Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2007 August 13

1630:-based justification for deletion was, at best, very fuzzy and contentious, and so should have been left to the community instead of the closing admin. Editors have to evaluate whether a certain source is sufficient to deem X the father/mother of Y based on the credibility of the source and the strength of the claim. "Drexler is the father of nanotechnology because of his significant contributions" is debatable since figures like Feynman made significant and pertinent advancements before him. "Derrida is the father of deconstruction" is much more agreeable since he coined the term and is obviously most heavily associated with it. There are various criteria to consider - did the person coin the term used to describe the field? how significant were their contributions relative to others? did the person's contributions predate other significant contributions? It inevitably requires some editorial judgment, but that's not so much original research as simple judgment of well-sourced facts, and we can't really get around having to think for ourselves when editing. Editorial discretion can be minimized by establishing clear criteria on the talk page. At the very least, it's a very questionable NOR violation and thus not good grounds for overriding consensus. — 1874:- Why would a science-related list be any better than one that includes fathers of jazz or traffic systems? Isn't this just creating a more-focused synthesis? The point of a list is to group together things that have a quality in common. The commonality of this list is extremely tenuous, turning on a common phraseology, not to mention that being "first" in a field of study doesn't necessarily mean that that person is more noteworthy than their successors. Deleting this list doesn't lessen the significance of Albert Einstein's or Dmitri Mendeleev's contributions. But seeing their names side-by-side does not increase a reader's understanding of either man's contributions to their respective fields. Again, being "first" is not rally a defining characteristic, and the judgment by the AfD closer that the association amongst them was loose and common is a sound one. 3140:(New information that was not discussed in the original Afd is brought to light below.) This nomination for deletion was first made by one former user Ste4k who was subsequently permanently banned from Wiki for his divisive and disruptive behavior regarding the group of articles related to ACIM. This user made nominations for deletion for nearly every ACIM related article in the summer of 2006, intentionally using only partial and misleading logic in his nominations. He also attempted to have the main ACIM article essentially deleted by creating a rival POV fork article, and by placing numerous derogatory templates on the main ACIM article. By the time that his behavior pattern had become apparent to all, much damage had already been done, one of the casualties of his behavior being the deletion of the Kenneth Wapnick article. 1480:. I thank Sadi for pointing me towards this discussion. I find it outrageous that the vote was interpreted as delete. I always was under the assumption that when a few editors were in favor of keep then it was to be keep. A vote of 10 keep and 90 delete in my mind is still keep. This allows 10 enthusiastic science editors to defend a science article against 90 Startrek/Harry Potter/manchester United fans. I find this proceeding very disturbing and I will take action against the administrators in question. I find the list extremely intriguing and an excellent starting point for exploring wikipedia, in that sense lists like this one has a status similar to that of portals (or are we going to mass-delete portals next? portals are not very encyclopedic....) 813:– This is one of those discussions where the actual consensus is quite broad, contrary to what a reading of the "bold-facing" might suggest. Everyone agrees that some form of this article could exist; most folks agree that the deleted draft was non-optimal, and there is wide support for rewriting, splitting, and/or renaming the content. Essentially, the area of dispute is narrow: if the deletion is endorsed, the content will be userfied for folks to reconfigure; if it's overturned, the content will be restored to the mainspace for folks to reconfigure. In the long-term, this is a minor issue, and one fit for numbers to decide. A majority would like to see the content back in the mainspace, so it is 1050:. I also didn't notice this until it was deleted, and in a moment of weakness and outrage at the interpretation of the discussion, I tried to unilaterally undelete this out of process. Needless to say, process won out. There's a difference between weighing the force of difference arguments and simply choosing the one argument a closing admin thinks is the best; the latter is what happened here, and I don't think any close but "no consensus" would be legitimate. Furthermore, I find Carcharoth's argument (which the closing admin relied on) to be a twisting of policy. This page was not original research.-- 1932:- "176–208 pages. This unique 8-volume collection profiles the people behind the science. Each volume consists of 10 biographical sketches of pioneers in a particular scientific discipline, including information about their childhood, how they began their scientific career, their research, and enough scientific information for the reader to appreciate their discoveries and contributions....". Finding actual "lists of "father of" people" has been a bit harder, as reputable sources don't really do that sort of list. Maybe we could do something like 1584:. The closing admin made a bad call. There was no consensus in the AfD discussion, which is why he had to justify his "delete" decision at such length. I quite agree with the admin who restored, whether it were "in Process" or not—as the discussion was closed on the basis of admin discretion (a concept I heartily agree with), it can also be reopened on that basis. As such, I also support Carcharoth's suggestion that it be restored immediately onto a WikiProject subpage so that it might be edited in line with the suggestions which have been made. 1436:— did I miss where we started deleting potentially good articles instead of just fixing them? Several solutions were presented and ignored in the original AfD, such as sorting by topic (alphabetizing makes no sense whatsoever for this kind of list) and paring down entries with stronger inclusion criteria (which would presumably include there being more than one random source calling someone the father of something but rather a sourced good reason for the name). It seems like the latter directly addresses the closing admin's concern. — 2354:

article. We're judging the subject, not the title. the reason for not judging on this basis is of course, that everything on WP sounds silly to some of us, and we build the encyclopedia by accommodating us all. This was not a time to judge in the disregard of consensus. All encyclopedia articles are the collection of selected material, and sometimes it takes a knowledgable person to do the collecting. The majority of those at the Afd understood this. the closer did not. He judged by what arguments appealed to him, and said as much,

3296: 1198:. Cited sources have to actually be about the claim being made. That has always been the problem with this list--it uses sources to point to a turn of phrase, not an idea. I have no objection to Carcharoth's compromise as long as whatever claim the list makes is actually backed up by the sources. I have said many times that I am happy to provide the content to anyone interested in starting over with a different methodology, and I'm sure any other admin would as well. 176:. After I added a section to the content RfC, Mr. Berlet saw it and felt that it transformed the page into an attack. In retrospect, the name and tone of the section was a error on my part, that I truly regret. For that, I formally apologize to Mr. Berlet for any anguish he may have suffered as a result of this mistake. I am requesting that the page be recreated without the disputed part to allow discussion on the improvement of the LaRouche articles to continue. 1572:

be resurrected despite it being an unmaintainable mess: so many people have been called the father or mother of something by so many people that many things have more mothers and fathers than would be biologically possible for living organisms. It's very little different than a "bests" list - best beaches, best flavors of ice cream, best left-handed tiddlywinks players from Springfield.... As we're counting score here: Process N+1, Results 0.

1372:(which I hadn't seen) of the article and there are 221 references and the closing comment was “list as it stands is essentially original research”? Are you kidding me? These terms are common trivia questions (basic human knowledge); there’s hardly anything original about this. How can an article with over 200 (different) references be deleted as original research? We need to overturn this article deletion. -- 3579:

of most of Wapnick's books (except for the most important one, ACIM) exclusively by the FIP, while I will admit that this might in some way detract from the impact of this, it still does nothing to detract from the other two points, each of which seem to me to be capable of standing on their own to justify the inclusion of an article on Wapnick. Could you please address the other two points? -

3541:

with information on him (per Google). Why should Knowledge (XXG) be silent on this man when there is a clear and obvious thirst for information about him as evidenced by the thousands of Google links to his name? Is it Knowledge (XXG)'s aim to be a withholder of easily accessed encyclopedic information that is frequently sought on the Internet, or a provider of it? -

1600:

comments are totally out of line with policy/guideline. None of that was the case here. However, the article needs lots of work. It needs a better name and stricter inclusion criteria. I would suggest that only people referred to as "father" or "mother" by multiple sources independent of eachother and the person or by a major scientific journal be included.

998:“father of information theory”. I wasn’t a main editor on this article, but can’t believe it was even considered for deletion (a vote that I didn’t know about). Science editors are going to be the ones who know the importance of these terms and this article. Simply because the article didn't have enough references is no reason to close as delete. -- 2855:, while the nominator is right about most of the keep arguments having little weight, a "redirect" outcome in an AFD does not result in deletion of the page history, which sort of makes it like a "keep" outcome. If the arguments to delete are just as strong as those to redirect, there is no consensus. If all else fails, propose a merge instead. -- 2259:

faith, and that a formal DRV is not required for this. No amount of opposition will change that. I agree with you that the current format is not viable, but where I disagree with you is the idea that "delete at all costs" is the correct solution. There is useful content there (mainly the references) that could enhance other articles.

1964:. These are all more informative than a "father of" list, so I'm now thinking that restoration should only be to retrieve the references and to move them to the relevant timelines. It takes time to work out what needs to be done with some material, which is why I find drive-by AfD and DRV voting so annoying. Discussion really 3173:

deleted at the request of the now banned Ste4k. I would very much appreciate it if you could please either reinstate this article or at least give a good reason why the author of 130 books, who pulls 32,000 Google hits, and the editor of a significant spiritual classic is viewed as 'unnotable' by Knowledge (XXG) standards.

3303: 1789:- closing admin is completely correct in the reasoning for the close. Policy concerns raised by those in favor of deletion were not adequately addressed by the keepers and the arguments raised on both sides were properly addressed in the closing statement. As has been noted, AFD is not a vote so the fact that 3205:

Miracles. People of much less note have been given Knowledge (XXG) articles. Lastly, I think it should be remembered that the Wapnick article was deleted in a deletion frenzy of all ACIM-related articles. That frenzy was led by an editor who has since been discovered to have had a great anti-ACIM bias. --

3166:

These three facts alone seem to me to warrant the inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) of an article on Dr. Wapnick. It appears to me that user Ste4k may have intentionally omitted these three facts from his nomination, and that subsequent contributors to the Afd discussion may have not been thorough enough

2874:

I must respectfully say it's ludicrous to suggest that redirect/merge and delete are materially different. I think everyone who advocates delete here would have no problem with her name leading to the VTech victims page; it's the unnecessary article that is opposed. To have this fail on the basis you

2258:

How can you say that when you haven't seen the new articles? There is a presumption at DRV that useful content can be restored to user space for editors to work on and to improve. There are numerous admins who make quite clear that they will undelete and userfy material if someone requests it in good

2200:

and merging this “father-mother” list to random timelines isn’t going to help anything. There’s a big difference between being called the “father of something” vs. being a component in a timeline as a pioneer. My consensus, aside from your view, is that most editors want to re-open the article, but

1558:

as it should have been closed as "No consensus". I also suggest that it be renamed and focus on science and technology. However I do not agree with the comment "This page was a very core article in the science articles". It is just a list of rather unrelated items. The key use of "father of X" should

1262:

AFD is not a vote, so the numbers are of limited significance. They are not irrelevant, because the weight of agreement is relevant to consensus. But there are policy based arguments that would override any contrary consensus (the canonical example is a copyright violation). The closer didn't do a

3578:

than merit. I felt that user Ste4k was banned because he acted in bad faith, attempting to essentially censor out all information about ACIM from Wiki, and I remain uncertain as to where the line between his clearly censorious activities ends and where common sense begins. Regarding the publishing

1571:

although WP is not a court of law, process seems to be trumping what's right, so a good wikilawyer would point out that the only reason to overturn cited was the vote outcome and since AFD is not a vote, the review is procedurally flawed. But I'm not a wikilawyer, and it looks like this article will

1159:

as good examples of featured lists have convinced me that some form of list for science and technology pioneers and inventors is needed. This list would be a good start, though I still think some better criteria than "father of" could be found. Suggest restoring a copy of the article(s) to a subpage

1007:

I agree here, with a point that science editors should have kept the other stuff out, and moved it to a more tightly focused title. This title was always going to get out of control. About the canvassing, you have been saying "please help us restore". If you are going to leave notes like that, it is

3540:

I still do not see you providing any comprehensive rationale for censoring out an article on a primary editor of a book which has sold 1.5 million +, and which has been published by Penguin Press and others, or your rationale for censoring out an article on someone who already has over 30,000 sites

3419:

Would you have an article on a notable subject squelched or jeopardized simply because you may feel that someone who is now banned, may have been a better manipulator of Wiki protocols than the rest of us for a time, (that is until he was finally stopped) or is it because you actually feel that the

3318:

Also, as I was the originator of that article, it only seems right that I should have at least been notified that an Afd discussion was going on regarding that article. None of the regular editors of that article were notified of the Afd, or given any chance to participate in that Afd. As none of

2966:

is not a policy, and I think several parts of the essay are poorly reasoned. In any case, I think a neutral reader would disagree with Pablosecca on which arguments fell under arguments to avoid. By the numbers, there was no consensus. By the arguments, Sandstein was the third consecutive closer to

2905:

for the reason why. My treatment of the matter was not superficial. My statement that a discussion of individual arguments is not worth the time referred to the fact that entering into a post-AfD dispute about whether each and every one of the several dozen arguments ought to have been dismissed or

2154:

is far too long a title to be readily comprehensible, and the 'miscellaneous' one is bad as I don't think miscellaneous should be used as a qualifier in Knowledge (XXG) article (or list) titles. My favoured solution is still to restore the information somewhere outside of article space, and to work

1248:

to see that “parentage” is a major issue in science. This is one of many examples to justify a central page on “fathers” or “mothers” of something. As to sources, I am always willing to add references (10-40 in some cases) to someone who questions the validity of a science article and will gladly

1108:. This is a difficult one. While the sheer numbers say keep, the arguments are largely both the same as one another and specious. I recall looking over this at the time and being very unsure. The delete arguments are generally more convincing, and numbers aren't the be-all and end-all of consensus. 3393:

Thanks for retracting your position on "speedy close". True, we could just start another article, however without a clear-cut outcome from a review here, would it not tempt anyone who might want to follow Ste4k's footsteps (perhaps one of Ste4k's meat-puppets who might still be around) to use the

2091:

has three founders. In this manner, the reader can see and compare the people and references side-by-side. The way the current article is, we have two or more listings for “father of chemistry”, “father of scientific method”, etc., but the reader doesn’t know this unless he or she plays the game

1599:

While AFD is not a vote, there was no consensus. Both sides presented many arguments, both strong and weak. For this to be a "delete", more than half of the "keep" opinions would have had to be entirely discounted. That should only be done if the comments are by SPAs/sockpuppets/meatpuppets or the

1518:

Had I voted in the AfD I would have recommended deletion based on a rationale similar to the closing admin's comments (the list is a catalogue of individuals that have nothing in common other than some source that claims that said individual was a founder of anything). I don't like the canvassing,

1489:

Your view of Knowledge (XXG) consensus is quite out-of-line with standard practice...the numbers are secondary to the arguments presented and admins are given a few degrees of freedom to interpret arguments and weigh policy considerations. The rest of your comment is just a muddled pile of logical

1059:

My distinction, which I should have made clearer, was that you will easily find tightly focused lists of "Father of Topic X", but you will rarely (if ever) find a published, reputable list that attempts to lump all the lists together. My comment, if I'd paid attention, would probably have become a

3350:

I don't see any evidence that anything was done properly in the AFD; the article was tagged appropriately. It is good faith to notify the creator of an article of an AFD, but it's not required. I'm still endorsing the original deletion; there's nothing to stop you from just creating a new article

3269:

First of all, it should also be noted that Ste4k was not blocked for disrupting AFDs; she was blocked for exhausting community patience, meatpuppetry, and incivility stemming from various topics, not just ACIM. Regarding your question, the closing admin of the AFD found that Ste4k's concerns were

3023:– Deletion endorsed. This result is without prejudice to a reliably-sourced article, or a mention of the gentleman elsewhere as appropriate, again employing sources. As the deleted article stood, there was little useful sourced content. Opinions of SPAs below discounted, per deletion policy. – 2930:

I don't see an argument for deletion from overriding policy, either myself, made in AFD4, or made in the nomination here. Without such an argument, the issue is whether there is a consensus for deletion or not. To avoid the problem of asking the other parent, recent prior discussions have to be

2353:

The closing admin did a very poor job of evaluating the arguments, if he was going to use his discretion to judge what arguments were policy based. Essentially every one of them was some version of THISSOUNDSSILLYTOME. I would have thought so too, if I had not looked at the actual contents of the

2221:

informative than a rather pedantic "father of" list. The "father of" list loses the vital context of dates, which a timeline would provide. The basic idea would be to give approximate dates, with sources, for when the different science disciplines began to emerge. The extra context and discussion

3172:

While the old article may need some work to bring it up to the newer, stricter standards of documentation for Knowledge (XXG) articles that seemed to evolve in the summer of 2006, but I don't feel that the need for improvement in documentation should have been suitable reason to have the article

1523:

wasn't good, either...That said, I'm classifying my endorsement as "weak" because "no consensus" would have been an understadable close. Plus, I think there's a tiny chance that some of the suggestions in the AfD & this DRV might address the major concerns raised in the deltion discussion. —

3158:

The fact that Dr. Wapnick is one of the three primary editors of ACIM (a book that has sold over 1.5 million copies and a book that is considered by many to be a spiritual classic.) While Afd discussion contributor Andrew Parodi noted this, this fact was seen as "non-notable" for some unstated

4027:

article, was completely written from scratch and had excellent references, links and was neutrally written. Also had under construction tag, stating it was in progress and requesting NOT to be speedily deleted. Also the activity is well documented (google returns over 6 million hits & see

1298:

Honestly, I haven’t seen this article in a few months, so I can’t remember what the references looked like (and I barely edited it, but a few times); but the fact that we’re even have a “references needed” discussion for an obvious topic of historical value clarifies that this entire deletion

3204:

been seen is that ACIM is an important spiritual movement (hence the encyclopedia article), and Ken is perhaps THE most important teacher in the movement. Additionally, Ken was one of the central figures in the court case that resulted in the overturning of an early manuscript of A Course In

171:

I am filing this DRV because no one has responded to my objections about deletion. This page was a content RfC relating to the LaRouche articles on Knowledge (XXG). Prior to its creation, conduct RfCs on Mr. Chip Berlet and Mr. Dennis King were filed. They were deleted as abuse of process by

1680:

Obviously the criteria would be stricter this time round, with the title changed to focus on scientists and inventors. And not just any old newspaper or website, but a reputable biography, obituary, journal, or (best) a book on the history of science. If such lists are not allowed, then

3256:

Cordesat, could you please address these points of his prolific authorship, his major involvement in what many third parties consider to be a spiritual classic, and the presence of thousands of other articles on the net about him? Why do you feel that these factors are unnotable?

3512:

Scott's arguments are rather persuasive.... if 130 books does not make one notable or worthy of a Knowledge (XXG) article, nor being one of the co-editors of the one of the best selling spiritual books of the 20th century... then something is seriously wrong with Knowledge (XXG).

623:

If the myDataBus page is going to remain deleted despite my third party sources, then I would respectfully ask that the advertisement-tinged Knowledge (XXG) entries I listed above be considered for deletion as well. I am not asking for favoritism here, just an even playing field.

2504:

Improper speedy deletion. This was deleted in February as a PROD. It was recreated by original creator with substantionally the same content on August 12, which seems to me to be the same as contesting the PROD after closure. It was then tagged as "db-bio". I removed the tag and

1806:(or about 'saving' articles), but are about whether an article is salvageable, and whether any new information has come to light. Undeletion and userfication, or in this case restoring to a group of users, would precede such rewriting. I belive this addresses all your concerns. 3619:. Personally, I think the subject may be notable due to the huge success of the book, as Sethie points out, but I'm concerned there may not be sufficient independent sources to actually write a biography. If we can find the sources then we shold probably have the article. 2201:

have it cleaned of trivial views and such. As for the name, my suggestions may not be perfect (we might just as well keep it the same name) but your suggestions are basically names to merge the list into some kind of history article (but this has already been done). --

1220:, which does not actually claim that Atanassoff would better be given the title of "father of computer" than any of the various other people, but merely uses the phrase in eulogizing him. One thing that would greatly help is to organize the list by topic, not by name. 3658:

Kenneth Wapnick is encyclopedia noteworthy as a consequence of his primary-teacher status for a multi-continent multi-language multi-decade spiritual movement, documented by number of books he's written/sold and number of webpages that include his name ("Internet

74:– Deletion endorsed. No evidence given to contradict the consensus at WP:AN/I (which has the authority to delete bizarre out-of-process pages, especially in relation to a topic so frequently under ArbCom enforcement, as all dispute regarding Mr. LaRouche are.) – 2884:

The important difference merge and delete is the if content from one article is merged into another, the GFDL requires that edit history of the merged content be kept. Deleting an article also deletes its edit history. "Merge and delete" cannot be done together.

1849:

Sorry, I forgot to mention that the article would be renamed. I agree that "father of" is not workable, but I do think that the information carefully placed on this list could be migrated to the various timeline articles. DRV is not just about restoring article

3637:. it is quite clear that there was no consensus. Undoubtedly some of the many overlapping articles in this walled garden should be deleted or merged, but it is reasonable that a principal author of the principal book would be one of those that should remain. 929:; and closed as “delete”? (what math am I missing here?). This page was a very core article in the science articles. This was one of the most ridiculous vfd’s I have seen. I will bring this issue to the science talk pages to get concerned editors involved. 913: 3420:

facts regarding Wapnick are genuinely unnoteworthy? After reviewing the documentation that you asked for, and that I feel supports the noteworthiness of Wapnick, how noteworthy (or unnoteworthy) do you actually feel the subject of Kenneth Wapnick is now?

1335:

Oh, you won't have to look far to find lots of science and technology "father and mother of" lists. That has been done before. And actually, most good sources will mention why xyz is considered father/mother of in the same breath as stating it. It is the

576:, without prejudice to letting an AfD test its notability. It did have a somewhat promotional tone, but I wouldn't classify it as "blatant advertising." The claims were, for the most part, factual. An {{ad}} tag would be more appropriate in my opinion. — 1164:), to allow a science-based list to be extracted from this. This will make more sense than lumping together things such as baby carrot, grunge, microcarrot, wargaming, the American political cartoon, and the other similar entries. If it would be easier, 2337:- Consensus was not followed, and the closing administrator's logic was not convincing enough to outweigh consensus. AFD is not a vote, but we say that to avoid meatpuppetry and people with bad policy arguments. But the policy arguments were sound. 1467:

AfD Part II. That the nominator does not like the AfD result is not a reason to overturn an article deletion. The AfD closer judges the weight of the argument and considers the applicable Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines; it is not a vote.

1424:. While good arguments for deletion in the debate, it is absolutely clear that there is no consensus for deletion from this discussion. I agree with others that this article does need attention and I like some of the suggestions for renaming it. - 3394:

first Afd nomination discussion as convincing proof that a speedy article deletion was in order in a second Afd nomination? Which takes precedence here? Is it the actual noteworthiness of Dr. Kenneth Wapnick or is it Knowledge (XXG) protocols?

942:. I have no opinion on the article in question, but the closing admin's explanation for his close as he did is quite well reasoned. AfD is not a vote, so 14-11 is meaningless if the keep !votes don't provide adequate reasoning. And note that 3319:

us were consulted as is normally the Wiki practice, it seems to me that this becomes a proper forum to discuss the opposing views whose proponents were not informed of the Afd, and thereby who were not permitted to be heard in the original Afd.

682:

Well, we're not supposed to be a web directory. There's a plethora of file hosting services and I fail to see what's so significantly different about them that we should have articles on them all, as opposed to a simple list in a main article.

1891:. I now admit that "father of" is probably not workable, but the argument here is that there are a lot of potentially useful sources and references that could be examined and moved to a different location. That is not an unreasonable request. 670:

Radiant, are you sure you read the article? Why delete a thorough, descriptive article when we can just tone down the somewhat promotional language slightly while preserving the factual content that no one would want to reproduce otherwise? —

3573:

grounds". In my view, I can see no other reason for refusing to include an article in Knowledge (XXG) on one of the primary editors of what others have described as one of the "spiritual classics of the 21st century," other than for reasons

3167:

in their review of the Afd discussion to have uncovered these very notable and relevant facts. Unfortunately, some of the regular contributors to the ACIM article group were not brought into or made aware of this Afd until it was too late.

4083:

If you look, you would actually find that another person took all information in that revision from Voluntary sleep deprivation. This was NOT taken from all-nighter, look at the date stamp. This administrator seems to "dislike" the topic.

1984:. There was no consensus to delete the article. The OR/synthesis argument is a weak one, in my view. What original position was advanced in the article? What is the synthesis here? There is none. I think a good argument revolving around 772:

as is often the case, after deletion more information is posited for keeping - restore to author's user space so s/he can get it ready for prime time and then move it to mainspace, it doesn't belong there in its most recent condition.

1831:

change in the course of this AFD or in the few weeks between the improper failure to delete this article and this DRV. The article is not salvageable because there is no way that it will ever be restricted to "only times that someone

2781: 2793: 2509:

my reasoning to the tagger. The tagger retagged it and it was deleted as an A7. The claim that the subject is a voice actress in a nationally televised animated show is an assertion of notability. This should be kept or go to AfD.

1925: 2838: 2799: 1029:

Yes, I agree about being objective, and tight focus, etc., but similar to ragesoss, I can’t even believe this is happening. Someone sneaks an historical article vfd through the nets because an article lacks a few references?

870: 865: 551:

contained long lists of features and was primarily sourced from the company's own website. On the other hand two independent sources were linked so an AfD wouldn't be unreasonable (though I would still argue for deletion).

2931:

evaluated in determining consensus. Looking at this, plus the history, makes it clear that there is not a consensus for deletion, either in AFD4 on its own or on AFD4+AFD3 or on ... nope, no consensus for deletion exists.

874: 1689:

need to be revised, as both talk about Knowledge (XXG) editors using such criteria to keep out trivial stuff, while also using such criteria to produce a focused list (be it a whole article or a subsection of an article).

4028:

references). If we delete things that people do not approve of, then this great project would be useless. These reasons aside, the csd summary was completely false anyway (was not at all a redirect). Please, undelete! --

2197: 899: 857: 3588:

Your repeated bad faith attempts at claiming that anybody who disgarees with you is a censor does not convince me that I should continue this discussion. I have said what I have said. The books are self-published.

2967:

conclude that there was no trump card. I would give more weight to the numbers than to the closer's analysis in this case absent a clear policy violation, but either way I think it's a fair no consensus closure. —

2277:

and organise by topic splitting if appropriate. The page is interesting, encyclopedic and mostly sourced. I don't see a clear consensus for deletion. This is an instance where we fix and improve rather than dump.

1988:

was made, but even that was challenged (perhaps best by Haemo: "the concept of being the 'father/mother of something' is a noteworthy one, and an important attribute of a number of historical figures"). —

2824:

admin does "not think a discussion of individual arguments is worth the time," an attitude that resulted in a superficial treatment of the discussion; on numbers, not merits. Process was not followed.

3200:

shot to #2 on Amazon.com's sales list, and this book lists Wapnick as ACIM's most important teacher, predicting that he will be an important figure in world history. That has yet to be seen, but what

3694:

closed validly, none of the books and google link totals provided above account for notability. I myself get close to that many google hits. Ghits != notability. Self published books != notability.

2292:

I think Otto put it best. AfD is not a vote, and the issues with synthesis have not been addressed, specifically compiling many dozen passing mentions of a term into a single set of information. (

1836:

calls somebody the father of something" and no new information has come to light. I believe this answers your attempt to address my concerns by illustrating that you did not in fact allay them.

308:- I wouldn't have a problem with the page being undeleted, so long as it were userfied. If it's delisted, it shouldn't be in any namespace other than your own, and only as a sort of notebook. 4258:, while containing some similar content, thoroughly cited that content from outside sources, eliminating this criticism. Therefore the arguments from the All-nighter AfD do not apply here. -- 3196:

page there is a reference to ACIM being the most obvious choice for a single volume book for the New Age movement. Many people consider Ken Wapnick the most important ACIM teacher. The book

1545:

search for "father of" and "science", brought up some interesting results. I still think that if this is restricted to science and technology, there is potentially a very good article here.

861: 2003:

major Deja Vu. Keep !votes weren't policy-based or, IMO, convincing. Admin discretion seemed reasonable. Perhaps add a comment for "allow the possiblity of a better article in the future?"

2576:

and probably send to AfD. There is no point in putting back a speedy after a good faith removal--it should have been sent to afd directly, it there is anything like a reasonable argument.

2769: 4139:

The part about "sleep deprivation" was sourced, because those sources were copy/pasted from our actual article on that. The rest of it was not encyclopedic. Fork articles aren't useful.

2146:

Would you mind removing me from the list supporting the split you have proposed? I would support the information being used in a heavily annotated paragraph-style list-article, such as

449:

This page was deleted as advertising, despite the fact that it was modeled after similar Knowledge (XXG) entries for a variety of other free file storing / hosting / service websites:

1724:. Radiant, would you say that as titled, this is an example of an over-extensive list, and would you say that narrowing the focus would address both this concern and the OR concerns? 3730:

but was also directly related to Helen Shuchman and William Thetford (the scribes). He's a major player who played a major role in editing, publishing, translating and teaching the

3611:

If new information is available that touches on the notability of the subject then we should review the decision to delete the article. I see we do have articles on his co-authors,

1452: 853: 809: 218:

That was spawned by one section which can and should be stricken. Barring the success of this review in overturning the deletion, would I then be allowed to reinitiate the RfC?

986:

and two science admins. For those of us who read science books at a great rate, there are full chapters and sections written on who is the father or mother of something, e.g.

564:

with no prejudice re: listing at AfD. It's not written in an unsalvageably promotional way, and seems to have some claim to notability with the links to third party reviews. --

2184:

wants to move all the information to timelines. There’s already plenty of science/technology pioneers timelines. I’ve worked on or completely written several timelines,

3115: 3861:

contains a significant amount of material on Wapnick, in fact enough in and of itself to permit a decent article, and I am convinced that other sources could be found.

3718:

I don't understand why there is even any need for a debate about this subject. Wapnick is on the executive board of both the Foundation of Inner Peace and Foundation of

2943:

A reasonable close. There simply is no consensus. (And the press coverage continues, so I think there will be less and less reason to try to delete it in the future).

232:, this appears to be an attack page rather than an actual RFC. Also, objections to deletion should be brought here, to DRV, rather than wherever else you had in mind. 2495: 1271:

secondary sources about being the father/mother of something (rather than primary sources that use the phrase in describing their topic). This is the argument that

1064:

into more tightly-focused lists. But I lost track of that debate and when I returned, it had been closed. I will gladly help build up a science and technology list.

3971: 3966: 3155:

A Google search for "Kenneth Wapnick" brings up 32,900 links. Apparently the rest of the Internet community feels he is notable enough to write extensively about.

48: 34: 3975: 3801:

per cordesaat's above threat to speedy the page if recreated, I have created a page we can work on and discuss to try and adress some of his and others concerns.

4062: 2775: 760:

to become encyclopedic." There was actually legitimate data in this article, and deleting the ad-like sections would have been a more suitable course of action.

1151:- I commented on the original AfD, and I see my comment may have influenced the close. I've now been reviewing the original AfD, and the arguments pointing at 2981:. As this AfD showed, and as the ones before it showed, there is no consensus on the matter. Monthly/bi-monthly renominations are not likely to change that. — 535:. Many of the sites online don't appear to be reliable, or sound spammy enough that it appears that there is some sort of conflict of interest. However, I say 4000: 3958: 2032: 119: 114: 43: 1506:

Yeah, we have admins arguing among themselves over this and at the same time admins are of course infallable. Wiki is in much more trouble than I thought.

1123:

I'll endorse this. The AFD is a discussion, and not voting. When I close an AFD, I will sometimes discount, or assign less weight to certain arguments.

123: 4342:- Thankyou! When it is restored, you will notice a couple of non-referenced patches - but mostly well referenced and it did have an in-construction tag -- 2787: 1161: 971: 3755: 2726: 2721: 2047:“father of yellow school bus”). Moreover, many subjects in science have more than one un-disputed “father or founder”, see (Google search results for): 3918:– Deletion endorsed of an article that is substantially a recreation of deleted content, with the exception of references taken from a third article. – 2325:- AfD is not a vote, and neither is DRV. It seems awfully presumptuous to plan this as if the DRV is going to result in a overturn because of a tally. 4014: 2151: 2025: 2730: 148: 110: 1733:

Hm, let me think on that for a bit. My first impression is that it is "unrelated subjects with related names" (or in this case, titles) as stated on

162: 3556:

are not about "censorship", and I will kindly ask you to retract that bad faith accusation. And please address the self-publishing of the books.

1168:, restore, edit out the non-science and non-technology ones (putting them on a new list somewhere on a talk page), and move to a better title (eg. 2755: 2713: 1463:

of sources that use similar terminology to describe a notable person in a field of study. Not that that's really relevant, as deletion review is

1389: 4069:. They are substantially identical, and the original research about why people supposedly do "voluntary sleep deprivations" remains unsourced. 39: 3457:

as I feel that this is more appropriate in light of the discussion of the previously undiscussed points of information regarding Wapnick.

2523:

if there was, indeed, a claim that the subject is a voice actress in a 'major' TV show (unless it was a one-off), then A7 was not valid.

4175:

if the information was taken from another article without attribution, then it's a copyright violation, and should have been speedied.

3072: 3067: 1941: 3759: 2820:, etc), there are still twice as many opinions advocating either delete or redirect. Further, admin's treatment was superficial; admin 1777:. There was no consensus to delete, and the problems with the article can be fixed by editing, renaming, or splitting, not deleting. -- 272:

No, what I mean is that you should bring the LaRouche pages (that you wish undeleted) up for review here. This meta-page isn't useful.

3076: 2164: 2160: 1961: 1957: 1888: 1884: 2222:(from secondary sources) of what "father of" means in different cases, would tell the reader far more than a simple list ever would. 975: 539:(without access to the original page) - was probably not insalvageably spammy, and author should have a chance to give more sources. 440: 3873: 3834: 3620: 2452: 2447: 3101: 3059: 2456: 1907:

sources for a science focused list. If there are such sources, then an article/list constructed using them would not suffer the

1542: 1275:

made and that the closing admin closed on. In other words, the deletion was based on an argument from overriding policy. So we

1451:- Sweet Jesus on a Pogo Stick, how many times is this oddball article going to keep coming back from the dead? I called for a 983: 979: 21: 520: 590:, it was blatant advertising. No prejudice against writing an actual article here, but undeletion is not going to help there. 4328: 2631:

without prejudice to listing on AfD - I'm convinced by Dsmdgold's summary of events that the speedy deletion was improper. —

2481: 2439: 1612: 1392:. In Bevan Ott and Julian Goates 2000 textbook Chemical Thermodynamics: Principles and Applications, for example, we find: “ 1169: 728: 263:

This was never meant to be an attack page. As per the undelete policy I have tried to bring this up with the deleting admin.

2245:

is going to be accepted and to the proposed new articles, which would suffer from all of the same problems as the original.

1721: 1717: 2171:? That could show when each discipline is thought to have emerged, and would be a natural home for "father of" references. 3877: 3838: 1945: 1883:

In science, priority (being the first to discover something) is most definitely a defining characteristic. Have a look at

397: 392: 3675:

as being a promotional article that would require a complete rewrite to fix. G11 did not exist at the time of the AFD. --

634: 2189: 2147: 1933: 1349: 1152: 401: 4357: 3937: 3893: 3038: 2998: 2692: 2648: 2418: 2376: 1089:

deletion. Closing admin correctly interpreted the strength of the arguments and not just the number of the arguments.

836: 788: 363: 323: 89: 17: 4317: 4255: 4219: 3962: 3954: 3914: 2717: 1626:- With due respect to Chick Bowen, I think his preferencing of arguments was somewhat arbitrary and out of place. The 1156: 633:

Do note that I said "without prejudice". The other advertisements are already under consideration for deletion. Also,

2211: 2168: 1915:

problem that the unbounded list had. The same would be true for any other topic where there are secondary sources.

3751: 2841:

that is at issue here. That AfD, FWIW, provides a decent recaptiulation of the procedural history of the article.

3197: 1953: 717: 426: 384: 3738:, Helen Shuchman, and William Thetford, which it does, then there's no excuse not to have one on Kenneth Wapnick. 2305: 1263:

great job of articulating what policy based reason for deletion he was citing. However, one overriding policy is

2193: 3853:

Ghits and self-published books are not indicators of notability. However, substantial coverage in independent,

3747: 3739: 4218:

While much of the text is very similar, the concern in the All-nighter AfD regarding OR were addressed in the

1348:

discussion of the concept of father/mother - that would be for a different article altogether (something like

106: 70: 3806: 3309:

Wapnicks major involvement with what many third parties consider to be a spiritual classic: Please read the

2088: 1405: 1267:. In the years of this article's existence, and the 221 different footnotes, we see, as far as I can tell, 2813: 1802:

Consensus can change, and articles can be rewritten and improved. Also, AfD and DRV are not about deletion

3527:. Those "books" are published by "Foundation for a Course in Miracles", making them all self-published. 2709: 2669: 1440: 2607:

send straight to afd, the assertion of notability is on the weak side but that can be hashed out at afd.

1559:

be on the article on "X" and even there it is overdone in some cases. "Founder" is a much better term. --

4346: 4343: 4332: 4304: 4295: 4262: 4241: 4210: 4191: 4188: 4179: 4163: 4134: 4122: 4088: 4085: 4073: 4045: 4042: 4032: 4029: 3926: 3882: 3869: 3843: 3830: 3812: 3794: 3742: 3708: 3684: 3663: 3648: 3629: 3626: 3593: 3583: 3560: 3545: 3531: 3517: 3489: 3368: 3329: 3283: 3261: 3247: 3219: 3182: 3128: 3027: 2987: 2973: 2954: 2935: 2922: 2910: 2889: 2879: 2864: 2845: 2828: 2681: 2637: 2623: 2611: 2599: 2587: 2568: 2532: 2514: 2443: 2407: 2365: 2345: 2342: 2329: 2317: 2282: 2263: 2249: 2226: 2205: 2185: 2175: 2156: 2155:

to move the references to a timeline article where the "father of" references would be very useful. See

2141: 2096: 2048: 2007: 1995: 1972: 1949: 1919: 1895: 1878: 1858: 1840: 1810: 1797: 1781: 1761: 1728: 1711: 1694: 1675: 1636: 1618: 1591: 1576: 1563: 1549: 1533: 1529: 1510: 1499: 1495: 1484: 1472: 1443: 1428: 1412: 1376: 1356: 1324: 1307: 1287: 1253: 1224: 1211: 1202: 1188: 1176: 1143: 1127: 1117: 1100: 1077: 1068: 1054: 1034: 1012: 1002: 958: 933: 825: 777: 764: 732: 707: 677: 661: 628: 614: 582: 568: 556: 543: 540: 526: 352: 312: 309: 296: 267: 256: 222: 211: 189: 78: 3671:

I have restored the article history behind a tag. If restored, it should be speedily deleted again per

2817: 2620: 2137:

suggests that it be reopened into a Wikiproject subpage to begin working on some of these proposals. --

1283:. So it should not be userfied until and unless such secondary sources are found for a topical area. 4205: 2293: 1408:.” Now, for students of chemical thermodynamics, there is great meaning in sentences such as this. -- 1095: 483: 3660: 3193: 3063: 2067:(currently listed in the article). To solve this, we could put the subject in the left column, e.g. 1937: 1588: 3770: 947: 388: 3802: 3789: 3679: 3363: 3278: 3242: 2902: 2859: 2608: 2435: 1573: 821:. Should the content remain unchanged in a month, another AfD would probably gain wide support. – 774: 625: 523: 206: 3238:

a ban) of an AFD nominator has no bearing on the validity of any deletion debates they started. --

2837:

It probably should, for the sake of clarity, be observed that it is the closure of this article's

1704: 1686: 4300:

The last version by BennyBoyz has inline citations. That's more important than a refs section. --

4272: 4176: 4140: 4099: 3590: 3557: 3528: 3206: 2126: 1738: 1652: 1608: 1459:

the page. There is nothing that ties this disparate list of people together other than the broad

1456: 1279:. Absent such secondary sources, any article made from a subset of this list would also violate 955: 684: 638: 591: 273: 233: 1648: 1124: 1172:). Would you believe, in the time it took me to write this, six other people got in first? :-) 463: 380: 344: 4268: 4232: 3702: 2983: 2279: 1991: 1437: 1401: 1181: 2338: 1734: 1700: 1682: 1460: 1207:

Could you clarify what you mean here by 'turn of phrase' and 'idea', with an actual example?

503: 3923: 3862: 3823: 3623: 3616: 2918:- The closing admin didn't just "count" and weighed and valued the arguments thoroughly. -- 2678: 2404: 2202: 2138: 2122: 2093: 2084: 1525: 1491: 1409: 1373: 1304: 1250: 1221: 1217: 1199: 1140: 1031: 999: 943: 930: 3672: 3356: 2963: 2809: 2560:". Yep, it has an assertion of notability. No, it isn't worth the time to discuss much. 1985: 1912: 1908: 1627: 1300: 1280: 1264: 3580: 3542: 3486: 3326: 3258: 3216: 3179: 3125: 3055: 3019: 2876: 2825: 2528: 2260: 2223: 2181: 2172: 2134: 2109: 2020:(11 votes) ; thus a naming suggestion: if the article were to be split, I might suggest: 2004: 1969: 1900: 1892: 1855: 1807: 1725: 1708: 1691: 1585: 1546: 1353: 1321: 1272: 1208: 1185: 1173: 1113: 1065: 1009: 553: 264: 219: 186: 182: 4007: 3854: 3352: 3108: 2762: 2488: 1317: 951: 906: 433: 155: 4301: 4259: 4131: 4070: 3786: 3676: 3612: 3360: 3275: 3239: 2907: 2856: 2596: 1952:- plenty of the "father of" people are listed at such timelines. For science, there is 1369: 1245: 995: 565: 533: 203: 4322: 3644: 2969: 2950: 2919: 2886: 2842: 2633: 2583: 2554: 2543: 2511: 2361: 2246: 2105: 1837: 1794: 1632: 1601: 1397: 1393: 1074: 1051: 722: 673: 578: 3145:

A few points of notability that were not even touched on in the Afd discussion were:

4237: 3695: 2932: 2565: 2130: 2044: 1916: 1490:

fallacies. And how, pray tell, will you "take action" against the closing admin? —

1425: 1284: 519:

Since the deletion, I have also found two third-party sources to verify my claims:

513: 3992: 3093: 2747: 2673:– Consensus here is to endorse the "no consensus" finding by the closing admin. – 2473: 970:(to Corvus): I posted to interested parties, namely the various science projects: 891: 418: 140: 4251: 4200: 4054: 4024: 3919: 3809: 3514: 2674: 2400: 2040: 1137: 1090: 987: 761: 488: 3024: 2547: 2524: 2114: 1560: 1507: 1481: 1109: 822: 478: 468: 349: 75: 4320:

article or move it to user space? I can't find an archive anywhere. Thanks —

3192:

I think it goes without saying that there should be a page about him. On the

2619:

This asserted importance. Get it right or get used to getting overturned. --

2326: 2118: 2072: 2068: 2060: 2052: 1875: 1778: 1469: 1241: 991: 713: 493: 458: 173: 2043:“father of medicine”) with unrelated, comparatively trivial names (such as 4053:

as deleting admin. The speedy deleted content, originally also posted to "

2150:, but not a table-list under an unwieldy title such as you are proposing. 1646:, AFD is not a vote count. "People who have been called <something: --> 1240:(about sources and prominence of parentage) note the opening paragraph of 3639: 2945: 2578: 2540: 2356: 2241:

Just a note to register my strong opposition to both the assumption that

508: 4130:

How is it original research if it is now cited from external sources? --

3805:, along with a talk page for discussing how we can improve the article 3569:

as the removal of information based on "moral, political, military, or

2821: 2198:

timeline of thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, and random processes

2064: 2056: 2033:

people named as founder, father, or mother of something (miscellaneous)

453: 1854:, it is also about retrieving information that can be used elsewhere. 1136:. A reasonable statement explaining the close was given in the AFD. 2080: 1299:

discussion is a misuse of Knowledge (XXG) redtape (i.e. deleting per

1073:

I agree that refocusing and/or splitting the list would improve it.--

817:, with the caveat that the over-riding consensus at this DRV is that 498: 473: 3726:

learning center in the world. He was not only one of the editors of

3124:

Original nominator permanently banned for disruptive Afd activities

2076: 4267:

Actually, somebody simply copy/pasted the reference section from

2152:

People named as founder, father, or mother of something (science)

2026:

people named as founder, father, or mother of something (science)

3310: 3212: 720:

of around 5,000 I think it's worthy of further investigation. —

348:– Deletion overturned in light of new sources; listed at AfD. – 3445:

I apologize for not fully understanding the difference between

3270:

valid. If you can prove any of your claims, do so, but this is

2875:

describe would be falling victim to a hopeless semantics game.

2039:

In this manner, we could separate undisputed classics (such as

819:

the content must be "fixed" in order to remain in the long run

1647:

by anyone at all in the media" is not an encyclopedic topic;

1388:

also, if we are going to rename the article, I would suggest

4187:

It wasn't - and even if it was I was a major contributor. --

2901:

as closing admin; I'll refer to my closing rationale and to

1793:

had a numerical majority is not enough to save the article.

3274:

AFD Round 2, which this nomination basically amounts to. --

2539:

The entire content of the article was "Susan Chesler is an

1390:

People named as the founder, father, or mother of something

3734:

for over 30 years now. If Knowledge (XXG) has articles on

3152:

The fact that Dr. Wapnick is the author of over 130 books.

2071:, and list the founder/father in the middle column, e.g. 3822:

is not a particularly encyclopedic take on the subject.

4066: 4058: 3988: 3984: 3980: 3818:

Could I recommend not using that as a starting point?

3783: 3780: 3777: 3774: 3089: 3085: 3081: 2962:- 13 keep/14 delete pretty clearly means no consensus. 2743: 2739: 2735: 2506: 2469: 2465: 2461: 1520: 887: 883: 879: 414: 410: 406: 199: 136: 132: 128: 3234:, proper close, and the indefinite blocking (which is 1722:

Knowledge (XXG):Overlistification#Over-extensive Lists

712:

I don't know whether it's notable, but a large number

4199:, does indeed appear to be a substantial recreation. 1968:

lead to new ideas and possibly a better way forward.

1216:

A good example of a bad source in this list would be

1184:

is a similar list that could do with some attention.

854:

List of people known as father or mother of something

810:

List of people known as father or mother of something

198:, I see no procedural error here, especially given 2595:the speedy deletion due to claim to notability. -- 3722:. He also owns, runs, and teaches at the largest 4023:This page was NOT a recreation of the ill-fated 2546:. She is most known for her role as Cassidy in 1162:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject History of Science 972:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject History of Science 3355:. By the way, other Knowledge (XXG) articles 2906:not would have been a massive waste of time. 1404:must be considered as the founders of modern 8: 2129:agree that it should be organized by topic; 3936:The following is an archived debate of the 3037:The following is an archived debate of the 2808:Admin showed poor judgment. If one strikes 2691:The following is an archived debate of the 2417:The following is an archived debate of the 2217:accomodate the same material, and would be 1940:and the more readable subsections, such as 1705:WP:TRIVIA#Not all lists are trivia sections 835:The following is an archived debate of the 362:The following is an archived debate of the 88:The following is an archived debate of the 3907: 3012: 2662: 2390: 1936:in some sort of timeline form? A bit like 1716:Though there are also good points made at 802: 337: 63: 4316:- Could someone temporarily restore the 2087:. Similarly, as mentioned above modern 1320:(also linked at the start of each DRV). 1303:or no references, or whatever, etc.). -- 758:would need to be fundamentally rewritten 4356:The above is an archived debate of the 3892:The above is an archived debate of the 2997:The above is an archived debate of the 2647:The above is an archived debate of the 2375:The above is an archived debate of the 1701:WP:LIST#Criteria for inclusion in lists 1344:. What doesn't need to be sourced is a 1340:that needs to be sourced here, not the 1170:List of science and technology pioneers 787:The above is an archived debate of the 522:Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. 322:The above is an archived debate of the 2812:arguments from both sides (especially 3159:reason by the other Afd contributors. 1737:. Yes, I'm aware this isn't a cat :) 976:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Chemistry 7: 3609:Endorse deletion, allow new article. 3302:Google hits on Kenneth Wapnick: See 3295:Wapnick's prolific authorship: See 4098:, recreation of original research. 4081:ATTENTION! False information above: 3851:Endorse close, but allow recreation 3550:Deletion discussions on the merits 3453:. I have since changed my vote to 2133:likes the renaming suggestion; and 1942:Timeline of aviation - 19th century 1924:The best I've been able to find is 1160:at a suitable WikiProject (such as 984:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Science 980:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Physics 3215:with consent of original poster. - 2165:Timeline of scientific discoveries 2161:Timeline of scientific experiments 2148:Pioneers in science and technology 1962:Timeline of scientific discoveries 1958:Timeline of scientific experiments 1934:Pioneers in science and technology 1889:Timeline of scientific discoveries 1885:Timeline of scientific experiments 1350:History of the father/mother trope 28: 4250:The reasons given at the AfD for 3297:Amazon.com's listing of his books 2167:. Maybe a case could be made for 1827:change, I do not believe that it 1718:Knowledge (XXG):Overlistification 1541:- I did some searching, and this 3859:The Complete Story of the Course 3311:Knowledge (XXG) article on ACIM 2212:Timeline of science disciplines 2169:Timeline of science disciplines 2063:, or the less likely candidate 1249:add at least 10 to this one. -- 18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review 2014:Re-naming/splitting suggestion 1: 3209:19:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC) 3198:Disappearance of the Universe 2903:my discussion with Pablosecca 1946:Category:Technology timelines 1455:to be deleted, then an admin 3213:original discussion location 2190:history of quantum mechanics 1153:List of premature obituaries 185:00:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 4347:05:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC) 4333:03:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC) 4318:Voluntary sleep deprivation 4305:23:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 4296:14:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 4263:21:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 4256:Voluntary sleep deprivation 4242:19:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 4233:Sleep deprivation#Voluntary 4220:Voluntary sleep deprivation 4211:16:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 4192:04:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC) 4180:16:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 4164:08:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 4135:21:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 4123:08:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 4089:08:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 4074:05:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 4046:03:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 4033:03:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 3955:Voluntary sleep deprivation 3927:02:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 3915:Voluntary sleep deprivation 3883:22:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 3844:22:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 3813:02:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC) 3795:07:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC) 3743:00:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC) 3709:04:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 3685:04:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 3664:00:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 3649:20:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 3630:19:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 3594:23:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 3584:23:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 3561:22:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 3553:of the article's notability 3546:21:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 3532:16:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 3518:03:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 3490:10:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 3369:05:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 3330:03:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 3284:02:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 3262:02:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 3248:02:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 3220:02:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 3183:01:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 3129:01:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 3028:02:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 2988:17:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC) 2974:08:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 2955:20:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 2936:17:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 2923:15:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 2911:09:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 2890:15:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 2880:14:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 2865:08:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 2846:07:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 2829:07:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 2682:02:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 2638:08:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 2624:00:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 2612:23:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 2600:21:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 2588:20:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 2569:17:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 2533:16:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 2515:14:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 2408:03:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 2366:07:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 2346:00:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 2341:also allows this to exist. 2330:19:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC) 2318:13:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC) 2283:00:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC) 2264:00:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 2250:19:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC) 2227:00:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 2206:17:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC) 2176:14:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC) 2142:23:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC) 2097:22:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC) 2049:father of scientific method 2008:18:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC) 1996:17:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC) 1973:13:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 1920:12:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 1896:15:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 1879:12:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 1859:15:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 1841:14:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 1811:13:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 1798:12:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 1782:09:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 1762:12:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 1729:11:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 1712:09:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 1695:09:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 1676:08:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 1637:08:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 1619:04:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 1592:01:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 1577:23:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 1564:22:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 1550:21:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 1534:20:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 1511:20:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 1500:20:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 1485:20:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 1473:18:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 1444:18:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 1429:18:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 1413:18:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 1377:17:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 1357:17:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 1325:17:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 1308:17:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 1288:17:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 1254:17:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 1244:as well as two sections in 1225:17:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 1212:17:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 1203:17:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 1196:Comment from deleting admin 1189:17:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 1177:17:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 1157:List of HIV-positive people 1144:17:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 1128:16:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 1118:16:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 1101:16:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 1078:21:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 1069:17:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 1055:16:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 1035:17:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 1013:17:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 1003:17:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 959:16:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 934:16:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 826:03:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 778:22:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC) 765:09:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC) 733:18:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC) 708:09:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC) 678:18:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 662:14:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 629:13:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 615:08:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 583:22:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 569:21:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 557:20:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 544:19:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 527:19:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 353:02:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 313:00:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 297:08:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC) 268:07:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC) 257:08:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 223:07:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 212:04:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 190:00:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 79:02:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 4383: 3289:Documentation as requested 2016:The consensus seems to be 1954:Category:Science timelines 1823:While consensus certainly 1521:out-of-process restoration 1368:O.K. I just looked at the 532:I've also found, possibly 4061:, the content subject to 2399:– Overturned by Ugen64 – 2194:history of thermodynamics 2121:like the splitting idea; 1948:, with such timelines as 1449:Strongly Endorse Deletion 637:is not a valid argument. 4363:Please do not modify it. 4041:per my comments above -- 3943:Please do not modify it. 3899:Please do not modify it. 3820:Ken Wapnick finds Jebus! 3044:Please do not modify it. 3004:Please do not modify it. 2698:Please do not modify it. 2654:Please do not modify it. 2424:Please do not modify it. 2382:Please do not modify it. 2092:memory with the list. -- 1956:, which has things like 1903:believes that there are 842:Please do not modify it. 794:Please do not modify it. 752:. G11 says "Pages which 537:overturn and list at AFD 369:Please do not modify it. 329:Please do not modify it. 107:Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/RfC 95:Please do not modify it. 71:Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/RfC 40:Deletion review archives 3807:User:Sethie/wapnicktalk 3769:The nominator has been 3565:The dictionary defines 2089:chemical thermodynamics 1930:Pioneers in Science Set 1554:I think this should be 1406:chemical thermodynamics 994:“father of chemistry”, 4360:of the article above. 3940:of the article above. 3896:of the article above. 3857:is. Patrick Miller's 3041:of the article above. 3001:of the article above. 2710:Jocelyne Couture-Nowak 2695:of the article above. 2670:Jocelyne Couture-Nowak 2651:of the article above. 2421:of the article above. 2379:of the article above. 1453:post-deletion redirect 1008:best to be objective. 990:“father of medicine”, 839:of the article above. 791:of the article above. 756:some entity and which 366:of the article above. 326:of the article above. 92:of the article above. 4254:were that it was OR. 3767:Note to closing admin 3760:few or no other edits 3357:don't work as sources 3304:Google search results 2186:timeline of chemistry 2157:Timeline of invention 1950:Timeline of invention 1944:. We do already have 1457:arbitrarily recreates 3762:outside this topic. 3748:George Oliver Darwin 3740:George Oliver Darwin 3736:A Course In Miracles 3728:A Course In Miracles 3724:A Course in Miracles 3720:A Course In Miracles 3194:A Course In Miracles 2853:Weak endorse closure 1938:Timeline of aviation 948:canvassing for votes 179:Respectfully Yours; 3803:User:Sethie/wapnick 3656:Over-turn deletion: 754:exclusively promote 635:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 3785:, among others. -- 3716:Overturn Deletion: 3510:Overturn deletion- 3190:Overturn deletion- 2127:User:Laura Scudder 716:and a very decent 4370: 4369: 4269:sleep deprivation 4244: 3906: 3905: 3881: 3842: 3763: 3228:Endorse deletion 3222: 3136:Overturn deletion 3011: 3010: 2661: 2660: 2389: 2388: 1611: 1582:Overturn deletion 1478:Overturn deletion 1422:Overturn deletion 1402:Edward Guggenheim 1182:List of inventors 801: 800: 336: 335: 4374: 4365: 4325: 4292: 4290: 4288: 4286: 4284: 4227: 4160: 4158: 4156: 4154: 4152: 4119: 4117: 4115: 4113: 4111: 4010: 3996: 3978: 3945: 3908: 3901: 3867: 3855:reliable sources 3828: 3792: 3745: 3707: 3700: 3682: 3617:William Thetford 3525:Endorse deletion 3366: 3353:reliable sources 3281: 3245: 3230:and speedy close 3210: 3138:- Relist article 3111: 3097: 3079: 3046: 3013: 3006: 2972: 2862: 2765: 2751: 2733: 2700: 2663: 2656: 2636: 2559: 2553: 2491: 2477: 2459: 2426: 2391: 2384: 2343:The Evil Spartan 2313: 2309: 2301: 2299: 2135:User: Physchim62 2123:User:Chick Bowen 2103:Opinion summary: 2085:Jabir Ibn Haiyan 2001:Endorse deletion 1834:really important 1787:Endorse deletion 1758: 1756: 1754: 1752: 1750: 1720:, specifically, 1672: 1670: 1668: 1666: 1664: 1635: 1607: 1604: 1366:Strong overturn: 1318:the Google cache 1277:endorse deletion 1149:Limited overturn 944:User:Sadi Carnot 940:Endorse deletion 909: 895: 877: 844: 803: 796: 725: 704: 702: 700: 698: 696: 676: 658: 656: 654: 652: 650: 611: 609: 607: 605: 603: 581: 541:The Evil Spartan 484:Files-Upload.com 436: 422: 404: 371: 338: 331: 310:The Evil Spartan 293: 291: 289: 287: 285: 253: 251: 249: 247: 245: 209: 158: 144: 126: 97: 64: 53: 33: 4382: 4381: 4377: 4376: 4375: 4373: 4372: 4371: 4361: 4358:deletion review 4331: 4321: 4282: 4280: 4278: 4276: 4274: 4248:Strong overturn 4150: 4148: 4146: 4144: 4142: 4109: 4107: 4105: 4103: 4101: 4019: 4013: 4006: 4005: 3999: 3969: 3953: 3941: 3938:deletion review 3897: 3894:deletion review 3790: 3705: 3696: 3692:Endorse closure 3680: 3661:Rosiestephenson 3364: 3279: 3243: 3120: 3114: 3107: 3106: 3100: 3070: 3056:Kenneth Wapnick 3054: 3042: 3039:deletion review 3020:Kenneth Wapnick 3002: 2999:deletion review 2979:Endorse closure 2968: 2928:Endorse closure 2916:Endorse closure 2860: 2804: 2798: 2792: 2786: 2780: 2774: 2768: 2761: 2760: 2754: 2724: 2708: 2696: 2693:deletion review 2652: 2649:deletion review 2632: 2557: 2551: 2500: 2494: 2487: 2486: 2480: 2450: 2434: 2422: 2419:deletion review 2380: 2377:deletion review 2311: 2307: 2297: 2295: 2182:user:Carcharoth 2110:User:Carcharoth 2051:, which lists: 1748: 1746: 1744: 1742: 1740: 1662: 1660: 1658: 1656: 1654: 1631: 1602: 1316:Have a look at 918: 912: 905: 904: 898: 868: 852: 840: 837:deletion review 792: 789:deletion review 731: 721: 694: 692: 690: 688: 686: 672: 648: 646: 644: 642: 640: 601: 599: 597: 595: 593: 577: 445: 439: 432: 431: 425: 395: 379: 367: 364:deletion review 327: 324:deletion review 283: 281: 279: 277: 275: 243: 241: 239: 237: 235: 207: 167: 161: 154: 153: 147: 117: 105: 93: 90:deletion review 62: 55: 54: 51: 46: 37: 31: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 4380: 4378: 4368: 4367: 4352: 4351: 4350: 4349: 4336: 4335: 4327: 4311: 4310: 4309: 4308: 4307: 4245: 4231:redirected to 4225: 4224: 4223: 4194: 4182: 4170: 4169: 4168: 4167: 4166: 4092: 4091: 4077: 4076: 4048: 4021: 4020: 4017: 4011: 4003: 3997: 3948: 3947: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3929: 3904: 3903: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3885: 3847: 3846: 3800: 3798: 3797: 3764: 3712: 3711: 3688: 3687: 3666: 3652: 3651: 3632: 3613:Helen Schucman 3605: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3597: 3596: 3535: 3534: 3521: 3520: 3505: 3503: 3502: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3495: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3483: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3462: 3461: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3432: 3431: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3425: 3424: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3395: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3376: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3371: 3339: 3338: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3332: 3323: 3320: 3315: 3314: 3307: 3300: 3292: 3291: 3251: 3250: 3224: 3223: 3186: 3185: 3175: 3174: 3169: 3168: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3156: 3153: 3147: 3146: 3142: 3141: 3122: 3121: 3118: 3112: 3104: 3098: 3049: 3048: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3009: 3008: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2976: 2957: 2938: 2925: 2913: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2868: 2867: 2849: 2848: 2806: 2805: 2802: 2796: 2790: 2784: 2778: 2772: 2766: 2758: 2752: 2703: 2702: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2659: 2658: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2626: 2614: 2609:Carlossuarez46 2602: 2590: 2571: 2536: 2535: 2502: 2501: 2498: 2492: 2484: 2478: 2429: 2428: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2387: 2386: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2348: 2332: 2320: 2286: 2285: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2253: 2252: 2243:keep and split 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2210:Well, I think 2037: 2036: 2029: 2011: 2010: 1998: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1898: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1844: 1843: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1784: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1639: 1621: 1594: 1579: 1574:Carlossuarez46 1566: 1552: 1543:Google Scholar 1536: 1513: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1475: 1446: 1431: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1380: 1379: 1370:cached-version 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1311: 1310: 1291: 1290: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1246:Talk:Chemistry 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1146: 1121: 1120: 1103: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 996:Claude Shannon 962: 961: 920: 919: 916: 910: 902: 896: 847: 846: 831: 830: 829: 828: 799: 798: 783: 782: 781: 780: 775:Carlossuarez46 770:Endorse/Userfy 767: 746: 745: 744: 743: 742: 741: 740: 739: 738: 737: 736: 735: 727: 665: 664: 618: 617: 588:Strong endorse 585: 571: 559: 546: 517: 516: 511: 506: 501: 496: 491: 486: 481: 476: 471: 466: 461: 456: 447: 446: 443: 437: 429: 423: 374: 373: 358: 357: 356: 355: 334: 333: 318: 317: 316: 315: 302: 301: 300: 299: 260: 259: 226: 225: 215: 214: 169: 168: 165: 159: 151: 145: 100: 99: 84: 83: 82: 81: 61: 59:13 August 2007 56: 49:2007 August 14 47: 38: 35:2007 August 12 30: 29: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4379: 4366: 4364: 4359: 4354: 4353: 4348: 4345: 4344:Bennyboyz3000 4341: 4338: 4337: 4334: 4330: 4324: 4319: 4315: 4312: 4306: 4303: 4299: 4298: 4297: 4294: 4293: 4270: 4266: 4265: 4264: 4261: 4257: 4253: 4249: 4246: 4243: 4240: 4239: 4234: 4230: 4226: 4221: 4217: 4214: 4213: 4212: 4209: 4208: 4204: 4203: 4198: 4195: 4193: 4190: 4189:Bennyboyz3000 4186: 4183: 4181: 4178: 4177:Corvus cornix 4174: 4171: 4165: 4162: 4161: 4138: 4137: 4136: 4133: 4129: 4126: 4125: 4124: 4121: 4120: 4097: 4094: 4093: 4090: 4087: 4086:Bennyboyz3000 4082: 4079: 4078: 4075: 4072: 4068: 4064: 4060: 4056: 4052: 4049: 4047: 4044: 4043:Bennyboyz3000 4040: 4037: 4036: 4035: 4034: 4031: 4030:Bennyboyz3000 4026: 4016: 4009: 4002: 3994: 3990: 3986: 3982: 3977: 3973: 3968: 3964: 3960: 3956: 3952: 3951: 3950: 3949: 3946: 3944: 3939: 3934: 3933: 3928: 3925: 3921: 3917: 3916: 3912: 3911: 3910: 3909: 3902: 3900: 3895: 3890: 3889: 3884: 3879: 3875: 3871: 3866: 3865: 3860: 3856: 3852: 3849: 3848: 3845: 3840: 3836: 3832: 3827: 3826: 3821: 3817: 3816: 3815: 3814: 3811: 3808: 3804: 3796: 3793: 3788: 3784: 3781: 3778: 3775: 3772: 3768: 3765: 3761: 3757: 3753: 3749: 3744: 3741: 3737: 3733: 3729: 3725: 3721: 3717: 3714: 3713: 3710: 3704: 3701: 3699: 3693: 3690: 3689: 3686: 3683: 3678: 3674: 3670: 3667: 3665: 3662: 3657: 3654: 3653: 3650: 3646: 3642: 3641: 3636: 3633: 3631: 3628: 3625: 3622: 3618: 3614: 3610: 3607: 3606: 3595: 3592: 3591:Corvus cornix 3587: 3586: 3585: 3582: 3577: 3572: 3568: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3559: 3558:Corvus cornix 3555: 3554: 3549: 3548: 3547: 3544: 3539: 3538: 3537: 3536: 3533: 3530: 3529:Corvus cornix 3526: 3523: 3522: 3519: 3516: 3511: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3491: 3488: 3484: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3456: 3452: 3448: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3441: 3440: 3439: 3438: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3418: 3417: 3416: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3370: 3367: 3362: 3358: 3354: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3331: 3328: 3324: 3321: 3317: 3316: 3312: 3308: 3305: 3301: 3298: 3294: 3293: 3290: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3282: 3277: 3273: 3268: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3260: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3249: 3246: 3241: 3237: 3233: 3231: 3226: 3225: 3221: 3218: 3214: 3211:Copied from 3208: 3207:Andrew Parodi 3203: 3199: 3195: 3191: 3188: 3187: 3184: 3181: 3177: 3176: 3171: 3170: 3165: 3164: 3157: 3154: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3144: 3143: 3139: 3137: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3127: 3117: 3110: 3103: 3095: 3091: 3087: 3083: 3078: 3074: 3069: 3065: 3061: 3057: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3047: 3045: 3040: 3035: 3034: 3029: 3026: 3022: 3021: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3007: 3005: 3000: 2995: 2994: 2989: 2986: 2985: 2980: 2977: 2975: 2971: 2965: 2961: 2958: 2956: 2952: 2948: 2947: 2942: 2939: 2937: 2934: 2929: 2926: 2924: 2921: 2917: 2914: 2912: 2909: 2904: 2900: 2897: 2896: 2891: 2888: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2878: 2873: 2870: 2869: 2866: 2863: 2858: 2854: 2851: 2850: 2847: 2844: 2840: 2836: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2827: 2823: 2819: 2815: 2814:WP:ITSNOTABLE 2811: 2801: 2795: 2789: 2783: 2777: 2771: 2764: 2757: 2749: 2745: 2741: 2737: 2732: 2728: 2723: 2719: 2715: 2711: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2701: 2699: 2694: 2689: 2688: 2683: 2680: 2676: 2672: 2671: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2657: 2655: 2650: 2645: 2644: 2639: 2635: 2630: 2627: 2625: 2622: 2618: 2615: 2613: 2610: 2606: 2603: 2601: 2598: 2594: 2591: 2589: 2585: 2581: 2580: 2575: 2572: 2570: 2567: 2564:and ignore. 2563: 2556: 2549: 2545: 2544:voice actress 2542: 2538: 2537: 2534: 2530: 2526: 2522: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2513: 2508: 2497: 2490: 2483: 2475: 2471: 2467: 2463: 2458: 2454: 2449: 2445: 2441: 2437: 2436:Susan Chesler 2433: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2427: 2425: 2420: 2415: 2414: 2409: 2406: 2402: 2398: 2397:Susan Chesler 2395: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2385: 2383: 2378: 2373: 2372: 2367: 2363: 2359: 2358: 2352: 2349: 2347: 2344: 2340: 2336: 2333: 2331: 2328: 2324: 2321: 2319: 2315: 2303: 2291: 2288: 2287: 2284: 2281: 2276: 2275:Overturn view 2273: 2272: 2265: 2262: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2251: 2248: 2244: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2228: 2225: 2220: 2216: 2213: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2204: 2199: 2195: 2191: 2187: 2183: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2174: 2170: 2166: 2162: 2158: 2153: 2149: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2140: 2136: 2132: 2128: 2124: 2120: 2116: 2111: 2107: 2106:User:ragesoss 2104: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2095: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2074: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2050: 2046: 2042: 2035: 2034: 2030: 2028: 2027: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2019: 2015: 2009: 2006: 2002: 1999: 1997: 1994: 1993: 1987: 1983: 1980: 1974: 1971: 1967: 1963: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1943: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1918: 1914: 1910: 1906: 1902: 1899: 1897: 1894: 1890: 1886: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1877: 1873: 1870: 1869: 1860: 1857: 1853: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1842: 1839: 1835: 1830: 1826: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1812: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1785: 1783: 1780: 1776: 1773: 1763: 1760: 1759: 1736: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1710: 1706: 1702: 1699:Specifically 1698: 1697: 1696: 1693: 1688: 1684: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1674: 1673: 1650: 1645: 1644: 1640: 1638: 1634: 1629: 1625: 1622: 1620: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1610: 1605: 1598: 1595: 1593: 1590: 1587: 1583: 1580: 1578: 1575: 1570: 1567: 1565: 1562: 1557: 1553: 1551: 1548: 1544: 1540: 1537: 1535: 1532: 1531: 1527: 1522: 1517: 1514: 1512: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1498: 1497: 1493: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1483: 1479: 1476: 1474: 1471: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1447: 1445: 1442: 1439: 1438:Laura Scudder 1435: 1432: 1430: 1427: 1423: 1420: 1419: 1414: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1399: 1398:Merle Randall 1395: 1394:Gilbert Lewis 1391: 1387: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1378: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1364: 1363: 1358: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1334: 1333: 1326: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1309: 1306: 1302: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1289: 1286: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1261: 1260: 1255: 1252: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1226: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1210: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1201: 1197: 1194: 1190: 1187: 1183: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1175: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1147: 1145: 1142: 1139: 1135: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1126: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1104: 1102: 1099: 1098: 1094: 1093: 1088: 1085: 1079: 1076: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1067: 1063: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1053: 1049: 1046: 1045: 1036: 1033: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1014: 1011: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1001: 997: 993: 989: 985: 981: 977: 973: 969: 966: 965: 964: 963: 960: 957: 956:Corvus cornix 953: 949: 945: 941: 938: 937: 936: 935: 932: 928: 924: 915: 908: 901: 893: 889: 885: 881: 876: 872: 867: 863: 859: 855: 851: 850: 849: 848: 845: 843: 838: 833: 832: 827: 824: 820: 816: 812: 811: 807: 806: 805: 804: 797: 795: 790: 785: 784: 779: 776: 771: 768: 766: 763: 759: 755: 751: 748: 747: 734: 730: 724: 719: 718:Alexa ranking 715: 711: 710: 709: 706: 705: 681: 680: 679: 675: 669: 668: 667: 666: 663: 660: 659: 636: 632: 631: 630: 627: 622: 621: 620: 619: 616: 613: 612: 589: 586: 584: 580: 575: 572: 570: 567: 563: 562:Weak overturn 560: 558: 555: 550: 547: 545: 542: 538: 534: 531: 530: 529: 528: 525: 521: 515: 512: 510: 507: 505: 502: 500: 497: 495: 492: 490: 487: 485: 482: 480: 477: 475: 472: 470: 467: 465: 462: 460: 457: 455: 452: 451: 450: 442: 435: 428: 420: 416: 412: 408: 403: 399: 394: 390: 386: 382: 378: 377: 376: 375: 372: 370: 365: 360: 359: 354: 351: 347: 346: 342: 341: 340: 339: 332: 330: 325: 320: 319: 314: 311: 307: 304: 303: 298: 295: 294: 271: 270: 269: 266: 262: 261: 258: 255: 254: 231: 228: 227: 224: 221: 217: 216: 213: 210: 205: 201: 197: 194: 193: 192: 191: 188: 184: 180: 177: 175: 164: 157: 150: 142: 138: 134: 130: 125: 121: 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: 4362: 4355: 4339: 4313: 4273: 4247: 4236: 4228: 4215: 4206: 4201: 4196: 4184: 4172: 4141: 4127: 4100: 4095: 4080: 4050: 4038: 4022: 3942: 3935: 3913: 3898: 3891: 3863: 3858: 3850: 3824: 3819: 3799: 3766: 3735: 3731: 3727: 3723: 3719: 3715: 3697: 3691: 3668: 3655: 3638: 3634: 3608: 3575: 3570: 3566: 3552: 3551: 3524: 3509: 3504: 3454: 3450: 3446: 3288: 3271: 3266: 3235: 3229: 3227: 3201: 3189: 3135: 3134: 3123: 3043: 3036: 3018: 3003: 2996: 2984:Black Falcon 2982: 2978: 2959: 2944: 2940: 2927: 2915: 2898: 2871: 2852: 2834: 2807: 2697: 2690: 2668: 2653: 2646: 2628: 2616: 2604: 2592: 2577: 2573: 2561: 2520: 2503: 2423: 2416: 2396: 2381: 2374: 2355: 2350: 2334: 2322: 2289: 2280:Bridgeplayer 2274: 2242: 2218: 2214: 2131:User:MrFizyx 2108:, <c: --> 2102: 2045:Frank W. Cyr 2038: 2031: 2024: 2017: 2013: 2012: 2000: 1992:Black Falcon 1990: 1981: 1965: 1929: 1904: 1871: 1851: 1833: 1828: 1824: 1803: 1790: 1786: 1774: 1739: 1653: 1642: 1641: 1623: 1613: 1606: 1596: 1581: 1568: 1555: 1538: 1528: 1516:Weak endorse 1515: 1494: 1477: 1464: 1448: 1433: 1421: 1385: 1365: 1345: 1341: 1337: 1276: 1268: 1237: 1218:this article 1195: 1165: 1148: 1133: 1122: 1105: 1096: 1091: 1086: 1061: 1047: 967: 939: 926: 922: 921: 841: 834: 818: 814: 808: 793: 786: 769: 757: 753: 749: 685: 639: 592: 587: 573: 561: 549:Weak endorse 548: 536: 518: 514:Tailrank.com 448: 368: 361: 343: 328: 321: 305: 274: 234: 229: 196:Keep deleted 195: 181: 178: 170: 94: 87: 69: 58: 4252:All-nighter 4055:All-nighter 4025:All-nighter 3864:ObiterDicta 3825:ObiterDicta 3758:) has made 3624:Will Beback 2818:WP:NOTAGAIN 2203:Sadi Carnot 2139:Sadi Carnot 2112:</c: --> 2094:Sadi Carnot 2041:Hippocrates 1410:Sadi Carnot 1374:Sadi Carnot 1305:Sadi Carnot 1251:Sadi Carnot 1222:Chick Bowen 1200:Chick Bowen 1032:Sadi Carnot 1000:Sadi Carnot 988:Hippocrates 931:Sadi Carnot 714:Google hits 489:del.icio.us 44:2007 August 3771:canvassing 3673:WP:CSD#G11 3567:censorship 2877:Pablosecca 2839:fourth AfD 2826:Pablosecca 2548:W.I.T.C.H. 2261:Carcharoth 2224:Carcharoth 2173:Carcharoth 2115:User:Bduke 2005:Bulldog123 1986:WP:NOT#DIR 1970:Carcharoth 1901:Carcharoth 1893:Carcharoth 1856:Carcharoth 1808:Carcharoth 1726:Carcharoth 1709:Carcharoth 1692:Carcharoth 1586:Physchim62 1547:Carcharoth 1354:Carcharoth 1322:Carcharoth 1273:Carcharoth 1209:Carcharoth 1186:Carcharoth 1174:Carcharoth 1066:Carcharoth 1010:Carcharoth 927:11 deletes 554:Eluchil404 479:RapidShare 469:Megaupload 4302:Ginkgo100 4260:Ginkgo100 4132:Ginkgo100 4071:Sandstein 3870:pleadings 3831:pleadings 2908:Sandstein 2597:Ginkgo100 2507:explained 2119:User:Itub 2073:Lavoisier 2069:chemistry 2061:Descartes 2053:Aristotle 1928:- called 1905:secondary 1687:WP:TRIVIA 1461:synthesis 1242:chemistry 992:Lavoisier 566:Ginkgo100 494:FileFront 464:Sendspace 459:YouSendIt 381:MyDataBus 345:myDataBus 174:User:El C 4323:xDanielx 4314:Confused 4222:article. 4185:Comment: 4173:Comment: 4039:Overturn 3756:contribs 3635:Overturn 3581:Scott P. 3543:Scott P. 3487:Scott P. 3447:Overturn 3327:Scott P. 3259:Scott P. 3217:Scott P. 3180:Scott P. 3126:Scott P. 2970:xDanielx 2920:Oakshade 2887:Dsmdgold 2634:xDanielx 2629:Overturn 2617:Overturn 2605:Overturn 2593:Overturn 2574:Overturn 2562:Overturn 2541:American 2521:Overturn 2512:Dsmdgold 2351:Overturn 2335:Overturn 2247:Otto4711 2018:overturn 1982:Overturn 1838:Otto4711 1795:Otto4711 1775:Overturn 1649:WP:SYNTH 1633:xDanielx 1624:Overturn 1603:Mr.Z-man 1597:Overturn 1556:restored 1519:and the 1434:Overturn 1238:Comment: 1166:overturn 1075:ragesoss 1052:ragesoss 1048:Overturn 923:14 keeps 815:restored 750:Overturn 723:xDanielx 674:xDanielx 626:Ollie990 579:xDanielx 574:Overturn 524:Ollie990 509:Newsvine 20:‎ | 4340:Comment 4216:Comment 4197:Endorse 4128:Comment 4096:Endorse 4051:Endorse 4001:restore 3972:protect 3967:history 3878:appeals 3839:appeals 3698:ALKIVAR 3669:Comment 3659:buzz"). 3482:Thanks, 3322:Thanks, 3267:Comment 3102:restore 3073:protect 3068:history 2960:Endorse 2941:Endorse 2933:GRBerry 2899:Endorse 2872:Comment 2835:Comment 2822:asserts 2756:restore 2727:protect 2722:history 2621:W.marsh 2566:GRBerry 2482:restore 2453:protect 2448:history 2339:WP:LIST 2323:Comment 2290:Endorse 2065:Alhazen 2057:Galileo 1917:GRBerry 1872:Comment 1852:de novo 1735:WP:OCAT 1683:WP:LIST 1643:Endorse 1569:Comment 1539:Comment 1426:MrFizyx 1346:general 1285:GRBerry 1134:Endorse 1106:Comment 1087:Endorse 968:Comment 900:restore 871:protect 866:history 504:Netvouz 454:Box.net 427:restore 398:protect 393:history 306:Comment 265:Dagomar 230:Endorse 220:Dagomar 187:Dagomar 183:Dagomar 149:restore 120:protect 115:history 3976:delete 3920:Chaser 3874:errata 3835:errata 3810:Sethie 3773:; see 3732:Course 3515:Sethie 3455:Relist 3451:Relist 3077:delete 2964:WP:ATA 2810:WP:ATA 2731:delete 2675:Chaser 2457:delete 2401:Chaser 2308:'Stop' 2163:, and 2117:, and 2081:Dalton 1960:, and 1913:WP:SYN 1909:WP:NOR 1804:per se 1703:, and 1628:WP:NOR 1589:(talk) 1530:tizzle 1496:tizzle 1400:, and 1301:WP:NOR 1281:WP:NOR 1265:WP:NOR 1141:(talk) 1138:Friday 875:delete 762:ugen64 499:reddit 474:Twango 402:delete 124:delete 113:| ] | 4275:: --> 4143:: --> 4102:: --> 4057:" is 4008:cache 3993:views 3985:watch 3981:links 3791:desat 3681:desat 3576:other 3571:other 3365:desat 3351:from 3280:desat 3244:desat 3109:cache 3094:views 3086:watch 3082:links 3025:Xoloz 2861:desat 2763:cache 2748:views 2740:watch 2736:links 2525:SamBC 2489:cache 2474:views 2466:watch 2462:links 2310:) : ( 2215:would 2180:O.K. 2077:Boyle 1741:: --> 1655:: --> 1561:Bduke 1526:Scien 1508:V8rik 1492:Scien 1482:V8rik 1386:Note: 1125:Navou 1110:SamBC 1062:split 952:WP:AN 907:cache 892:views 884:watch 880:links 823:Xoloz 687:: --> 641:: --> 594:: --> 434:cache 419:views 411:watch 407:links 350:Xoloz 276:: --> 236:: --> 208:desat 156:cache 141:views 133:watch 129:links 76:Xoloz 52:: --> 16:< 4291:< 4238:Will 4229:Note 4159:< 4118:< 4067:here 4059:here 3989:logs 3963:talk 3959:edit 3787:Core 3752:talk 3677:Core 3645:talk 3621:·:· 3615:and 3449:and 3361:Core 3359:. -- 3276:Core 3240:Core 3090:logs 3064:talk 3060:edit 2951:talk 2857:Core 2800:AfD4 2794:AfD3 2788:DRV2 2782:AfD2 2776:DRV1 2744:logs 2718:talk 2714:edit 2584:talk 2555:stub 2529:talk 2470:logs 2444:talk 2440:edit 2362:talk 2327:Tarc 2312:'Go' 2219:more 2125:and 1926:this 1887:and 1876:Tarc 1791:keep 1779:Itub 1757:< 1685:and 1671:< 1609:talk 1470:Tarc 1269:zero 1155:and 1114:talk 888:logs 862:talk 858:edit 703:< 657:< 610:< 415:logs 389:talk 385:edit 292:< 252:< 204:Core 202:. -- 200:this 137:logs 111:edit 32:< 4207:ʏɑɴ 4202:ɑʀк 4065:is 4063:AfD 4015:AfD 3640:DGG 3627:·:· 3272:not 3236:not 3202:has 3116:AfD 2946:DGG 2843:Joe 2770:AfD 2579:DGG 2550:. 2496:AfD 2357:DGG 2304:? ( 1966:can 1829:did 1825:can 1465:not 1352:). 1338:why 1097:ʏɑɴ 1092:ɑʀк 954:. 950:at 946:is 914:AfD 441:AfD 163:AfD 22:Log 4271:. 4235:. 4084:-- 3991:| 3987:| 3983:| 3979:| 3974:| 3970:| 3965:| 3961:| 3922:- 3876:• 3872:• 3868:( 3837:• 3833:• 3829:( 3782:, 3779:, 3776:, 3754:• 3746:— 3647:) 3092:| 3088:| 3084:| 3080:| 3075:| 3071:| 3066:| 3062:| 2953:) 2816:, 2746:| 2742:| 2738:| 2734:| 2729:| 2725:| 2720:| 2716:| 2677:- 2586:) 2558:}} 2552:{{ 2531:) 2472:| 2468:| 2464:| 2460:| 2455:| 2451:| 2446:| 2442:| 2403:- 2364:) 2316:) 2298:== 2296:1 2196:, 2192:, 2188:, 2159:, 2113:, 2083:, 2079:, 2075:, 2059:, 2055:, 1707:. 1651:. 1396:, 1342:is 1116:) 1030:-- 982:, 978:, 974:, 925:/ 890:| 886:| 882:| 878:| 873:| 869:| 864:| 860:| 417:| 413:| 409:| 405:| 400:| 396:| 391:| 387:| 139:| 135:| 131:| 127:| 122:| 118:| 42:: 4329:C 4326:/ 4289:t 4287:n 4285:a 4283:i 4281:d 4279:a 4277:R 4157:t 4155:n 4153:a 4151:i 4149:d 4147:a 4145:R 4116:t 4114:n 4112:a 4110:i 4108:d 4106:a 4104:R 4018:) 4012:| 4004:| 3998:( 3995:) 3957:( 3924:T 3880:) 3841:) 3750:( 3706:☢ 3703:™ 3643:( 3485:- 3325:- 3313:. 3306:. 3299:. 3257:- 3232:- 3178:- 3119:) 3113:| 3105:| 3099:( 3096:) 3058:( 2949:( 2803:) 2797:| 2791:| 2785:| 2779:| 2773:| 2767:| 2759:| 2753:( 2750:) 2712:( 2679:T 2582:( 2527:( 2499:) 2493:| 2485:| 2479:( 2476:) 2438:( 2405:T 2360:( 2314:) 2306:( 2302:) 2300:2 2294:( 1911:/ 1755:t 1753:n 1751:a 1749:i 1747:d 1745:a 1743:R 1669:t 1667:n 1665:a 1663:i 1661:d 1659:a 1657:R 1614:¢ 1441:☎ 1112:( 917:) 911:| 903:| 897:( 894:) 856:( 729:C 726:/ 701:t 699:n 697:a 695:i 693:d 691:a 689:R 655:t 653:n 651:a 649:i 647:d 645:a 643:R 608:t 606:n 604:a 602:i 600:d 598:a 596:R 444:) 438:| 430:| 424:( 421:) 383:( 290:t 288:n 286:a 284:i 282:d 280:a 278:R 250:t 248:n 246:a 244:i 242:d 240:a 238:R 166:) 160:| 152:| 146:( 143:) 109:(

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 13 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index