Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2007 February 11

2528:. And that is in addition to the introduction of the Award itself. If "won WCC Award" is good enough for a NYT editor, why isn't it good enough for us? And how is this trivial mentioning? And Attack of the Show apparently is non-notable if an entire episode is not enough for more than a trivial mention. Maybe I should file an AfD for it! I asked the closing admin twice why the sources are trivial, and I received NO answer (that actually answered the question). REALLY sorry, but the terms "trvial" and "passing mention" are mis-used here in my eyes. This isn't just "Oh, and there's this award, BUT ANYWAY!". The article introduces the award and then uses it to discuss comics that won it in that year. Besides, the radio interview has been mentioned (though it was only found after the AfD got closed), so there you have your multiple sources. If NO sources had been found, I wouldn't have made the comment, but I see five established editors (including an admin) effectively being told "You're wrong!", so the case apparently is not as clear and easy as you make it sound. *gasp* indeed. -- 3207:

cuts both ways. That a stub can be written that meets our policies dictates it should exist, otherwise we violate our policies when we delete it. I don't follow your chain of process at all either. Verifiability asks that information be verifiable. What verifiability is on doubt here? Let's set aside notions of multiple sources since I can't turn up the word multiple in the verifiability policy. Let's set Notability aside. I would hope I've already demonstrated enough reliable sources. You've got a secondary source and a lot of primary source material there. I would expect the number of secondary sources to rise after presentations occur live for the first time at the MegaCon next week. I don't doubt that any article on this topic would at best be small. But nowhere in our policies do we assert that small is bad, small is unwanted or that small is deletable.

3652:. The Times article is very clear in not only bringing up and describing the awards, but subsequently listing winners of the awards. I am not sure how much more in-depth one expects from the New York Times: it seems phenomenally anal-retentive to expect them to describe the origin of the awards and, what? Talk about the presenters? That is what, if anything, Knowledge (XXG) is for. I have not watched the TV show yet; the NYT article alone is enough, coupled with significant internet fame. However, if the TV show is what it says, it is another... um, what's the opposite of "nail in the coffin"? I agree with Timmccloud that this was a highly inappropriate deletion in the first place. Anyone who has read webcomics for any length of time should have heard of the WCCA (unless they just don't pay attention); it is hilarious to claim they are non-notable. 3602:

a few source tags should have been sprinkled where appropriate but AfD was the wrong way to go. I would also note that at least as many of the sustain delete comments are factually in error as over-enthusiastic overturn delete comments. Some people are either not doing their homework or letting their emotions get the better of them. Doing a search for the word award will miss most of the references to the WCCA in the NYT article. Furthermore, it is quite likely that the WCCA will continue to garner occasional mention in the mainstream press and thus if this deletion review fails on the grounds of notability, we're going to be right back here again time and again with longer and longer lists of articles until the pro-deletes are going to cry uncle. There's no sign that this award is going away, rather all signs point to its increasing prominence.

2941:

link to their sites. Consider "Copper," a beautifully drawn animal comic that won the prize for best art in the Web Cartoonists Choice Awards. The prize for best-written comic went to "Narbonic," by Shaenon Garrity. "Alpha Shade," by Christopher Brudlos and Joseph Brudlos, the winner of the long-form comic prize, is 107 pages long. The winning entry in the category of "infinite canvas" went to "Pup" by Drew Weing. "The Perry Bible Fellowship" by Nicholas Gurewitch, the winner of the "comedic comic" prize, does begin to verge on the infinite. The prize in the category "outstanding use of flash" was shared. One prize went to "Alpha Shade" (the one with the great page-turning feature). Another went to "The Discovery of Spoons" by Alexander Danner and John Barber.

3076:

detail how T Campbell isn't a reliable source for the article. We can argue over whether he's either a primary source or a secndary source, but in both categories he's reliable. But really, I'd rather not dicker over technicalities, because this is getting into I don't like it, well I do territory. Our policies are not cut and dried, they acknowledge the existence of grey areas, and I think it is futile to pretend otherwise. As people have already noted, this isn't the place to have this discussion. What's being asked is whether the close balanced all the difficulties involved. I argue it hasn't. You argue it has. Let's allow our arguments to stand and fall as they are written here, and see what others think.

2188:) as it concerned the article. Those opposing the deletion failed to establish notability, failed to fairly assess the sources given, and did not attempt to bring the article within policy guidelines. The closing administrator was right in not applying uniform weight to all opinions present, as AfD is not a vote, and has no ballot box to stuff. When three people present a solid, uniform, and policy-based case, and seven others provide no solid rebuttal, the three must take precedence. This is why administrators are given discretion to weight opinions in AfD discussions. In addition, this article should probably be salted, as a number of puppets operating on other articles are likely to re-create it. 2911:, they were intended to offer guidance to new editors on what topics are most likely to merit an article. They were never intended to be tools to delete articles, and they should not become so. Knowledge (XXG) is not a battleground, it is an encyclopedia, and we should not have to constantly debate the inclusion of articles which have reliable sources simply because there are editors who do not like them. If we are an encyclopedia, if we do summarise secondary sources, then this article must be reinstated. If we are not an encyclopedia, by all means endorse this deletion and then please place your chairs on the tables and last one out switch off the light. 2526:("Consider "Copper," a beautifully drawn animal comic that won the prize for best art in the Web Cartoonists Choice Awards.", "The prize for best-written comic went to "Narbonic," by Shaenon Garrity, which follows...", ""Alpha Shade," by Christopher Brudlos and Joseph Brudlos, the winner of the long-form comic prize, is 107 pages long.", "The winning entry in the category of "infinite canvas" went to "Pup" by Drew Weing.", ""The Perry Bible Fellowship" by Nicholas Gurewitch, the winner of the "comedic comic" prize, does begin to verge on the infinite.", "The prize in the category "outstanding use of flash" was shared. One prize...") 3264:

choice of words, too. Generally, articles "should". It would be nice if articles did. I chose the word should with care over the word "must", because it wasn't to be read as "must". Hey, I'm within my rights to remove that salting and restart the article, but I'm not doing that. I'm also not doing it in my userspace, because I don't see the point. I think this review has demonstrated the potential for a decent, in line with policy article (no matter how long or short) to be written. I think I've demonstrated this close falls into a grey area. I believe that's all that needs demonstrating here.

2608:." (emphasis mine) as "lazy wording" for "A WCCA nomination is not enough for DMFA notability" (Even though this may not have come up in the AfD discussion due to timing, DMFA received a second nomination in 2007, winner still to be announced). You made a judgment call for the WCCA there, and it overrode the running AfD discussion. Fact is that you simply took the word of three editors that the WCCA is non-notable to delete the comic article. THEN, almost half an hour after deleting DMFA, did you close the AfD for the WCCA. 2560:) does not count as a a notable independent award". However, that was BEFORE he knew of the AfD and its sources (follow the link to the Notability Talk page he mentions in his Delete reasoning, keep an eye on the timing). So in my eyes, there was a clear bias for deleting the WCCA. I don't know if that's peachy-fine with your policy, but to me it looks like the admin simply adjusting the world to fit his own view, and it looks like "consensus amoung the more established editors" is his way of saying "my opinion". -- 1304:: We've been over this, re-over it, over it again and re-over it once more. Consensus may be weak in this case but I'm afraid that the constant recreation, renomination and re-reviewing of these subjects is simply an attempt to jackhammer them through consensus by sheer tedium and repetition rather than strong rhetoric or a valid point. Extremely excellent points have been raised for deletion in the past, they can be raised again, the first cases were seen as a (somewhat contentious but,) exemplar case of 3051:

this sort of thing is what the expert exception is for. I think you have points about NPOV and OR, but afd is not clean-up. Someone who has been on the committee is perfectly placed to be a reliable source, that is the very definition of a primary source. We may not interpret their comments, but we can quote them and summarise them. I'm well aware of the problems with the deleted article, however I resent the lack of opportunity to fix them.

3466:, optionally relist. Sources, check. Multiple, check. Reliable, check. Independent, check. Non-trivial, might merit discussion. Doesn't look like a clear delete to me, though. I think the closing admin's reasoning was sound, but I suspect further consensus toward a keep (either outright or via no-consensus) would have developed had the sources been considered for a longer period of time than actually happened in the AfD discussion. 3193:

for an area like webcomics this can be very difficult. That's what this comes down to in the end: We've got a few mentions from people nominated, a trivial mention in a major media, and lots of "little" items. It's not enough to write a balanced article beyond a stub. Not that that would be a bad thing, and if someone wanted to write it in userspace that would be great. Not a feature article, but not excessive zealotry, either.

2684:

fact that it had only two sources, but that is more of a comment and less of a policy-based issue since two sources are enough for notability unless my dictionary is giving me a wrong definition of the word "multiple"). Nobody inside the discussion made any move to argue that the sources (AotS and NYT) are non-notable. If the closing admin had an issue with the notability of the sources, why didn't he just

1308:. The purpose of wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, for every last article, user page, template, picture, userbox or category, we must ask ourselves: 1) does it serve to make the encyclopedia better? and 2) what is the potential harm? Any that answers 'no' to the first and something more than inconsequential to the second should be deleted with extreme speed and prejudice. 3768:. Seems like consensus was ignored, because the admin disagreed with the aspects of that consensus concerning the suitbility of particular sources. He should have the latitude to ignore !votes that don't offer any rationale, but not to ignore !votes simply because he disagrees with the particular decision they're making on somehting that's essentially a judgement call. - 1448:: there is no good reason why anybody should need to know how old a given contributor is. If they act in a fashion commensurate with a given age, they should be treated accordingly; if they act like a spoilt child they should be invited to leave until they can grow up: there need be no actual link to their chronological age in their behaviour or treatment. HTH HAND — 1224:, these people have to stop kidding me. There would be no need to promote identification of young adolescents and young children by keeping such categories in existence. Please try using some common sense instead of wonking process and policies. Doc's reasoning is perfect, categories like this are bad for the Foundation's reputation. Yours truly, — 2295:

anybody who has a more relaxed view of the events automatically approves of them. The comments/votes that don't significantly contribute to the discussion will be quasi-ignored anyway, so it's not like the "Pro Undelete" people have any reason to cheer them on. On the contrary, sockpuppet spam makes it harder to have our points taken seriously. --

342:. The article has drawn SPA attention in the past, but hasn't drawn in in this deletion review. The past history is beneficial only for some writing style. The amnesia test is a guideline, not an official policy. It won't apply since it's only being used for writing style and format. There will be newer citations. thanks for the reply. 3041:

keep in mind that about half of this article was on controversies, which we don't have the sources to cover from NPOV, yet not covering them seems to favor one POV. So, absent the reputable sources to make this a neutral encyclopedia article, absent the type of coverage we'd expect for any notable seven-year-old annual event, it's deleted. --

3491:. While indeed a judgment call with respect to the sources, it was - although barely - within the closing admin's discretion to apply their considered judgment to the sourcing issue when closing the debate. That judgment, with which I agree, has not been called into doubt in this discussion to an extent that would mandate relisting. 1400:. It doesn't violate COPPA. Revealing your age isn't problematic if you don't reveal anything else. And despite what some people say, knowing the age of an editor helps you to know their interest, beliefs and appropriate way to talk to them. The category has advantages, no disadvantages, it should stay. - 3026:, and therefore a reliable source as a published expert writing in his field of expertise. Also add a few quotes from Scott McCloud, respected webcomic thinker, I can't see where the issue is. Multiple reliable sources. Are people seriously suggesting we have to write a featured article on every topic? 3388:. The WCCA was obviously the central motivation and anchor point for the NYT article. Specific awards won are listed and in many cases commented for almost every comic mentioned. Playing that down to only accept one of the two paragraphs where its full name is spelled out seems slightly disingenuous. -- 3601:

first of all because it is clear that there was no consensus, not even a rough consensus. When the response to an AfD is more sources coming out of the woodwork, the proper response is to keep the article for the time being and allow for that new information to be incorporated into the article. Maybe

3075:

He was commissioned to write a book on the medium, in my house that tends to imply his scholarly abilities are respected, but your opinion can of course differ. As you say, it doesn't matter how you feel his book was received, so I'm perplexed at you bringing it up. And with respect, perhaps you can

2615:

And about bad faith: I got ignored in the Talk page section (apparently you considered the case closed after a few hours?) and then reposted in your Talk page. My tone in both cases was polite (in my eyes at least, if others disagree with that, I apologize), and I assumed that you had good reason and

2476:

How are we to create a sourced article when not even a NYT article, an episode of a notable TV show AND a radio interview aren't enough? I'm honestly curious. And the rules say "multiple, non-trivial sources", so maybe it is time to change the rules again since you and I (along with the ones who vote

2242:

Throughout and erudite. Would that it was more in line with reality. "did not attempt to bring the article within policy guidelines"? Quote from the AfD: "I just rewrote the article to add sources and remove unverified information." "Those opposing the deletion failed to establish notability"? Quotes

1963:

Kizor has asked me to comment upon this deletion review, as I have found it necessary to discuss the deletion of the WCCA in several recent AFDs. Before I speak as to why I feel the WCCA deletion was not appropriate, I wish to invite scrutiny of my contribution history, noting that prior to the furor

369:

Thanks for the help. The article that I redo will be almost a complete revision. I would though like the picture that was available as well as the opportunity to review the material. You can though expect a 99% brand new article. I want to be able to read and review. I just don't want to go thru

3530:

popular cable/satellite television show should count for something. The fact that the writer of the NYT article disagreed with many of the judges choices is irrelevent here. What is relevant is that the writer thought the awards were important enough to devote 7 paragraphs to them and its winners in

3206:

Wait. Are you suggesting we shouldn't have stubs? I'd disagree that this is a trivial mention in the NYT, you assert it took the time to criticise the awards, I don't think that's trivial. We haven't got a few mentions we've got loads. You're right, we work from a neutral point of view, but that

2350:

An article in the New York Times or any other major news source is no guarantee of encyclopedic notability - nor is coverage by the other sources provided here. But given the late introduction of these sources which arguably support the article passing guidelines, I don't think the closure was quite

2153:

That is hardly the "only mention" in the article. While you may think of the WCCA as a "hook" for guiding the discussion of webcomics, the WCCA are referred to extensively in the article. After that initial mention, WCCA awards are used to introduce nearly each comic, topic, and paragraph. This sort

1901:

article is said to be a trivial mention that 'refutes most of the awards', but it's a vital part - after explaining the nature of the awards, WCCA winners are held up and considered representative examples of the state of the field. The refutation claim I can only call untrue. The article criticizes

1150:. Inappropriate speedy deletion. What makes the 1992 category any different the 1993 category (which still exists)? If this article is to stay deleted then all the other "Wikipedians born in..." categories will have to be deleted too. As a side note, I was born in 1992, it was a very good year. ;) -- 3192:

If something only has a very few mentions in "big sources" than no amount of "little sources" like comixpedia and (respectfully) anyone's blog can't fill in the gaps to ensure that we're presenting a full picture of the subject. In the end, we're obligated to work from a neutral point of view, and

3122:

This is getting tiresome. My point about respected web scholars was directed at Scott McCloud as much as T Campbell. Which published authors credentials do you wish to take issue with? He's been invited to conferences, Henry Jenkins, Director, Comparative Media Studies Program, MIT has mentioned

3065:

I have no idea how you're arriving at your idea that T Campbell is a "respected webcomics scholar." Sources? As I recall, the book was far from scholarly and very poorly received. Not that it matters much to this discussion, as his blog and book are clearly not independent, third-party sources for

2940:

last month. The master of online ceremonies was a Web cartoon character and so were all the award presenters. Otherwise, it was much like the Oscars. There were too many award categories (26) and some commercial breaks, and all winners were rewarded with the Web equivalent of Hollywood fame: a live

2304:

I shouldn't have made the comment. It wasn't helpful, and came about out of frustration caused by sockpuppets in trying to deal with the systemic bias on Knowledge (XXG) that tends to favor Internet-related subjects. Please do understand that it is very frustrating when you propose a point based on

2107:

393:

status as one that would be easy to replace (by someone at the IU). If you have an article to put it in, and a decent fair use claim, including an answer to the fair use dispute. I am far from an expert on image policy, so I don't offer an opinion on what will happen with a deletion review of the

3050:

No, I'm sorry, you can't paint respected webcomics scholars simply as web-cartoonists. Do Eddie Campbell's thoughts on his medium not matter because of his trade, are Monet's thoughts not important because he was an artist? This has been discussed on the Attribution talk page and it is felt that

3040:

A webcartoonist's blog is not a reliable independent third-party source for an award which that cartoonist has been on the committee of. I don't think it's easy to dismiss concerns about our systemic bias giving undue weight to webcomics vs. every other thing that's ever been mentioned in the NYT.

2724:

Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must

2683:

Uh... care to elaborate? There was no Delete consensus. Not even a rough one. After the second source had been found, no other Delete comments were made. Your own Delete comment was made after only one source had been found, and you apparently had no issue with the NYT article (only later with the

2294:

I may not be able to quote a dozen policies like others, but I'm fairly certain that baselessly accusing established editors of approving of sockpuppetry is a "No-No" on Knowledge (XXG). You have shown and admitted that you have a higher-than-average issue with 'puppets, but that doesn't mean that

1185:

The undelete !votes here are nonsensical. Sorry to pick on Radiant but "Either undelete these, or delete the entire bunch type x" is the worst keep argument conceivable. We hear and ignore it all the time on afd. If you think this category is a good thing, then argue keep on its merits. Delete the

1181:

Note in particular Jimbo's comment "Keep deleted - should have been speedied on sight....the obvious additional dangers of a category like this, both from a REAL and PR point of view, are additional factors weighing in favor of deletion. --Jimbo Wales 15:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)". No, Jimbo's view

3635:

this was a severly inapproprate deletion, the WCCA is the premiere web comic awards in a very new industry (webcomics). It is bound to have the same notability issues that most webcomics have for inclusion, and I believe that the inappropriate deletion of this article opened the floodgates for a

3355:

have happened at Afd. There is enough evidence here (NYT article, etc) to get past the bare minimum policies, in my opinion. Anyone who has spent any length of time working with our web-related articles knows that there is generally consensus to keep such articles if there is any secondary source

3263:

Got a funny feeling I wrote that line. But look, I'm not jumping through hoops here. I'm not throwing another dozen sources up for them to be shot at. I feel I've already demonstrated enough reliable sources exist to satisfy the notion that articles "should rely". I was quite specific in that

3000:

wouldn't be in the lead of the column, and the awards would be mentioned before the ninth of twenty paragraphs. And, no, it is incorrect that "a news report on the awards makes it notable enough" because we require multiple non-trivial independent sources. A news report can be trivial, and a news

2611:

And I do NOT think that three naysayers suddenly get to overrule a running AfD. Bogdan nominated the WCCA, and both Francis and Dragonfiend voted in the AfD for the WCCA. The AfD for the WCCA made it clear that there was NO Delete consensus among established editors. In fact, after presenting the

2158:

awards, for example. Anything more than one source is multiple, and both are clearly non-trivial and reliable in this case. A trivial mention is noted in WP:N to include such things as directory listings. It is not, for very obvious reasons, noted to include such things as critical discussion and

668:

Man, I really hate to bring this up again, but I have to. This category has been speedy deleted four times and restored once this year. It is currently salted. I am of the opinion that the ignore all rules deletions for this particular page were invalid. Our past discussions on this sort of stuff

2906:

have an article on it. I'm shocked to see a source discounted because it may disparage something. That a reliable source takes the time to lambast something is surely as notable as praising it, or did we drop the neutral point of view policy in the last few weeks? Our notability guidelines are

1699:. I was cracking up over "articles on...definitely Go Too Far." So you're saying "Let's Wait Awhile" (that was the song which is sampled on the chorus) for this single to become more notable, and I can understand that. If anyone has any input, please let me know, because I am neutral for now. 1673:

are notable is seriously flawed. This artist has released precisely one album. This single has not, according to the article, charted. It was pretty much a one-sentence stub, adding nothing which could not be covered at the entry for the album, which should probably, given that it is his sole

1001:

So we're largely in agreement, differing only on what should happen to the group. Nominating all of these for deletion is not a five minute job. I'd have to patch IE, upgrade AWB, and waste 20-30 minutes tagging all the subcats. At some point, if someone else doesn't do it first, I would happily

2928:

Here are the lines in the NYT source that directly relate to the WCCA. Enough to make an article? I don't think so. The mention is trivial. It states that the awards took place, but does not describe them. It describes some of the comics which won prizes, but it does not give any history or any

1983:

Carrying this 7 keep/4 delete motion on the basis of notability when, in fact, multiple secondary sources have been cited discussing - not merely mentioning, but actually discussing - the WCCA and the winners thereof indicates a very strong notability for a well-known internet award. Very few -

1412:

I don't know what COPPA is, and don't care. We are all supposed to be wikipedians, so there should not be any particular 'appropriate way' to talk to anyone. You can put your age on your userpage if you like, but if you think having navigation categories to enable people to identify children is

310:

It may be possible to write an article here. I have no opinion on that subject. But the page was created by a user now banned, the old history will not be helpful to writing a good article, and I'd rather see a fresh creation written from reliable sources in accordance with the suggestions at

2118:

This is, in fact, a trivial mention. This leaves us with a single non-trivial reliable source. The passion with wich webcomics are debated aside, it's pretty straightforawrd: One and a quarter is not "multiple" and if this was an article about, say, a company there would be no debate here. -

351:

Actually, the amnesia test is an essay, not even a guideline. But, if you write an article using those standards and without looking at the old content, I believe that you'll be able to write an article that will survive. I don't have the confidence that a new article will survive if the old

173:

The article was deleted due to it being thought to have been an attack page and a second Afd deletion was due to lack of strong sources. There were mostly neutral and and weak deletes on the second AFD. Now, granted that Knowledge (XXG) is not a democracy, but AfDs should be decided through

2228:

Quick comment: "When three people present a solid, uniform, and policy-based case, and seven others provide no solid rebuttal, the three must take precedence." does not apply here and is a gross misrepresentation of the AfD. The three people simply claimed that there are no sources (and acted

1285:

True but a Family Guy cat isn't even conceivably dangerous, just utterly useless. I don't want to over-stress the dangers of this, but it has potential for at least PR damage, and even if remote, potential for fairly nasty stuff among potentially vulnerable people. Shooting it is all gain, no

1973:

article solely been involved in "refuting" the WCCA, that in and of itself would have been an indication of notability. To be examined and critiqued in detail by a newspaper of the august reputation as the New York Times would be an indication of notability even if the Times article had been

2588:

was that the awrds didn't push the comics over the line. I then created a discussion thread at wp:web. This lead me directly to the deletion discussion in question here. But tick off another assumption of bad faith with regards to me, they have been coming thick anf fast the last few

2616:

that I simply didn't get it. That's why I asked you for an explanation. When I got a cocky reply instead of an explanation, I had been forced to come to my own conclusions. I gave you multiple chances to explain why I might have been wrong, and you instead opted to go into semantics. --

2043:

I assumed it was, and I'm not sure why. Regardless, it isn't trivial, and it discusses the topic; it doesn't matter if it was lambasting it or not. The second source doesn't look too good, I admit, but the lack of even a simple majority makes me think it deserves another discussion.

394:

image. You also could look for an editor that self identifies as being at IU and ask them to create and upload a freely usable image. If they succeed, we have an image with better rights and are better off, and if they try and fail, you have a better case in the fair use dispute.

802:(and if anyone wants to delete all the other born in X/age group usercats, I'm all for it). I don't want to know what age other editors are, and I cannot see how knowing is helpful in building an encyclopedia. "Not helpful" ought to be sufficient reason for deleting user cats. 2761:". That puts less emphasis on the headcount and more on the multiple sources that had not been challenged in the AfD. Yes, the discussion is not a real vote, but I think the arguments were on the side of the pro-Keep users before the AfD was closed, regardless of headcount. -- 222: 2688:

join the discussion instead of closing it? It would have been the first comment of that kind. Your cited policy would have been in favor of joining the discussion, I think... at least I can't spot any "if you disagree with the current rough consensus, delete anyway" clause.

1196:. I don't believe we can enforce a 'no child identification' policy on 500,000 userpages - if people are going to give their age they will, but we can and should ensure we have no community apparatus (ie categories) to encourage it, or to make navigating minors easier.-- 352:

content is used. The risk of repeating the same problems is too high. Since the title is not protected, we don't need to do anything to let you write a new article, and I think you are better off with the old content remaining deleted, so I endorse the old deletion.

1740:

I found a Lexis-Nexis hit for an article in People magazine (in the regular "Music" section of the 11/27/06 issue). Not sure how substantive it is from the capsule, and there's no version online, but I wanted to throw that out there in the spirit of being neighborly.

174:

consensus and not polling. 17 vs. 12 or 13 hardly seems to be a consensus. I have located elatively new evidence found and more and stronger sources to detail important organization in history. Looking to undelete this article so that research and a great article on

3356:

available. In this case, there is clearly no consensus on whether the sources that were provided are good enough, so I believe this should be kept as no consensus. I could understand a delete closure if the debate had been of the "but I like it!!!" variety, but it

3755:

tagging is a must! I would also like to note that in the backwash of the Evil Inc. and Ugly Hill deletion attempts that this kind of behavior matches a vendetta. Therefore i would like to request that if the deletion is overturned that the remaining articles are

1993:

To summarize, the idea that detailed coverage in two notable external independent secondary sources from two entirely different media, independent from both the WCCA and each other, does not indicate notability flies in the face of everything I know about

2991:

for an online "event." And it's not a news report on the awards; it's a critic's feature column in a daily newspaper written when the awards had taken place "last month." If it were a news report on the awards, then people unrelated to the awards like

982:

That only works because two subjects are never exactly the same. Your garage band may have the same X and Y as another, but that does not mean that it has Z. Here, with respect to your argument argument that categorization by age is unnecessary, they

3097:

I have no idea what you refer to, sorry. Obviously I have sources. I think this is getting somewhat circular and I'm finding it a little frustrating trying to guess the meaning of this statement. Are you not willing to agree to disagree here?

2243:

from the AfD: "results would seem to confirm notability to a high degree of certainty," "the NY Times and AOTS coverage establishes notability." Salted?! I know you started your deletion run because of meatpuppets, but this is getting obsessive.

203: 1167:

This is a category for 14 year old wikipedians. At best social networking categories are of little or no value to us, but combined with the rather obvious downside here, there is absolutely no reason for us to keep this, and every reason not

3805:

Forgive me if I don't adress each of the above in further detail, but even casual inspection (or even a moment of introspection) should make the problems with these rational quite clear. There are also quite a few arguments to the tune of

236: 2845:

Those endorse voters claiming one paragraph, "barely" one paragraph, or "one line" are either misrepresenting the article or have not, in fact, read the article. Before voting or passing judgement, please take care to read the actual

2398:, and I don't think that IGNORING "when in doubt, don't delete" is any less egregious than removing it. There seems to be a conflict of interest, so if nothing else there should be a procedural relist --22:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 1047:

In this case it is not one person, it is the consensus in all the previous decisions. As to the merits, this is one of the instances where boundary line questions should be resolved on the safe side--I almost said the conservative

669:

haven't left us much precedent (besides "ignore all rules and delete if it is a bad idea"). I believe that these types of categories should be kept if they solely contain users who are 13 years of age and older (thus following the

243: 3636:

variety of webcomics to be AFD'ed for "lack of notability", with this article in specific being quoted over and over. Notability is established through longevity of the awards (6 years, most fly by night awards never make two).

2449:

of coverage in those sources was trivial. I know people use these awards as a way of slipstreaming notability for webcomics, but the fact is that the sourcing evaporated under close inspection, which means that however much

3500:

You've read the part where I call the judgement into question, claiming more emphasis was placed on guidelines than policies and you've mentally rebutted it, right? That rebuttal would be useful here for debating purposes.

506:. Unless there are more substantive sources (especially sources that are independent of each other and don't draw on the same primary material), an encyclopedic discussion in a stand-alone article does not seem possible. ~ 1879:

The article was deleted based on one administrator's opinion after a 7-4 vote for keep, with all of the delete votes cast before the article was sourced further and rewritten to remove uncited material. The sources are a

2725:

determine whether any article violates such policies, and where it is impossible that an article on any topic can exist without breaching these three policies, such policies must again be respected above other opinions.

928:

Three admins have deleted it, other editors favoured deletion at both CfDs, some at the 2nd CfD voted (and I use the word advisedly) keep because other "born in" categories weren't up for deletion, but that's on the

2871:. The NYT piece, as noted, appears to be trivial coverage in respect of this subject (it may be non-trivial on the subject of webcomics in general). The others are even less impressive. Writing an article which met 1640:, and a video has been made, which can be seen at the PCD website. However, you have that as not only deleted, but protected. There is something wrong with this, as all of Jibbs' previous singles have wikipages. 255: 164: 3850:

that this whole encylopedia is built upon. If you're one of the webcomics fans who's either issued a plea for my death on your blog or cheered at that call-out, is it at all possible that you're viewing this with

3360:

a serious debate. If there is no consensus, then the closing admin should not act as some sort of judge/tiebreaker. If a delete decision requires more than a few words, it obviously is not based on consensus. ---

715: 3112:

You wrote that soemone was a "respected webcomics scholar," I asked for some sources, since that seemed rather weasely-worded. Prominent book reviewers showing respect for the scholarship of the book perhaps? --

2175:

After considering the evidence presented, the closing administrator saw that the required level of sourcing was absent, and that the subject was non-notable. Those favoring the deletion cited applicable policy

2553: 2256:

The salting was a pure housekeeping measure than any sort of impuning of anyone's intentions. I thought(having not checked) that I had made that clear when doing so, and I apologise if it was taken amiss. -

1870: 196: 2552:. Given that large parts of the NYT article discuss the WCCA, it is not a trivial mention. An episode of AotS is also not trivial. A bit of history that may provide another angle of explaining the decision: 2601:

Maybe re-read what I wrote? You deleted DMFA before you even knew of the AfD for the WCCA. That's what the Talk page says, that's I wrote, that's what you wrote, I don't see how I got it backwards. Explain?

3373:

I have no opinion on the merits. But with respect to the argumentation, if there is this much discussion. it is fairly obvious that there never was any consensus, and the place to decide consensus is Afd.

775: 700: 2636:, being mentioned in a couple of sources doesn't make one notable. The short NY Times paragraph is more like a sidenote, as the article's main subject is clearly not the "Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards". 3752: 2229:

according to policy at that time, no doubt), but when you read on, you clearly see how the Keep voters do present a very strong case by supplying sources both in print and television. Strong enough for

3012:

I miss your point too, Francis. It's discussed in a reliable source. If you want history and context, use the awards website, a reliable source for that information. Or get it from this interview,

953:

be deleted. We shouldn't delete some of them and then say "Oh, too bad, the rest of these categories don't have a consensus. But we still get to use the nonconsensual argument to delete the others." -

2718:, etc. Basically, half a dozen people on a single AFD page in five days aren't going to decide it's OK to write poorly or unsourced personal-point-of-view original research. Or, as it is phrased in 3827:

not the deletion. We're not re-runing the deletion here, and the deleting admin absolutely does get to make some judgement calls. That's why we don't write a script to close deletion discussions.

2089:

sources. Even a casual reading of the article from the times would show that it mentions the awards only as a "hook" to list and review the comics in question. The entire content that's actually

1998:

from my time on Knowledge (XXG). The discussion of the WCCA deletion does not indicate a consensus to delete, but in fact - leaving aside the closing comments by the admin - a consensus to keep.

187: 1413:

beneficial for wikipedia, then you are extremely naive. There are no benefits here, and as Jimbo has pointed out real and PR risks. I will carry on deleting these things as long as they exist.--

233:. Please be aware that this article may attacks due to it's placement in history. Please read evidence. Also looking to undelete history of article for research. 09:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC) 752:. It takes quite a stretch of the imagination to believe that this is equivalent to a child Wikipedian category, so regardless of any merits of the deletion, it should not have been speedied. - 273:- This article was deleted previously due to the lack of information available. At the current time more verifiable information is available to conduct research 04:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC) 1210:. I don't understand this. Keep this but then remove stuff like "I am 14 years old" from userpages. Latter is encouraged. Apparently the former isn't. Major logic flaw there. Keep deleted. -- 889:, and the 1993 cat as well. How often do we need to have this debate? I'd say the reasons for not having these cats have been established credibly and with substantial support. What is the 677:). I do not believe that a user who is 14/15 years old can be classified as a child, and therefore the deletion of this category in order to protect the privacy of children is invalid. --- 705: 2569:

Err, that's actually backwards, but perhaps based upon lazy wording on my part. Of course, the words "Per this debate" at wp:web might have given a clue at the the order of events...

2898:. I can't really see any reason for this closure. Our verifiability policy is satisfied, since we have a reliable source detailing the awards. Our verifiability policy states that 1488:. The cost/benefit is just too high. An editor should be free to reveal their age on their userpage, but that doesn't mean the category functionality should be used for this purpose. 788:

On further review, I'm just going to withdraw my !vote. I'm not very happy with the lack of a CfD still, but there have been enough valid points raised to change my mind on this one.

3842:

beyond listing the winners, I don't know what is. I'd urge in the strongest way possible that the proponants of this article (and the various others that hang off of it) review the

695: 3832:

That being said, some arguments for overturning have been presented that have some weight, for example that there were no delete suggestions made in the latter half of the debate.

3425:. The full discussion did not take into account the newer sources. I don't know if they demonstrate notability, but another AFD with the sources already in place can decide this. — 1230: 818:, to see if there is a consensus that they're unhelpful. For that matter, I created such a discussion, and it was closed as a no consensus. So you can't really use that argument. - 3777:

There are some rationals expressed here that appear wildly divergent from the accepted standards, and before this is closed it should be made clear that the following are really

3684:

Oops, my bad. Just an observation resulting from not really understanding how the deletion review process is handled (and from misreading the AfD somehow). Comment retracted :)

2579:

On the yea side, there was Madd the sane and ANTIcarrot. MtS's opinion was not only not grounded in policy or guideline, it was one that has been soundly rejected many times.

3123:

his book. But forget it. He's a published author on the medium. To me, and to our policies, that gives him a status as a reliable source. You dispute that. That's fine.

1835: 1830: 3229:

exist. We often spend time arguing here rather than doing the legwork: If this deletion review had been accompanied by a clear, concise, well-referenced stub in user space

2719: 2671: 2408: 217:

As well as listed in The history of kappa alpha psi by William Crump. It is spoken about here on the Alpha Phi Alpha article, which is a featured article of Knowledge (XXG)

1964:

of the past days, my contributions to Knowledge (XXG) have all fallen outside the area of webcomics, and that I have never been involved in writing or promoting a webcomic.

1839: 1464:

I see no reason to why this would be deleted. No one is forced to participate and people needs to be able for themselves to take responsibility rather than some community!

659: 2130:

Oh, and while I agree my word carries no more weight than anyone else's, I reckon that saying my name and "trusted contributor" will get you kicked out of some clubs! ^_^

3521: 3400:. I don't follow DRV enough anymore to know what the potential for this proposal is, but it strikes me there may be merit in a restoration and merging of the article to 2847: 1881: 158: 48: 34: 1864: 1822: 836:

suffers from an extreme self-selection bias: it's populated by people who care deeply enough about user categories to spend some part of their wikilife debating them.

2702:

I'm not sure what you want me to elaborate on, so I guess I'll just paraphrase myself: "a 7-4 vote for keep" in a discussion which is not a vote on an encyclopedia

3585:

To be honest I had problems with earlier versions of the article; it wasn't much more than a list of the award winners. However, the rewrite seemed to be fine. –

2395: 690: 3569:. It seems quite obvious from the AfD that this was an inappropriate deletion; after the rewrite the objections had been addressed, there were nothing but keeps. 43: 1661:

absent credible evidence of non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory, so the school of thought which has it that

3553:

and keep. having been mentioned in a newspaper, on TV, on the radio, and on blogs is enough for me. webcomics may be overrepresented due to systemic bias, but

2185: 1612: 3836:

being said, I'm taking notice here that no one has taken the trouble to re-write a well sourced article in user-space... If that's not tacitly accepting that

3221:

No, I'm not arguing against stubs, not at all. One of the structural problems with the whole Speedy/DrV/AfD/DrV/Rinse/Repeat is that we are comparing what

1988:, this precedent poses problems for notability standards of all articles relating to internet phenomena and for articles on notable webcomics in particular. 2494:

Simple: you find a NYT article which contains more than a passing mention, or something form some other reliable source, or - gasp! - you wait until there

710: 1225: 3605: 2674:, the long-standing consensus of our non-negotiable content policies always supersedes the pseudo-consensus of something like "a 7-4 vote for keep." -- 2415: 1051: 2548:(if that is the proper term to request undeletion). Sources popped up in the AfD, and afterwards, the closing Admin was not willing or able to explain 2524:

I'm sorry, but the WCCA is used throughout the article to present other comics. The comics chosen for discussion are often based on the award they won

2604:

I do NOT see "This hinges on the Web Cartoonist's Choice awards, and the consensus (as demostrated here) amoung the more established editors is that

3404:. I would hope I have showed there's enough sourcing to allow a small article, and in that case it may be better to present it as a section of the 1269: 2477:

for Overturn here and voted for Keep in the AfD, based on the sources) clearly don't have the same understanding of "multiple" or "non-trivial". --

933:

hit-list. It's disingenuous to say that this is a one-person crusade. It may even be wrong to say that there was a keep consensus at the last CfD.

435:- the article can be recreated using established sources and avoids reverting to the kind of attacks that was at issue in the previous instance. 3675:

What are you talking about, o fellow fancier of expired parrots? The AfD took much longer than two days and a DRV's length is fixed by policy. --

3657:

Comment (edit: oops, my bad. Nevermind this): it took 2 days to delete the article and we are pushing 4 to bring it back. Take that as you will.

1430:

for example, and that's not exactly something that's going to make headline news like "Knowledge (XXG) is a haven for child-stalkers". HTH HAND —

3524: 1888: 2502:

of several non-trivial treatments in reliable secondary sources, because we can't ensure neutrality without dispassionate critical reviews.

2703: 1826: 289: 1916:, winner of "best writing", does some damage to its pictures by said writing. Nor is it one to note that you have to scroll while reading 39: 3331:

has not been rewritten to include a distinction between "big sources" and "little sources.". Published sources need only be verified as

1186:

rest if you want, but there are clearly different concerns with a navigation category for easily finding 14 year olds, and 41 year olds!

1943:

and relist. Closing admin did not reflect the discussion's consensus. I would also like the history undeleted pending this discussion.

1427: 2498:

non-trivial reliable sources. This being an encyclopaedia and all, we really should not have na article unless the site has been the

123: 118: 2820:

not the focus or a central subject of the article, not even close. They're mentioned in passing, which makes that a trivial mention.

127: 1268:

I definitely agree with this logic. Though, if we were talking about any other user cat that is worthless to Knowledge (XXG) (e.g.

872:

1993 was a G4 and should never have got to CfD without a visit here, so it could always be that we're reviewing the wrong debate.

2305:

the idea that non-notability is perpetuated by fans of a webcomic, and fans of that comic later show up to stuff the ballot box.

2058:

Well, the first ~1/3 of the article talks about webcomics in general; it's only the last ~2/3 that talk about the WCCA. It's not

21: 2929:

context to the awards. It does not say who runs them, or give any concrete details. There is no way near enough for an article.

2748: 2656: 2427: 2387: 1818: 1777: 863: 338:

The original article was created by an account that is now banned. That shouldn't take away from it's importance in history.

152: 110: 1317:

Wait. When people try to review deletions they see as bad, it's an attempt to jackhammer through consensus... but when admins

1577: 1572: 2849:, which is clearly not trivial in its mention of the WCCA, and also note the presence of other source(s) in question, e.g., 735: 634: 2736:

It is the primary contention of this deletion review that the closing admin's judgement as to whether the article violated

3617: 3526:. While not as extensive as first thought, independent mentions in a mayor national(if not international) newspaper and a 2576:

Among the "more established" were naysayers Francis Tyers, Dragonfiend, and bogdan all indicating that WCAA wasn't enough.

2110: 1581: 2181: 2099: 458:

The 2 previous AfDs on this are so confusing that I think it is necessary to see the original and the rewritten articles.

1245:

because we have to protekt tha childruns, but because Knowledge (XXG) improves in absolutely no way with its existence.

642: 3873: 1801: 1756: 1543: 1503: 967: 771: 730: 725: 720: 625: 608: 581: 560: 89: 17: 1606: 1564: 1426:

you need to do for some people to target you. Look at the harassment some people receive when they reach the stage of

2081:

I hate to repeat myself, but the nomination called into question notability and verifiability, both of which require

2987:

The columnist is not calling these awards "The master of online ceremonies;" she's referring to a cartoon character

2648:, The entire bottom two thirds of the article reads like award coverage - it's about the awards and who won them. -- 1984:

almost no - online awards have even been mentioned by the New York Times; as awards are an integral portion of the

1171:

You want a process rational for my doing this? OK, per consensus that such things should be deleted see the DRV on

914:. Haven't we already established that these are too contentious for one person alone to decide? Probably not. -- 740: 3854: 3240: 3196: 3154:

While it's entirely possible that I'm wildly off-base in my thinking here, I see it as a process of this nature:

2879:

from the supplied sources would be very challenging indeed, but any interested editor can take that challenge up

2794:

Per above overturn comments. There are multiple non-trivial sources, sadly enough neglected by the closing admin.

2759:

with all of the delete votes cast before the article was sourced further and rewritten to remove uncited material

2591: 2327: 2258: 2132: 2120: 1063: 517: 2556:

resulted in a Delete because (quoting brenneman) "the consensus amoung the more established editors is that it (

2014:

An article in the New York Times solely about the subject is enough notability that I would say to keep it, and

1172: 387: 312: 3769: 1742: 919: 285: 2757:

Ah, I see where you're coming from. *nods* But the argument is not just "7-4 vote". It's "7-4 vote for keep,

2018:

enough that it should not be closed as delete after both a rewrite and a numerical count going the other way.

1978:

is also not trivial, and represents another secondary source that, like the Times, is completely independent.

1189:

Half the !votes here are just knee-jerk process wonkery: if they are without reasons, they should be ignored.

370:

the trouble of making an article and having it speedy deleted b/c it was deleted already or go thru an AFD.

2887: 1405: 1006: 974: 937: 876: 840: 806: 706:

Knowledge (XXG):Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 6#Umbrella categories:Wikipedians born after 1992

3859: 3772: 3760: 3741: 3706: 3697: 3679: 3670: 3640: 3621: 3589: 3573: 3561: 3545: 3510: 3495: 3482: 3470: 3458: 3443: 3417: 3392: 3380: 3365: 3343: 3303: 3273: 3245: 3216: 3201: 3132: 3117: 3107: 3085: 3070: 3060: 3045: 3035: 3005: 2982: 2955: 2920: 2900:

If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Knowledge (XXG) should not have an article on it.

2890: 2857: 2826: 2808: 2786: 2765: 2752: 2731: 2697: 2678: 2660: 2640: 2624: 2596: 2564: 2532: 2515: 2481: 2471: 2431: 2391: 2375:, overly strict interpretation of WP:V ("two's not enough for 'multiple'"?) was clearly out of process per 2367: 2355: 2332: 2309: 2299: 2288: 2276: 2263: 2251: 2237: 2221: 2212: 2192: 2163: 2137: 2125: 2070: 2053: 2038: 2029: 2002: 1947: 1934: 1790: 1745: 1729: 1703: 1691: 1652: 1532: 1492: 1480: 1468: 1456: 1438: 1417: 1407: 1384: 1363: 1330: 1312: 1290: 1276: 1259: 1216: 1200: 1154: 1142: 1130: 1097: 1081: 1068: 1027: 1009: 996: 977: 962: 940: 923: 906: 879: 867: 843: 827: 809: 792: 782: 761: 681: 597: 550: 540: 526: 510: 494: 482: 464: 450: 439: 420: 398: 374: 356: 346: 330: 300: 277: 262: 248: 182: 78: 2979: 2805: 2804:

stating the only source is "one line in an NYT article". Please don't overlook the incorrectness of this.

1453: 1435: 1373: 1248: 537: 3161:

possible?" Means that multiple sources for material in the article must exist in reliable sources. The

1930:, but carries no more particular authority than that, and what he here considered a clear case... isn't. 915: 281: 2323: 1414: 1287: 1197: 3809:"There is enough evidence here (NYT article, etc) to get past the bare minimum policies, in my opinion" 1175: 701:

Knowledge (XXG):User categories for discussion/Archive/November 2006#Category:Wikipedians born in 1993

380: 3455: 2988: 2549: 1906:, the famous, er, visionary, but the only time it disagrees with a WCCA it does so by saying that an 523: 507: 502:

The Kimbrough source seems substantial enough to discuss this subject in context, but the context is

491: 479: 417: 297: 2451: 946: 930: 235:

Found two additional sources Steppin' on the Blues: The Visible Rhythms of African American Dance

2762: 2745: 2694: 2690: 2653: 2621: 2617: 2561: 2529: 2478: 2423: 2384: 2296: 2234: 1786: 860: 225: 114: 3535: 3531:

an 18 paragraph general article about webcomics. And finally my obligatory mention of Websnark :)

2816:, I read the NYT piece. It's not one line, but it's also barely one paragraph, and the awards are 949:

hit-list. If you're going to use an argument which says that they all should be deleted, they all

259: 3737: 3570: 3433: 3020: 2884: 2850: 2821: 1975: 1401: 1107: 1077:

What consensus are you talking about? This article has never went through a deletion debate. ---

1003: 971: 934: 873: 837: 803: 595: 586: 536:, regardless of minor things people use as excuses for AfD, this is undoubtly a notable article. 240:

Black Haze: Violence, Sacrifice, and Manhood in Black Greek-Letter Fraternities By Ricky L. Jones

3532: 3251:

And the verification policy says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published source

1927: 1193: 2272:

No offense was taken. NetOracle just seems to make a bigger deal out of socks than they are. --

1182:

isn't binding on this, but the DRV endorsed it. How many times do we have to have this debate??

3613: 3478:

and if you must then relist it but the NYT article and TV show seem like a good solid start. (

2637: 2049: 2025: 1629: 1449: 1431: 1378: 1326: 1253: 1023: 992: 958: 823: 757: 3843: 3166: 2876: 2868: 2740:

was wrong, not that the policy should be ignored. There is also new data - a third source. --

2711: 2458:. If someone wants to create a workup with multiple non-trivial sources that would be fine. 2379:, and consensus was keep. If someone wants to list it again, they can do it the usual way. -- 2376: 833: 322: 3506: 3413: 3299: 3269: 3212: 3128: 3114: 3103: 3091: 3081: 3067: 3056: 3042: 3031: 3002: 2916: 2728: 2675: 1489: 1465: 1211: 1151: 3788:"if there is this much discussion. it is fairly obvious that there never was any consensus" 3554: 2707: 1985: 1305: 318: 317:

The closing admin should be aware that this article has in the past drawn the attention of

3757: 3637: 3558: 3452: 2952: 2783: 1922:, winner of "best art", while at the same time calling it beautifully drawn. As an admin, 1907: 1700: 1649: 1633: 1568: 1309: 503: 218: 3847: 3722:

It should be left to the community to determin when there are enough sources to meet the

3408:

article. There's certainly not enough unsourced material to support the deleted version.

3184: 2936:

And there are contests too. The fifth annual Web Cartoonists Choice Awards took place at

2902:

We have a reliable source for this article, therefore by that rationale, Knowledge (XXG)

2103:

And there are contests too. The fifth annual Web Cartoonists Choice Awards took place at

1105:. Either undelete these, or delete the entire bunch of "Wikipedians born in <year: --> 3294:". It doesn't say "An article should rely on reliable, third-party published sources". 3239:

refused an request for userfication, or denied anyone a chance to improve an article. -

3492: 2741: 2649: 2419: 2380: 2306: 2285: 2218: 2189: 1970: 1923: 1918: 1892: 1782: 1678:. Articles on individual non-chart songs by barely-notable acts definitely Go Too Far. 1637: 856: 547: 447: 371: 343: 245: 179: 106: 75: 70: 3727: 3328: 3173: 3158: 2872: 2737: 2715: 2455: 2177: 1995: 3732: 3586: 3542: 3538: 3426: 3389: 3340: 2997: 2854: 2510: 2504: 2466: 2460: 2160: 2067: 1999: 1944: 1903: 1724: 1718: 1686: 1680: 1477: 1059: 901: 895: 436: 208: 383:. It is currently deleted as orphaned fair use. Prior to deletion, it was also in 3609: 3479: 3467: 3362: 2284:

I'm sure you don't mind the socks, since they seem to support your side of things.

2045: 2021: 1529: 1360: 1322: 1273: 1078: 1019: 988: 954: 819: 753: 678: 395: 353: 327: 228: 2706:

is not going to repeal the long-standing consensus behind our content policies of

1856: 1598: 231: 144: 3800:"bound to have the same notability issues that most webcomics have for inclusion" 2843:

WCCAs are mentioned directly in no less than seven paragraphs in the NYT article.

2620:

16:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC) and (for the last paragraph and some formatting) --

340:

I have provided numerous new citations which are reliable in this Deletion Review

3691: 3686: 3664: 3659: 3502: 3409: 3295: 3265: 3208: 3124: 3099: 3077: 3052: 3027: 2912: 2364: 2352: 2217:

Subject, as in the subject of the article - The Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards.

2209: 1139: 1094: 789: 779: 473:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached

411:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached

3730:

and not the closing admin, who could very well overrule community consensus. --

3703: 3676: 2993: 2949: 2780: 2273: 2248: 2035: 1931: 1621: 1560: 1524: 3794:"it is quite likely that the WCCA will continue to garner occasional mention" 3405: 3401: 2937: 2104: 1160:

Deleting admins's rational: Endorse deletion and stop being so bloody silly

207: 3233:

we'd perhaps not be having this discussion right now. I don't think I've

2867:. The closing comments are succinct and to the point, and the closure met 2612:

sources, one admin (Carnildo) and four established editors voted for Keep.

3791:"having been mentioned in a newspaper, on TV, on the radio, and on blogs" 3376: 1912: 1055: 893:

formt hese for the encyclopaedia? I can see the downside pretty easily.

460: 3187:

available?" serves to re-enforce our ability to write unbiased articles.

3013: 256:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Alpha Kappa Nu (second nomination)

716:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy

2245:

Note that it was gone for several days without once being recreated.

1359:

Category:Wikipedians born in 1993 - 9 deletions, 6 restorations ---

3259:

with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (emphasis mine.)

1910:

comic isn't all that infinite. It is not a refutation to note that

3751:

Please note that there was no tagging whatsoever. As is stated in

2233:

and four other established editors to vote in favor of keeping. --

2155: 1675: 1625: 674: 3557:'s policy is to remedy omissions rather than protest inclusions. 1974:

scathing. The fact that the awards were covered and commented on

1370:

I thought admins were supposed to know better than to wheel war.

3753:

User:Balancer/Wikpedia:Deletion_is_not_a_substitute_for_tagging

2394:

P.S. It is worth noting that the closing admin was involved in

1356:

Category:Wikipedians born in 1992 - 6 deletions, 2 restorations

1353:

Category:Wikipedians born in 1991 - 4 deletions, 2 restorations

1018:

nominate them all, and there was no consensus to delete them. -

2096: 1350:

Category:Wikipedians born in 1990 - 2 deletions, 1 restoration

446:

Can you restore the history? I'd like to have access to it.

3541:

15:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC) correction cable not netwirk --

3022:, along with ample mentions in T Campbell's blog, author of 2779:

one line in an NYT article does not a notable award make. -

987:

exactly the same. Thus, they should be treated as a group. -

970:

appears on the same page. That seems to cover the argument.

178:

black greek letter organizations can be made on wikipedia.

2966:

Pretty much a non-argument. The fact they do a news report

230:. Another article about the organization is discussed here. 3523:

and a large section of an episode of "Attack of the Show"

3278:

Oh, and also, cgeck the plurals in that sentence, "Article

1716:

To think I missed an open goal like that! For shame! :o)

696:

Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Category:Child Wikipedians

1958:

ed, and would like to speak at some length on the matter.

770:. Not a valid speedy, especially given the existance of 1852: 1848: 1844: 1594: 1590: 1586: 650: 646: 638: 630: 140: 136: 132: 2720:

Knowledge (XXG):Deletion guidelines for administrators

2672:

Knowledge (XXG):Deletion guidelines for administrators

478:

Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,

416:

Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,

3823:

These are all arguments presenting an opinion on the

3286:

should rely on reliable, third-party published source

2978:

mentioned, it as a news report on the awards itself.

516:(Duplicate response removed, discussion continues on 3339:

to be able to establish the notability of subjects.

2351:

in order and recommend that a relisting be allowed.

2154:

of emphasis is typical of NYT articles covering the

296:← Duplicate bolded opinion by nominator removed. ~ 2606:it does not count as a a notable independent award 1895:, but how on Earth are we supposed to prove that?) 691:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2007 January 1 2693:18:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC) and clarified by -- 1669:are notable therefore all singles from albums by 202:of African American Fraternities and Sororities: 74:– deletion endorsed: no consensus to overturn — 2409:list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions 2396:a previous arbcom case about webcomic deletion 1002:nominate all for deletion. But not this week. 2441:thoughtful closure - it wans't just that the 1422:In some circumstances, revealing your age is 711:Knowledge (XXG):Protecting children's privacy 8: 1241:because it violates the COPPA (it doesn't), 227:A city paper online mentions the fraternity 219:Alpha_Phi_Alpha#Black_college_greek_movement 1800:The following is an archived debate of the 1542:The following is an archived debate of the 855:if 1993 survived CfD, this has no merit. -- 687:Pages possibly relevant to the discussion: 607:The following is an archived debate of the 88:The following is an archived debate of the 3724:multiple, non-trivial, ... published works 2403: 1770: 1674:output to date, be merged at this time to 1517: 574: 63: 3231:per the directions at the top of the page 2938:http://www.ccawards.com/2005_ceremony.htm 2105:http://www.ccawards.com/2005_ceremony.htm 2062:about the WCCA, but it is pretty clearly 1272:), speedy deletion would not happen. --- 2407:: This debate has been included in the 1270:Category:Wikipedians who like Family Guy 3872:The above is an archived debate of the 3520:As per the mentions in the NYT article 1755:The above is an archived debate of the 1502:The above is an archived debate of the 559:The above is an archived debate of the 490:Edit history restored behind screen. ~ 3169:but it also serves to limit inclusion. 2970:makes it notable enough. NYT calls it 1106:", without an arbitrary cutoff point. 736:Category:Wikipedians born in the 1990s 224:. A photo and short bio is given here 3812:"per the mentions in the NYT article" 2573:was the Dan/Mab deletion discussion: 2445:of sources was low but also that the 221:. Alpha Kappa Nu is spoken about here 7: 3781:good reasons to overturn a deletion: 3451:: It seems minimally sourced to me. 3351:. The discussion we are having here 3327:Contrary to what Brenneman implies, 1954:I also wish to suggest that this be 1321:to keep things deleted, it is not? - 3015:, another reliable source, or this 2800:there are a lot of endorse voters, 1665:is notable therefore all albums by 3818:"It seems minimally sourced to me" 28: 3815:"the NYT article alone is enough" 2326:}} per the request at the top. - 1138:. Inappropriate speedy deletion. 772:Category:Wikipedians born in 1993 731:Category:Wikipedians born in 1993 726:Category:Wikipedians born in 1991 721:Category:Wikipedians born in 1990 626:Category:Wikipedians born in 1992 582:Category:Wikipedians born in 1992 1302:Very strong support for deletion 1093:. Should not be speedy deleted. 3165:of this is primarily to ensure 2972:The master of online ceremonies 2034:Not solely about it, though. -- 18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review 3846:foundation that is one of the 3094:15:37, 12 February 2007 {UTC) 2363:, as per the editor above me. 1928:recognized trusted contributor 1819:Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards 1778:Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards 1: 3860:00:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 3773:15:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 3761:13:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 3742:13:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 3707:02:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 3698:02:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 3680:01:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 3671:23:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 3641:23:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 3622:20:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 3590:12:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 3574:05:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 3562:16:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 3546:16:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 3511:08:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 3496:05:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 3483:01:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 3471:00:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 3459:23:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 3444:22:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 3418:19:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 3393:10:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 3381:05:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 3366:04:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 3344:03:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 3304:19:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 3274:00:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 3246:00:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 3217:00:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 3202:23:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 3133:17:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 3118:16:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 3108:16:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 3086:15:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 3071:00:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 3061:00:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 3046:23:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 3036:23:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 3006:23:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2983:22:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2956:22:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2921:22:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2891:22:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2858:22:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2827:20:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2809:20:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2787:20:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2766:20:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2753:20:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2732:19:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2698:18:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2679:18:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2661:20:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2641:16:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2625:16:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2597:15:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2565:13:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2550:what made the sources trivial 2533:18:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2516:17:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2482:13:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2472:12:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2432:09:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2392:09:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2368:04:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2356:03:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2333:00:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 2310:07:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 2300:19:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 2289:02:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 2277:00:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 2264:23:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2252:20:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2238:18:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2222:04:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2213:04:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2193:03:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2164:03:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2138:03:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2126:03:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2071:02:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2054:02:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2039:02:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2030:02:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2003:02:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 1948:01:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 1935:01:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 1791:02:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 1746:16:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 1730:17:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 1704:13:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 1692:12:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 1653:06:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 1533:19:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 1493:21:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 1481:20:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 1469:18:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 1457:13:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 1439:13:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 1418:12:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 1408:12:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 1385:12:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 1376:, your friendly neighborhood 1364:02:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 1331:01:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 1313:19:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 1291:15:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 1277:14:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 1260:11:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 1251:, your friendly neighborhood 1217:09:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 1201:19:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 1155:09:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 1143:00:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 1131:13:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 1098:06:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 1082:05:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 1069:05:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 1028:02:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 1010:17:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 997:01:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 978:15:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 963:02:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 941:01:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 924:00:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 907:23:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 880:22:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 868:22:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 844:22:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 828:22:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 810:22:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 793:06:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 783:18:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 762:17:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 682:17:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 598:21:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 551:08:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC) 546:This truly is a long wait.. 541:08:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC) 527:06:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC) 511:07:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC) 495:19:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 483:19:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 465:02:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC) 301:19:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC) 249:08:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC) 79:22:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC) 2066:the WCCA for the most part. 1192:This has nothing to do with 1014:The issue is that I already 741:Category:Teenage Wikipedians 451:06:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC) 440:23:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC) 421:09:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC) 399:02:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 375:01:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC) 357:20:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC) 347:19:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC) 331:18:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC) 313:Knowledge (XXG):Amnesia test 263:17:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC) 183:09:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC) 3695:-- I like traffic lights -- 3668:-- I like traffic lights -- 3090:So, you have no source? -- 3001:report isn't multiple. -- 1891:(the awards were also on a 1628:, the third from his album 186:from book Black Greek 101: 3899: 3839:it's not possible to do so 1781:– overturn and relist – 1173:Category:Child Wikipedians 3066:this deleted article. -- 2584:Thus the clear consensus 832:You know, I think I can. 3879:Please do not modify it. 2704:which is not a democracy 2454:, the subject fails the 1807:Please do not modify it. 1762:Please do not modify it. 1549:Please do not modify it. 1509:Please do not modify it. 614:Please do not modify it. 566:Please do not modify it. 95:Please do not modify it. 40:Deletion review archives 3797:"no tagging whatsoever" 2834:The mention is neither 319:single purpose accounts 3876:of the article above. 3702:Heh, it happens. :) -- 2186:encyclopedic standards 1804:of the article above. 1759:of the article above. 1546:of the article above. 1528:– request withdrawn – 1506:of the article above. 1227:Nearly Headless Bastid 945:No, that's not on the 816:after a CfD discussion 611:of the article above. 585:– Deletion endorsed – 563:of the article above. 456:please restore history 215: 92:of the article above. 3608:comment was added by 3453:Dread Lord CyberSkull 2418:comment was added by 2373:Overturn and undelete 2322:I've changed it to {{ 2108:link to their sites. 1343:Wheel war scoreboard: 1054:comment was added by 213: 3024:History of Webcomics 2989:Master of Ceremonies 912:Overturn any and all 254:Second AfD is here: 3844:"freedom from bias" 3770:Hit bull, win steak 3720:Overturn and relist 3423:Overturn and relist 3371:Overturn and relist 3180:to limit inclusion. 2361:Overturn and Relist 2348:Overturn and Relist 2010:Overturn and relist 1743:Hit bull, win steak 1306:Ignoring a bad rule 2851:Attack of the Show 2204:(Web Cartoonists) 1976:Attack of the Show 968:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS 216: 3886: 3885: 3625: 3567:Overturn and keep 3509: 3416: 3302: 3272: 3260: 3215: 3167:freedom from bias 3131: 3106: 3084: 3059: 3034: 2980:JackSparrow Ninja 2919: 2825: 2806:JackSparrow Ninja 2527: 2514: 2470: 2435: 2412: 2115: 2114: 2052: 2028: 1769: 1768: 1728: 1690: 1630:Jibbs feat. Jibbs 1516: 1515: 1462:Overturn Deletion 1329: 1067: 1026: 995: 961: 922: 905: 826: 760: 573: 572: 538:JackSparrow Ninja 485: 423: 388:fair use disputed 381:Image:Trgates.jpg 303: 294: 280:comment added by 3890: 3881: 3857: 3603: 3505: 3489:Endorse deletion 3440: 3436: 3430: 3412: 3298: 3268: 3250: 3243: 3225:exist with what 3211: 3199: 3185:Reliable sources 3176:or not?" serves 3127: 3102: 3080: 3055: 3030: 2915: 2824: 2777:Endorse Deletion 2668:Endorse closure. 2594: 2525: 2508: 2464: 2413: 2330: 2261: 2182:reliable sources 2173:Endorse Deletion 2135: 2123: 2097: 2048: 2024: 1860: 1842: 1809: 1771: 1764: 1722: 1684: 1602: 1584: 1551: 1518: 1511: 1486:Endorse deletion 1474:Endorse deletion 1383: 1325: 1258: 1228: 1222:Endorse deletion 1127: 1125: 1123: 1121: 1119: 1049: 1022: 991: 957: 918: 899: 887:Endorse deletion 822: 756: 655: 654: 616: 593: 592: 575: 568: 500:Endorse deletion 477: 474: 429:Allow Recreation 415: 412: 392: 386: 295: 293: 274: 270:Endorse undelete 211: 204:books.google.com 188:books.google.com 176:one of the first 148: 130: 97: 64: 59:11 February 2007 53: 49:2007 February 12 35:2007 February 10 33: 3898: 3897: 3893: 3892: 3891: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3877: 3874:deletion review 3855: 3696: 3669: 3604:—The preceding 3438: 3434: 3428: 3241: 3197: 3151:(edit conflict) 2865:Endorse closure 2792:Strong overturn 2634:Endorse closure 2592: 2456:notability test 2414:—The preceding 2328: 2259: 2206:was non-notable 2133: 2121: 1908:infinite canvas 1902:the visions of 1893:radio broadcast 1875: 1869: 1863: 1833: 1817: 1805: 1802:deletion review 1760: 1757:deletion review 1634:Melody Thornton 1632:. It features 1624:is a single by 1617: 1611: 1605: 1575: 1559: 1547: 1544:deletion review 1507: 1504:deletion review 1371: 1246: 1226: 1117: 1115: 1113: 1111: 1109: 1050:—The preceding 664: 658: 628: 624: 612: 609:deletion review 588: 587: 564: 561:deletion review 534:Strong overturn 524:trialsanderrors 508:trialsanderrors 504:Kappa Alpha Psi 492:trialsanderrors 480:trialsanderrors 472: 418:trialsanderrors 410: 390: 384: 298:trialsanderrors 275: 209: 169: 163: 157: 151: 121: 105: 93: 90:deletion review 62: 55: 54: 51: 46: 37: 31: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 3896: 3894: 3884: 3883: 3868: 3867: 3865: 3863: 3862: 3852: 3829: 3828: 3821: 3820: 3819: 3816: 3813: 3810: 3803: 3802: 3801: 3798: 3795: 3792: 3789: 3783: 3782: 3775: 3763: 3745: 3744: 3716: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3694: 3667: 3654: 3653: 3643: 3626: 3592: 3576: 3564: 3548: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3486: 3473: 3461: 3446: 3420: 3395: 3383: 3368: 3346: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3308: 3307: 3306: 3276: 3194: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3181: 3170: 3152: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3017:Silver Bullets 3010: 3009: 3008: 2959: 2958: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2931: 2930: 2923: 2893: 2885:Angus McLellan 2862: 2861: 2860: 2840:one paragraph. 2811: 2795: 2789: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2755: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2613: 2609: 2602: 2590: 2586:in that debate 2582: 2581: 2580: 2577: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2519: 2518: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2436: 2401: 2399: 2370: 2358: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2280: 2279: 2267: 2266: 2240: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2208:?!?! Right... 2196: 2195: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2131: 2113: 2112: 2109: 2101: 2095: 2094: 2093:the award are: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2006: 2005: 1990: 1989: 1980: 1979: 1971:New York Times 1966: 1965: 1960: 1959: 1951: 1950: 1896: 1883:New York Times 1877: 1876: 1873: 1867: 1861: 1812: 1811: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1767: 1766: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1644:, or at least 1638:Pussycat Dolls 1619: 1618: 1615: 1609: 1603: 1554: 1553: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1514: 1513: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1483: 1471: 1459: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1420: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1367: 1366: 1357: 1354: 1351: 1345: 1344: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1280: 1279: 1263: 1262: 1232: 1219: 1204: 1203: 1190: 1187: 1183: 1179: 1169: 1164: 1163: 1157: 1145: 1133: 1100: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1072: 1071: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1004:Angus McLellan 972:Angus McLellan 935:Angus McLellan 916:badlydrawnjeff 909: 884: 883: 882: 874:Angus McLellan 850: 849: 848: 847: 846: 838:Angus McLellan 804:Angus McLellan 797: 796: 795: 764: 746: 745: 744: 743: 738: 733: 728: 723: 718: 713: 708: 703: 698: 693: 666: 665: 662: 656: 619: 618: 603: 602: 601: 600: 571: 570: 555: 554: 544: 543: 531: 530: 529: 497: 487: 486: 476: 468: 467: 453: 443: 442: 425: 424: 414: 407: 406: 405: 404: 403: 402: 401: 379:The image was 362: 361: 360: 359: 333: 282:207.200.122.74 266: 265: 214:Alpha Kappa Nu 171: 170: 167: 161: 155: 149: 107:Alpha Kappa Nu 100: 99: 84: 83: 82: 81: 71:Alpha Kappa Nu 61: 56: 47: 38: 30: 29: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3895: 3882: 3880: 3875: 3870: 3869: 3866: 3861: 3858: 3853: 3849: 3845: 3841: 3840: 3835: 3831: 3830: 3826: 3822: 3817: 3814: 3811: 3808: 3807: 3804: 3799: 3796: 3793: 3790: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3784: 3780: 3776: 3774: 3771: 3767: 3764: 3762: 3759: 3754: 3750: 3747: 3746: 3743: 3739: 3735: 3734: 3729: 3725: 3721: 3718: 3717: 3708: 3705: 3701: 3700: 3699: 3693: 3689: 3688: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3678: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3666: 3662: 3661: 3656: 3655: 3651: 3647: 3644: 3642: 3639: 3634: 3630: 3627: 3623: 3619: 3615: 3611: 3607: 3600: 3596: 3593: 3591: 3588: 3584: 3580: 3577: 3575: 3572: 3571:Bryan Derksen 3568: 3565: 3563: 3560: 3556: 3552: 3549: 3547: 3544: 3540: 3536: 3533: 3529: 3525: 3522: 3519: 3516: 3512: 3508: 3504: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3494: 3490: 3487: 3484: 3481: 3477: 3474: 3472: 3469: 3465: 3462: 3460: 3457: 3454: 3450: 3447: 3445: 3441: 3432: 3424: 3421: 3419: 3415: 3411: 3407: 3403: 3399: 3396: 3394: 3391: 3387: 3384: 3382: 3379: 3378: 3372: 3369: 3367: 3364: 3359: 3354: 3350: 3347: 3345: 3342: 3338: 3334: 3330: 3326: 3323: 3322: 3305: 3301: 3297: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3277: 3275: 3271: 3267: 3262: 3261: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3244: 3238: 3237: 3232: 3228: 3224: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3214: 3210: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3200: 3195: 3191: 3186: 3182: 3179: 3175: 3171: 3168: 3164: 3160: 3156: 3155: 3153: 3150: 3134: 3130: 3126: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3116: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3105: 3101: 3096: 3095: 3093: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3083: 3079: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3069: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3058: 3054: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3044: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3033: 3029: 3025: 3021: 3018: 3014: 3011: 3007: 3004: 2999: 2998:Scott McCloud 2995: 2990: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2981: 2977: 2973: 2969: 2968:on the awards 2965: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2957: 2954: 2951: 2950:Francis Tyers 2947: 2946: 2939: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2927: 2924: 2922: 2918: 2914: 2910: 2905: 2901: 2897: 2894: 2892: 2889: 2886: 2882: 2878: 2874: 2870: 2866: 2863: 2859: 2856: 2852: 2848: 2844: 2841: 2837: 2833: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2823: 2822:Seraphimblade 2819: 2815: 2812: 2810: 2807: 2803: 2799: 2796: 2793: 2790: 2788: 2785: 2782: 2781:Francis Tyers 2778: 2775: 2767: 2764: 2760: 2756: 2754: 2750: 2747: 2743: 2739: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2730: 2726: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2696: 2692: 2687: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2677: 2673: 2669: 2666: 2662: 2658: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2639: 2635: 2632: 2626: 2623: 2619: 2614: 2610: 2607: 2603: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2595: 2587: 2583: 2578: 2575: 2574: 2572: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2563: 2559: 2555: 2551: 2547: 2544: 2543: 2534: 2531: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2517: 2512: 2507: 2506: 2501: 2500:primary focus 2497: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2483: 2480: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2468: 2463: 2462: 2457: 2453: 2448: 2444: 2440: 2437: 2433: 2429: 2425: 2421: 2417: 2410: 2406: 2402: 2400: 2397: 2393: 2389: 2386: 2382: 2378: 2374: 2371: 2369: 2366: 2362: 2359: 2357: 2354: 2349: 2346: 2345: 2334: 2331: 2325: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2311: 2308: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2298: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2287: 2282: 2281: 2278: 2275: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2265: 2262: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2250: 2246: 2241: 2239: 2236: 2232: 2227: 2223: 2220: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2211: 2207: 2203: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2194: 2191: 2187: 2183: 2179: 2178:verifiability 2174: 2171: 2165: 2162: 2157: 2152: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2139: 2136: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2124: 2117: 2116: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2072: 2069: 2065: 2061: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2051: 2047: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2037: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2017: 2011: 2008: 2007: 2004: 2001: 1997: 1992: 1991: 1987: 1982: 1981: 1977: 1972: 1969:Even had the 1968: 1967: 1962: 1961: 1957: 1953: 1952: 1949: 1946: 1942: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1933: 1929: 1925: 1921: 1920: 1915: 1914: 1909: 1905: 1904:Scott McCloud 1900: 1894: 1890: 1886: 1884: 1872: 1866: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1846: 1841: 1837: 1832: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1810: 1808: 1803: 1798: 1797: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1779: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1765: 1763: 1758: 1753: 1752: 1747: 1744: 1739: 1738: 1731: 1726: 1721: 1720: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1705: 1702: 1698: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1688: 1683: 1682: 1677: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1614: 1608: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1583: 1579: 1574: 1570: 1566: 1562: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1552: 1550: 1545: 1540: 1539: 1534: 1531: 1527: 1526: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1512: 1510: 1505: 1500: 1499: 1494: 1491: 1487: 1484: 1482: 1479: 1475: 1472: 1470: 1467: 1463: 1460: 1458: 1455: 1451: 1447: 1444: 1440: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1419: 1416: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1406: 1403: 1399: 1396: 1395: 1386: 1381: 1380: 1375: 1369: 1368: 1365: 1362: 1358: 1355: 1352: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1300: 1299: 1292: 1289: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1278: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1261: 1256: 1255: 1250: 1244: 1240: 1236: 1233: 1231: 1229: 1223: 1220: 1218: 1215: 1214: 1209: 1206: 1205: 1202: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1177: 1174: 1170: 1166: 1165: 1161: 1158: 1156: 1153: 1149: 1146: 1144: 1141: 1137: 1134: 1132: 1129: 1128: 1104: 1101: 1099: 1096: 1092: 1089: 1088: 1083: 1080: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1070: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1053: 1046: 1043: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1008: 1005: 1000: 999: 998: 994: 990: 986: 981: 980: 979: 976: 973: 969: 966: 965: 964: 960: 956: 952: 948: 944: 943: 942: 939: 936: 932: 927: 926: 925: 921: 917: 913: 910: 908: 903: 898: 897: 892: 888: 885: 881: 878: 875: 871: 870: 869: 865: 862: 858: 854: 851: 845: 842: 839: 835: 831: 830: 829: 825: 821: 817: 813: 812: 811: 808: 805: 801: 798: 794: 791: 787: 786: 785: 784: 781: 777: 773: 769: 765: 763: 759: 755: 751: 748: 747: 742: 739: 737: 734: 732: 729: 727: 724: 722: 719: 717: 714: 712: 709: 707: 704: 702: 699: 697: 694: 692: 689: 688: 686: 685: 684: 683: 680: 676: 672: 661: 652: 648: 644: 640: 636: 632: 627: 623: 622: 621: 620: 617: 615: 610: 605: 604: 599: 596: 594: 591: 584: 583: 579: 578: 577: 576: 569: 567: 562: 557: 556: 553: 552: 549: 542: 539: 535: 532: 528: 525: 521: 519: 514: 513: 512: 509: 505: 501: 498: 496: 493: 489: 488: 484: 481: 475: 470: 469: 466: 463: 462: 457: 454: 452: 449: 445: 444: 441: 438: 434: 430: 427: 426: 422: 419: 413: 408: 400: 397: 389: 382: 378: 377: 376: 373: 368: 367: 366: 365: 364: 363: 358: 355: 350: 349: 348: 345: 341: 337: 334: 332: 329: 326: 324: 320: 314: 309: 306: 305: 304: 302: 299: 291: 287: 283: 279: 272: 271: 264: 261: 257: 253: 252: 251: 250: 247: 244: 241: 237: 232: 229: 226: 223: 220: 212: 205: 201: 197: 195: 192: 189: 185: 184: 181: 177: 166: 160: 154: 146: 142: 138: 134: 129: 125: 120: 116: 112: 108: 104: 103: 102: 101: 98: 96: 91: 86: 85: 80: 77: 73: 72: 68: 67: 66: 65: 60: 57: 50: 45: 44:2007 February 41: 36: 23: 19: 3878: 3871: 3864: 3848:five pillars 3838: 3837: 3833: 3824: 3778: 3765: 3748: 3731: 3723: 3719: 3685: 3658: 3649: 3645: 3632: 3628: 3598: 3594: 3587:Abe Dashiell 3582: 3578: 3566: 3550: 3527: 3517: 3488: 3475: 3463: 3448: 3422: 3397: 3385: 3375: 3370: 3357: 3352: 3348: 3336: 3332: 3324: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3235: 3234: 3230: 3226: 3222: 3177: 3162: 3159:Verification 3023: 3016: 2975: 2974:. It is not 2971: 2967: 2925: 2908: 2903: 2899: 2895: 2881:in userspace 2880: 2864: 2842: 2839: 2835: 2831: 2817: 2814:Keep deleted 2813: 2801: 2797: 2791: 2776: 2758: 2723: 2685: 2667: 2645: 2633: 2605: 2585: 2570: 2557: 2554:The DMFA AfD 2545: 2503: 2499: 2495: 2459: 2446: 2442: 2438: 2404: 2372: 2360: 2347: 2324:tempundelete 2283: 2244: 2230: 2205: 2201: 2172: 2150: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2063: 2059: 2015: 2013: 2009: 1955: 1940: 1917: 1911: 1898: 1882: 1878: 1806: 1799: 1776: 1761: 1754: 1717: 1696: 1679: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1645: 1641: 1620: 1548: 1541: 1523: 1508: 1501: 1485: 1473: 1466:Lord Metroid 1461: 1446:Keep deleted 1445: 1423: 1397: 1379:MessedRocker 1377: 1318: 1301: 1254:MessedRocker 1252: 1242: 1238: 1235:Keep Deleted 1234: 1221: 1212: 1208:Keep deleted 1207: 1159: 1147: 1135: 1108: 1102: 1090: 1045:keep deleted 1044: 1015: 984: 950: 911: 894: 890: 886: 852: 815: 800:Keep deleted 799: 776:survived CfD 767: 766: 749: 670: 667: 613: 606: 589: 580: 565: 558: 545: 533: 518:my talk page 515: 499: 471: 459: 455: 432: 428: 409: 339: 335: 316: 308:Keep deleted 307: 276:— Preceding 269: 268: 267: 239: 234: 210:File:Akn.JPG 199: 193: 190: 175: 172: 94: 87: 69: 58: 3333:independent 3115:Dragonfiend 3092:Dragonfiend 3068:Dragonfiend 3043:Dragonfiend 3003:Dragonfiend 2802:incorrectly 2729:Dragonfiend 2676:Dragonfiend 2202:The subject 1490:ChazBeckett 1213:Woohookitty 1152:Candy-Panda 323:sockpuppets 194:and page 92 3758:The Shroud 3756:protected. 3638:Timmccloud 3559:Aaronbrick 2994:Gary Groth 2452:we like it 2087:nontrivial 2016:definitely 1996:notability 1701:Tom Danson 1650:Tom Danson 1622:Go Too Far 1561:Go Too Far 1525:Go Too Far 1310:Wintermut3 947:WP:ILIKEIT 931:WP:ILIKEIT 3856:brenneman 3493:Sandstein 3406:Webcomics 3402:Webcomics 3242:brenneman 3198:brenneman 3163:intention 3019:article, 2818:certainly 2742:Random832 2650:Random832 2593:brenneman 2420:Random832 2381:Random832 2329:brenneman 2307:NetOracle 2286:NetOracle 2260:brenneman 2219:NetOracle 2190:NetOracle 2134:brenneman 2122:brenneman 1924:brenneman 1646:Unprotect 1319:wheel war 857:Random832 548:FrozenApe 448:FrozenApe 372:FrozenApe 344:FrozenApe 246:FrozenApe 180:FrozenApe 76:Doug Bell 3766:Overturn 3726:test of 3646:Overturn 3629:Overturn 3618:contribs 3606:unsigned 3595:Overturn 3579:Overturn 3551:overturn 3543:Aclapton 3539:Aclapton 3518:Overturn 3476:Overturn 3464:Overturn 3449:Overturn 3390:Latebird 3386:Overturn 3349:Overturn 3341:Balancer 3337:reliable 2909:guidance 2896:Overturn 2855:Balancer 2836:one line 2763:Sid 3050 2695:Sid 3050 2691:Sid 3050 2622:Sid 3050 2618:Sid 3050 2562:Sid 3050 2546:Overturn 2530:Sid 3050 2479:Sid 3050 2428:contribs 2416:unsigned 2297:Sid 3050 2235:Sid 3050 2231:an admin 2161:Balancer 2159:review. 2083:multiple 2068:Balancer 2000:Balancer 1956:overturn 1945:Nardman1 1941:Overturn 1913:Narbonic 1398:Overturn 1194:WP:CHILD 1148:Overturn 1136:Overturn 1103:Overturn 1091:Overturn 1064:contribs 1052:unsigned 853:overturn 768:Overturn 750:Overturn 590:gaillimh 437:Eusebeus 290:contribs 278:unsigned 242:page 34 200:Page 137 20:‎ | 3825:article 3749:Restore 3610:TMLutas 3528:network 3480:Emperor 3468:Shimeru 3398:Comment 3363:RockMFR 3325:Comment 3174:Notable 2926:Comment 2877:WP:NPOV 2869:WP:DGFA 2846:article 2832:Comment 2798:Comment 2712:WP:NPOV 2686:comment 2646:comment 2439:Endorse 2377:WP:DGFA 2247:d'oh -- 2151:Comment 2046:Amarkov 2022:Amarkov 1889:tv show 1885:article 1865:restore 1836:protect 1831:history 1697:Comment 1659:Endorse 1642:Restore 1636:of the 1607:restore 1578:protect 1573:history 1530:GRBerry 1361:RockMFR 1323:Amarkov 1286:loss.-- 1274:RockMFR 1079:RockMFR 1020:Amarkov 989:Amarkov 955:Amarkov 891:benefit 834:WP:CFDU 820:Amarkov 754:Amarkov 679:RockMFR 660:restore 639:history 396:GRBerry 354:GRBerry 336:comment 328:GRBerry 260:W.marsh 191:page 22 153:restore 124:protect 119:history 3555:WP:CSB 3503:Hiding 3410:Hiding 3353:should 3296:Hiding 3266:Hiding 3209:Hiding 3178:mainly 3125:Hiding 3100:Hiding 3078:Hiding 3053:Hiding 3028:Hiding 2913:Hiding 2904:should 2888:(Talk) 2708:WP:NOR 2638:bogdan 2447:extent 2443:number 2365:Mathmo 2353:Bwithh 2210:Mathmo 2184:, and 2060:solely 1986:WP:WEB 1919:Copper 1887:and a 1840:delete 1783:bainer 1582:delete 1428:WP:RFA 1374:Signed 1249:Signed 1140:Prolog 1095:Mathmo 1007:(Talk) 975:(Talk) 951:should 938:(Talk) 877:(Talk) 841:(Talk) 807:(Talk) 790:BryanG 780:BryanG 774:which 671:spirit 128:delete 3851:bias? 3733:Farix 3704:Kizor 3677:Kizor 3227:could 2589:days. 2571:First 2558:=WCCA 2511:Help! 2467:Help! 2274:Kizor 2249:Kizor 2156:Webby 2091:about 2064:about 2036:Kizor 1932:Kizor 1926:is a 1857:views 1849:watch 1845:links 1725:Help! 1687:Help! 1676:Jibbs 1626:Jibbs 1599:views 1591:watch 1587:links 1478:mikka 1110:: --> 1048:side. 902:Help! 814:Yes, 675:COPPA 647:watch 643:links 238:and 145:views 137:watch 133:links 52:: --> 16:< 3834:That 3738:Talk 3728:WP:N 3692:Talk 3665:Talk 3650:keep 3648:and 3633:keep 3631:and 3614:talk 3599:keep 3597:and 3583:keep 3581:and 3534:and 3507:Talk 3431:acan 3414:Talk 3335:and 3329:WP:N 3300:Talk 3270:Talk 3236:ever 3223:does 3213:Talk 3129:Talk 3104:Talk 3082:Talk 3057:Talk 3032:Talk 2996:and 2976:just 2917:Talk 2875:and 2873:WP:V 2838:nor 2738:WP:V 2727:" -- 2716:WP:V 2670:Per 2424:talk 2405:Note 2050:moo! 2026:moo! 1897:The 1853:logs 1827:talk 1823:edit 1787:talk 1595:logs 1569:talk 1565:edit 1476:. `' 1454:Talk 1450:Phil 1436:Talk 1432:Phil 1327:moo! 1176:here 1126:< 1060:talk 1024:moo! 993:moo! 959:moo! 920:talk 824:moo! 758:moo! 651:logs 635:talk 631:edit 321:and 286:talk 165:AfD2 141:logs 115:talk 111:edit 32:< 3779:not 3687:Erk 3660:Erk 3427:coe 3377:DGG 3358:was 2722:: " 2505:Guy 2496:are 2461:Guy 1899:NYT 1871:AfD 1719:Guy 1681:Guy 1671:foo 1667:foo 1663:foo 1613:AfD 1424:all 1415:Doc 1402:Mgm 1288:Doc 1243:not 1239:not 1198:Doc 1168:to. 1056:DGG 1016:did 985:are 896:Guy 673:of 461:DGG 431:-- 315:. 198:. 159:AfD 22:Log 3740:) 3620:) 3616:• 3537:-- 3456:✎☠ 3442:— 3439:lk 2948:- 2883:. 2853:. 2751:) 2714:, 2710:, 2689:-- 2659:) 2430:) 2426:• 2411:. 2390:) 2180:, 2111:” 2100:“ 2085:, 2012:. 1855:| 1851:| 1847:| 1843:| 1838:| 1834:| 1829:| 1825:| 1789:) 1648:. 1597:| 1593:| 1589:| 1585:| 1580:| 1576:| 1571:| 1567:| 1452:| 1434:| 1237:, 1066:). 1062:• 866:) 778:. 649:| 645:| 641:| 637:| 633:| 522:~ 520:). 433:IF 391:}} 385:{{ 292:) 288:• 258:-- 143:| 139:| 135:| 131:| 126:| 122:| 117:| 113:| 42:: 3736:( 3690:| 3663:| 3624:. 3612:( 3485:) 3437:a 3435:t 3429:l 3290:s 3282:s 3255:s 3183:" 3172:" 3157:" 2953:· 2784:· 2749:c 2746:t 2744:( 2657:c 2654:t 2652:( 2513:) 2509:( 2469:) 2465:( 2434:. 2422:( 2388:c 2385:t 2383:( 2176:( 2044:- 2020:- 1874:) 1868:| 1862:( 1859:) 1821:( 1785:( 1741:- 1727:) 1723:( 1689:) 1685:( 1616:) 1610:| 1604:( 1601:) 1563:( 1404:| 1382:. 1372:— 1257:. 1247:— 1178:. 1162:: 1124:t 1122:n 1120:a 1118:i 1116:d 1114:a 1112:R 1058:( 904:) 900:( 864:c 861:t 859:( 663:) 657:( 653:) 629:( 325:. 284:( 206:. 168:) 162:| 156:| 150:( 147:) 109:(

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 11 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index