
220:
201:
197:
193:
185:
95:
88:
69:
58:
594:on Hawaii.
261:As closer,
44:2007 August
1568:deprecated
1510:deprecated
2328:guideline
2275:Question?
2153:relisting
2079:Cyde Weys
1817:podme.org
1794:Guest9999
1652:MZMcBride
1648:thousands
1580:invective
1563:of it on
1451:feel free
1398:WP:CSD#G6
423:arbitrary
224:Mandsford
2308:Moreschi
2286:Moreschi
2251:Moreschi
2061:Overturn
1873:Overturn
1831:Overturn
1803:Overturn
1522:If this
1374:Overturn
1330:xaosflux
1322:rejected
1116:Cerejota
1091:Cerejota
1065:Overturn
1056:Cerejota
1052:overturn
859:Tony Fox
830:Darbyrob
758:Darbyrob
608:wouldn't
592:WP:SNOWs
250:snowball
20: |
2404:Also...
2338:Comment
2185:Jaranda
2149:Comment
2093:comment
2065:Irixman
2033:Comment
1961:Jaranda
1920:Jaranda
1914:AFD is
1908:Comment
1894:Jaranda
1821:RockMFR
1768:restore
1739:protect
1734:history
1455:CAT:CSD
1413:WP:PROD
1381:WP:NPOV
1232:restore
1211:history
1101:Comment
1012:restore
983:protect
978:history
885:Endorse
873:Endorse
780:. For
734:restore
705:protect
700:history
580:JoshuaZ
564:RockMFR
537:GRBerry
482:GRBerry
334:Endorse
315:WP:SNOW
209:. --
154:restore
125:protect
120:history
2224:WP:CON
2208:policy
2167:Relist
1953:WP:SPA
1743:delete
1636:WP:DOT
1611:WP:DOT
1575:WP:DOT
1546:WP:IFD
1493:WP:CSD
1429:WP:DOT
1394:WP:DOT
1385:WP:AFD
1311:WP:MFD
1295:WP:TFD
1291:WP:DRV
1287:WP:TFD
1282:WP:TFD
1280:Well,
1264:WP:DOT
1125:ChrisO
1105:ChrisO
987:delete
933:Kurykh
863:(arf!)
709:delete
498:larity
381:Hawaii
372:Arjuna
284:Relist
274:larity
129:delete
2447:Yahoo
2435:Reply
2412:WP:RS
2379:Reply
2326:is a
2324:WP:RS
2320:Reply
2204:WP:RS
2199:Reply
2157:WP:RS
2137:Corpx
2134:WP:RS
2041:WP:RS
2011:Reply
1995:WP:RS
1916:never
1775:cache
1760:views
1752:watch
1748:links
1691:Xoloz
1588:notes
1585:Grace
1475:notes
1472:Grace
1436:db-g6
1345:: -->
1300:Haemo
1239:cache
1219:watch
1215:links
1167:Xoloz
1078:desat
1019:cache
1004:views
996:watch
992:links
877:Haemo
846:Navou
804:such.
769:desat
741:cache
726:views
718:watch
714:links
657:Xoloz
616:desat
519:Farix
493:Singu
429:: -->
414:Corpx
387:: -->
340:: -->
325:desat
288:Corpx
269:Singu
254:Haemo
211:PiPhD
202:still
194:prior
161:cache
146:views
138:watch
134:links
77:Xoloz
52:: -->
16:<
2458:WLAC
2456:and
2439:WP:V
2357:and
2104:talk
1847:talk
1808:Nard
1756:logs
1730:talk
1726:edit
1604:prod
1531:prod
1500:prod
1489:that
1447:link
1361:<
1327:. —
1272:Nard
1223:logs
1207:talk
1203:edit
1074:Core
1000:logs
974:talk
970:edit
890:Will
765:Core
722:logs
696:talk
692:edit
612:Core
524:Talk
445:<
403:<
356:<
321:Core
241:Nard
198:some
142:logs
116:talk
112:edit
32:<
2350:. ]
2099:DGG
2025:. ]
1986:. ]
1842:DGG
1836:are
1782:AfD
1459:not
1383:or
1246:AfD
1026:AfD
748:AfD
551:ĘŹÉ‘É´
546:ɑʀк
239:. -
168:AfD
22:Log
2183:.
2106:)
2039:.
2021:-
1959:.
1849:)
1758:|
1754:|
1750:|
1746:|
1741:|
1737:|
1732:|
1728:|
1607:}}
1601:{{
1571:}}
1565:{{
1534:}}
1528:{{
1524:is
1513:}}
1507:{{
1503:}}
1497:{{
1439:}}
1433:{{
1325:}}
1319:{{
1298:--
1221:|
1217:|
1213:|
1209:|
1205:|
1069:is
1002:|
998:|
994:|
990:|
985:|
981:|
976:|
972:|
724:|
720:|
716:|
712:|
707:|
703:|
698:|
694:|
526:)
319:--
300:--
235:.
144:|
140:|
136:|
132:|
127:|
123:|
118:|
114:|
42::
2346:,
2227:]
2102:(
1845:(
1806:-
1785:)
1779:|
1771:|
1765:(
1762:)
1724:(
1592:§
1519:.
1479:§
1359:t
1357:n
1355:a
1353:i
1351:d
1349:a
1347:R
1249:)
1243:|
1235:|
1229:(
1225:)
1201:(
1029:)
1023:|
1015:|
1009:(
1006:)
968:(
871:'
751:)
745:|
737:|
731:(
728:)
690:(
522:(
443:t
441:n
439:a
437:i
435:d
433:a
431:R
401:t
399:n
397:a
395:i
393:d
391:a
389:R
354:t
352:n
350:a
348:i
346:d
344:a
342:R
171:)
165:|
157:|
151:(
148:)
110:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.