879:
in your article about "notability" on
Knowledge (XXG): "Multiple" "Independent" and "Reliable" "Published Works" have established "Non-Trivial" information detailing my roll as one of the two factors which caused on of the most disputed elections in my town, drawing public comment from newspapers, politicians, regular citizens, and even state officials. In non-Knowledge (XXG)-speak, that is, multiple articles were published in regional (not local) newspapers explaining that because of my youth and legal accusations made against me, that there were a much higher than usual number of write-ins in the school board election and that my legal status as a viable candidate was also in question. This article is not directory information. It is information about a person of historical significance. It would most likely be of interest only to residents of Pequannock, Pequannock historians, and those studying law or politics in New Jersey, however this point is of no concern as notability is NOT subjective. In fact, notability has already been permanently and expertly bestowed by several journalists (Rob Ratish, Gene Myers, etc) who decided that this topic was important enough to write articles about for their respective newspapers: The Star Ledger, The Record, and The Argus (to name a couple). That is pretty much the basis of my argument. I've already stated why I want this less than flattering article about myself preserved, however I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Hit Bull Win Steakfor making a good point about ways I can prove to my opponents that I didn't have this article deleted. If these efforst are futile, I will probably use that, so thanks. Before commenting, please be sure to read both the original Knowledge (XXG) article AS WELL AS the link to newspaper archives that I have provided as a much better and more objective method of verifying notability than a Google search. Also of note is the Knowledge (XXG) article on notability, which has been paraphrased in my general direction despite the fact that many of the commenters here seem not to be familiar with it.
4175:
quantum particle-like category where fact requests dodge in and out of the cat is genuinely questionable. Keeping track of large quantities is doable, no question about it. I question the utility, on balance, of having a massive category where if there happens to be one little clause in the article that someone requests a citation for it, now the article's in the category; provide the citation, an instant later it's out of the category. For the moment, use the imagination to see the other implications of this. More importantly, each placement of a "citation-needed" on some little clause, sentence, or paragraph is an individual editorial decision by an editor somewhere on the wiki. I've only been here for a year now, and I have numerous "fact" templates in place, several of them having remained in place for the majority of that time on topics I'm quite familiar with. In some cases they're there as a courtesy to the editor who placed the clause or sentence. In several cases I myself placed the template on something I inserted, anticipating a day when I would get around to citing it (etc., etc., etc., etc., depending on the editorial decision-- and I'm just one editor among perhaps millions). Is the expectation here that
4104:. Interesting, and appreciated. Unlike the article templates placed at the top of the article page, though, these are just all over the place, and thousands of articles come and go and quite readily return again in an instant or two--Put up a "citation-needed" request and "poof" the article is in the cat; provide a citation and "poof" it's gone a couple hours later, perhaps to return shortly when another editor catches another little clause, etc.. In the meantime virtually no one looks for the category note, or lack thereof, at the bottom of the article, but instead the editors tend to be responding to the particular point of interest within an article rather than the article as a whole. Moreover, sometimes there's just a few citation-needed templates in an otherwise well-sourced article and editors not uncommonly decide to leave it(or them) in place for any of a very wide variety of editorial reasons, depending on the article, how many participants, how controversial the topic, etc. Again (speaking as just another user of WP whos's already invested a number of hours researching this particular matter) I genuinely appreciate this additional perspective into the complexities of perceptions of the issues involved here. ...
860:
politics, the extreme controversy and complication of the election (with respect to historical precedent), and the accusations leveled against me were fully cited in the form of newspaper articles. It appears from the comments that the article was deleted based upon lack of results in a Google search and bias towards self-published authors. If you'd like to remove the information about my status as a self-published author (WHICH I did not add) feel free to do that, rather than delete a good article. Also, I strongly question the idea that a Google search alone can bestow or revoke the notable status of an individual, I'm pretty sure that's history's job and you guys are just guessing. The short of it: ALL information in the article was verifiable, it was just deemed non-notable, which again I say was on the basis of a Google search with little consideration to the actual situation. Try reading the news articles.
640:
reading my comments or my position and just feel that if MoPo is insignificant to them, than it does not matter. Guess what? There are many more people in the world than the editors at Wiki, and there are thousands that utilize MoPo on a regular basis for research, investment, and collecting. As far as the article goes - an Admin decided to DELETE it without discussion or giving the creating editor (me) an opportunity to address the concerns - instead ity was just deleted - THAT IS NOT COOL PER WIKI POLICY, yet this has not been addressed either. I would have been happy to change it as necessary, but was NEVER GIVEN A CHANCE to do so. Why is that OK? Furthermore, just because you know nothing about the topic does NOT mean it is not notable. And, I see NOBODY has addressed the fact that other articles clearly are in the same situation as MoPo (see
550:. The sources are SUPPOSED to be about Movie Poster Collecting because that is why the MoPo group exists in the first place. The artical did not "positively assert" anything but how important MoPo is to the rather large community of collectors and investors out there that are indeed interested in the topic of movie posters. Instead of just saying something is/is not notable, please be more specific - why are the resorces outlined above "non-notable," if that is your opinion. Afterall, this is about the opinion of a majority - and that majority would be any person interested in movie posters and/or collecting movie posters, and that majority should not include those that have NO interest in the subject.
2813:, which is OK in my view. A list of red links is by definition a list of people without WP articles. In other words, Knowledge (XXG) has not been able to research them properly. If it's hard for us to document them, then I argue that we should be able to get along without the list. Lowering our quality standards is not the solution to the problem. It's like saying, 'Here is a possible list of Peruvian Jews, and we're sorry we don't know if it's correct or not, but there's probably somebody in the world who thinks it's correct.' I note that interesting lists made up entirely of blue links DO exist, for example
580:
references from various resources that are ALL on-topic? And, the population of collectors holds the MoPo group in high regard and recognize it as the first of its kind. While I can find multiple articles documenting the importance and value of movie posters, and movie poster collecting/investment, as well as multiple resources that cite MoPo as important to the community, the criticism here seems to be that the community itself is not notable enough? Well, that is subjective, don't ya think? And, there are plenty of groups on Wiki that have little/no articles about them, but are still notable, such as
4053:
CfD was truncated with a "speedy keep" after two days, well prior to seven days normally allotted. This development was interesting because the "vote" was tied between "keep" and "delete" after a little more than a day, then within a matter of about four hours several votes to keep were lodged and the discussion was administraively terminated. Since then, the talk page for this category, "Articles with unsourced statements" has had the appearance that the community had decided to keep this category, when in fact it was a virtually unilateral administrative decision.
4369:
CfD was truncated with a "speedy keep" after two days, well prior to seven days normally allotted. This development was interesting because the "vote" was tied between "keep" and "delete" after a little more than a day, then within a matter of about four hours several votes to keep were lodged and the discussion was administraively terminated. Since then, the talk page for this category, "Articles with unsourced statements" has had the appearance that the community had decided to keep this category, when in fact it was a virtually unilateral administrative decision.
4491:
article, we can simply have the bot stop dating the citation templates and remove the ones that exist. I see no need to delete the category as a whole. I don't see what's intrusive about it (that one line at the bottom?? really??) or "misleading". Are you opposed to the existence of the category or of the citation template itself? To me it sounds like you want to get rid of both. If it's the date tags that bother you, there's no need to delete the general "Articles with unsourced statements" category. Also,
4005:. This category, on the other hand, deals with the same issues on a completely different level of operation, that is, little clauses, phrases and sentences within articles that users assert need citations for a specific statement. As most of us know already, that constitutes, and will likely continue to constitute, most of the entire wiki. And so the category continues to grow rapidly as more and more users put up "citation-needed" on one or more statements in tens of thousands of articles.
2251:!votes on afd that say "you must keep my article because you kept article y which is similar". Articles stand or fall on their own merits. There were no merits indicated in the debate. I say again, this was unsourced redlinks, and I did say that the deletion as without prejudice to the possibility of it being "recreated as a sourced article" at a later stage. So, I've no idea why this is on DRV. If anyone wants the edit history in their userspace for reference, I'll be happy to oblige.--
627:: There is no establishing of this particular thing's notability. That it was the first one (1995 is the first one?) would be significant, but if it's the first one and didn't catch on, then it's still not really notability. What puts this aside from the stack of others? What makes this more than a fan's article? What makes this something that explains a phenomenon in the wider world? The article doesn't serve its primary function as an encyclopedia entry.
4723:. I do not so easily accept in a cavalier way having an arbitrary starting point (e.g. "now", February, 2007) beyond which every fact tag will automatically have a date plunked onto it, at least not without the broader community participating in such a decision (and I know for a fact I am not alone in this opinion). I can just as easily plunk a date on the tag myself with the recently added date-attribute (and other users will learn too).
2622:," of whom there is a much greater population in Peru and of much greater historical signifance, there probably wouldn't be such a controversy over it being deleted. But because it is a list of Peruvian Jews, and anything Jewish has always been controversial in some way, similarly as anything "African-American" has, there is much more of an uproar. You calling these lists "hitlists" suggests that the people who make these lists are naive.
4620:(i.e. the category existing). One of the more important maintenance categories. The dating system will be useful after it has been operating for a few months, as something which has been fact-tagged for a couple months likely needs to be removed. No compelling reason for deletion presented, barring a broad rethinking of our use of maintenance categories; process issues are not a significant cause for concern.
4427:. Black Falcon, I'm amazed anyone has actually read through this discussion! ;-) I've about had it for tonight (-5hrs from Greenwich time here) and will re-re-respond when I have time to get back in here. I do think it's important for both "sides" of the debate to get as effective a handle as possible on the attendant issues, especially inasmuch as some of them relate to the core policies of WP. ...
4769:
become less aged as time goes by. One suggestion above is 2 weeks, which means all the
January and earlier ones should be dealt with now. While I respect the suggestion that examining the history is all that's needed to identify when a "fact" tag was added, with high traffic articles it would be somewhat time consuming, and with 50,000 articles (maybe twice as many tags) that's a lot of time spent.
4455:
Date-tagging is now mandatory, or at least automated. All "citation-needed" tags that were lodged prior to
January and February 2007 are hereby granted amnesty under our new program to more strictly enforce WP:VER (except for the ones from 2006 which fell through the cracks of our new program). We don't mind if you fail to put a "citation-needed" for those tens of millions of statements that
1821:. Let's begin with the blindingly obvious: XfD is not a vote. My eyes began to glaze over as I read through the 100K+ of repetitive arguments. The rationale for deleting these was much more convincing than the arguments against. No information is lost by creating lists, and navigation is easier (13+ categories for Ed Begley Jr?). These were an example of extreme over-categorisation in action.
3913:, and oppose the kind of process obsession that led to these much delayed calls for deletion. At the absolute worst there ought to be a fresh deletion discussion given both that the last CFD was closed keep and that the dated subcategories didn't even exist at the time of prior discussions. Though I have said as much, several individuals have persisted in calling for immediate deletion.
4520:. Sometimes I remove them immediately or provide a cite, other times I place them and am comfortable, based on an assessment of the content to let them sit there for as long as need be. Anyone who wants to date them is welcome to date them. It's case by case, depending on the situation. But this current situation, in my estimation, is ridiculous and misleading. That is my opinion. ...
4702:. If we are going to have {{fact}} tags at all, then I think we need this category. And the SmackBot dating is part of being sure the 'fact' tags are addressed. Does anyone have an alternate plan for dealing with unsourced statements in Knowledge (XXG)? The excessive number of February, 2007 dates will presumably go away as SmackBot continues with the new pattern for a while.
1582:. Because they used different formats for image links this unlinked all the British television images. So in essence a template conversion unintentionally orphaned many images, and then admins deleted the orphans. That's not the admins' fault, but isn't the way things should work either. Things should be restored to the status quo before the conversion accident.
440:
but in 1995 there was ONLY MoPo, and nothing else until the last few years - the founders of this group are some of the most renowned individuls in our community. The following resources either reference and link to MoPo directly, or are other third party support/references as requested. 1) One of the busiest reference sites on the topic of movie posters -
4029:
event, currently involving over 40,000 articles, is the increasing demand for sourcing of statements made on the wiki. Indeed the category foreseeably could ultimately involve virtually every article on
Knowledge (XXG). In other words, it's a real mess, beoming more and more of a mess as time passes, with no end to the mess in sight.
476:; and, finally 10) The following independent dealer/community sites also reference MoPo as a main resource for the comminity: classicmovies.org, filmposters.com, passini.com, posteritati.com, emovieposter.com, cinemasterpieces.com, polishposter.com, vintageposterart.com, hollywoodposterframes.com, movieposter.com, and many others.
3980:
the size of several months ago). It is easily conceivable that the vast majority of articles on the wiki could be in this category at some point in the future, given the rapidly increasing demand for citations on minutia throughout the wiki. Some of the relevant issues related to this DRV can be found in a recent exchange at
4971:
content from the full serbian wikipedia article about him, after having it professionally translated. There are two english language wikipedia articles which already inlcuded this person in them as being a famous person. There were listed in the article's see also section, and were cited on my hangon template.
4970:
Article was sourced, person was notable. The subject of the article was a prominent person in the first
Serbian Revolution. There was a movie made about him, and a book. There are a school and a street named after him in Serbia. The article was only a stub, and I had intentionas of including more
4825:
have authorized many bots that correct spaces before commas, semicolons, various syntax issues, capitalization conventions, and all manner of minutiae on the wiki that do not involve categories. Why would a category be needed for the month-dating of fact templates as discussed by several WP-users in
4324:
3) it is impossible to ever "fix" the issue this category represents, involving such a massive list, as new fact templates are placed and removed throughout the wiki constantly on a second-by-second, minute-by-minute, and hour-by-hour basis, with the net number continually growing fast on the average
4087:
I'll side with the nominating admin that he did nothing wrong in restoring the category. Honestly, I find the category a little annoying, but it works much the same way as the "cleanup" and "wikify" categories, which are also very large and could theoretically be much larger still. Having a note at
4044:
3) it is impossible to ever "fix" the issue this category represents, involving such a massive list, as new fact templates are placed and removed throughout the wiki constantly on a second-by-second, minute-by-minute, and hour-by-hour basis, with the net number continually growing fast on the average
2487:
the actual utility of the designation is low, and it is an assertion of point of view that my identity as .02 Creek Indian, for example, is an important identifier instead of my identity as a
Wikipedian or lion tamer. The existence of such a "list of people" article is asserting priority in identity
2464:
OK, I endorsed deletion of this article like you, but I wen't nowhere near as far as you did. You want to delete all "list of people" articles? Why in heavens, hell, and anything in between would you want to do that? Your comment that "they are all inherently POV" just floors me. How so? Lastly,
2450:
going through these? List of X Jews is a delete. Delete for "Hollywood," for "New York," for "Russian," for anything you'd like. The reasoning is ancient, ancient, ancient. We have precedent after precedent here. No hitlist articles about "ethnicity" or religion. No "list of people," either, as
2318:
I'm glad the arguments came across as they did. This deletion was perfectly valid. Noting also that it is possible somebody was contacting users who they knew would want to keep this list and telling them to vote "keep" on the article. Thats the only way I could see so many "keeps" creeping in at the
2250:
Please remember that this was a list of redlinks and utterly unsourced. And 'List of x who happen to be y' is always a poor start. The central comment in the case for keeping was IZAK's rationale that it should be kept as it was 'part of a series'. But that's not a reason at all. We regularly dismiss
2081:
There was a clear majority for retention of the main list. I appreciate that this is not a vote, but a good reason is needed to ignore a majority. The claim that it was because many supporters agreed with IZAK is odd; IZAK's reasoning was so sound that further argumentation would be of scant value.
579:
The people that participate in MoPo span the globe and are all interested in movie posters, whether for collecting or investing, or design, etc.. I ask you, with an obviously small population (in comparison to the Earth), what do you do when there are no "articles about MoPo" but there are dozens of
562:
In order to be valid sources for an article about MoPo, they need to discuss MoPo itself as a main part of the article. Just discussing movie poster collection in general, with passing mention of MoPo, does not qualify the sources as a reliable source, and it therefore can not be used for a reference
4193:
Personally, I'm not of the opinion that every statement should or can have a citation attached to it. However, when a citation is requested, this request should be taken seriously. The "lacking sources from DATE" categories at least provide encouragement to editors. They will also become informative
3979:
The category consists of articles with one or more "citation-needed" or "fact" templates on individual clauses, statements, sentences. It is a quagmire that constantly changes as these templates are added or removed by users throughout the wiki, and currently consists of over 40,000 articles (double
2288:
Of over 100 names on the list (I don't remember the exact number), only 8 were blue-links. Where blue-links exist, they can be used as a sort of "soft" reference. However, this was not the case for the
Peruvian Jews article. I don't think this should set any kind of precedent for other articles.
878:
Ok, once more, my argument for notability, as the defining factor in one of the most unique elections in the history of
Pequannock Township NJ. NOT an argument for notability as an author, business person, or any other hat I may tend to wear. This argument is based off of the definitions presented
439:
As the creator of the articla in question I would have appreciated an opportunity to justify its existence. Instead, I feel the article was a victim to an impulsive admin - policy specifically implies speedy deletion was not really indicated here. There are numerous memorabilia groups today, 2007,
176:
Article was discovered to be "missing" and resubmitted. Resubmission was flagged for speedy delete. After more research it seems it was ORIGINALLY deleted because it was said to be non-notable and read like an ad. As a network marketing company, the company does not employ traditional advertising
4768:
that old. As remarked above, any really old unsourced statments need to be examined to understand whether they are unsourcable (and hence rmovable), or just "not got round to" (or maybe don't need the tag). What constitutes "really old" shuld become clear s the project progresses, and I hope will
4689:
per
Kenosis. However the ideal solution to this issue - for all categories designed for editors rather than readers - would be to develop a software function whereby adding a template on an article page can add a category to the related talk page. Perhaps such a facility already exists. Does anyone
4383:
6) the related widespread use of User:SmackBot, which under an initial broad grant to use the bot for "various categories" has now managed to tag many tens of thousands of fact templates throughout the wiki as "February 2007", thereby letting us all know nothing more than that the bot was active in
4052:
5) the previous CfD for this category was administratively truncated or short-circuited. The community process with "Category:Articles with unsourced statements" was bypassed and it was reinstated along with the higher-level category "Articles without sourcing" with no community review. Then a new
2780:
I think people are confusing a deletion review with a second afd. Repeating the same arguments used in the afd on this deletion review does not help. Doc
Glasgow already made it clear in his closing that the "this list is part of series" argument is not holding water. This is everyone's opportunity
2567:
Well, I assure you, we can all check as "thoroughly" as internet search pages, document databases, and book preview search pages allow us to. We can even search foreign language web-pages, but the statement still holds that if these people only have minimal pages in Spanish written about them, then
4469:
If there's to be a new policy of this kind put into place, my belief is that it requires much more thorough discussions of the implications of such a "policy" among the interested participants in the broader community. And this DRV is a reasonable start in my estimation. Talk later; bye for now.
4368:
5) the previous CfD for this category was administratively truncated or short-circuited. The community process with "Category:Articles with unsourced statements" was bypassed and it was reinstated along with the higher-level category "Articles without sourcing" with no community review. Then a new
4266:
templates, we should also differentiate between articles which lack sources completely (and may thus be subject to deletion) and articles that lack sources for a few statements (which can be sourced or removed). For those who find the category "too large" or "unworkable" I have this to say: don't
4160:
eventually become useful when the community develops a plan to tackle the problem of unreferenced information. Until that happens, there should be MANY distracting categories on the bottom of tagged articles. If you don't like the categories, then you should provide references for the questionable
3487:
Indeed, that's true, and I apologise to Mike for the rather harsh tone of my comments, but I'm not minded to change my recommendation, or my view of the consensus of the debate. I don't feel that UCFD is a great idea: it simply doesn't get the attention that CFD gets, and CFD in turn isn't exactly
3461:
and seriously question the no consensus close of the recent UCfD which was (a) apparently closed as a vote (the closer notes the number of editors "voting" for each option in his closing remarks), (b) closed by an editor who gave an opinion at the UCfD, and (c) closed in line with the opinion that
2482:
at the mercy of "suspected vs. technically vs. self-identified" when we go to identity markers. "List of Happy People" and "List of sad people" and "List of half-German and half-Sammi people" are all problematic because the author of an article like that is always inserting POV to assert that one
1770:
All the categories under this have been tagged to be listified and deleted, howvere there was no consensus to delete and this should be overturned. There were more people in support of keeping than there were of deleteing or listing. Roughly 41 to 33 but I may have lost count, there are so many on
4515:
Well, I already pretty much gave my opinion. There's no need to date these templates, no need to categorize them, no need to do anything with them except let the editors that do the hard work decide on a case by case basis. If you work by a two week guideline then use it, consistently of course
2217:
believe that we need all those lists of Peruvian Jews that consisted of mostly red links, but at least one main list like this one should certainly have been allowed to exist (and obsorbed any notable existing names of notable Peruvian Jews onto it) and it should not have been deleted. Thank you,
184:
The compnay has introduced close to 30,000 representatives in 15 months of operation which IS notable in the network marketing industry and has received a public endorsement by Dr. Charles King, internationally recognized expert on network marketing and professor of marketing at the University of
4676:
It amazes me how low down the list of priorities people put good presentation and user-friendliness. This and the related categories would be acceptable if confined to talk pages, but as presently implemented they get in the way of navigation. I also have great doubts about their usefulness as a
4490:
tags lodged prior to January and February 2007 are granted amnesty. My personal rule is that any statement tagged for more than 2 weeks can be deleted (or moved to the talk page). This doesn't even give "amnesty" to most of those tagged in February. Also, if this is your main problem with the
4028:
currently includes a monthly list, many of which are obsolete and in need of maintenance, and all of which were top-level categorized as "Knowledge (XXG):Maintenance categories sorted by month", a circular event from which there is no escape. The reason that there is no escape from this circular
2617:
Geogre, I disagree with you on these points. If anything, these are anti-anti-semitic lists, in others words, for most cases of questionable lists on Jews, they are ethnic-pride-and-awareness lists, not lists for neo-Hitlers as you are implying. There is really no other reason people would be so
2343:
Having a lot of red links is no grounds for deletion. I have created several articles as a result of seeing such red links. How does anyone know if Norwegian Jews merit a separate list? Nobody's created one yet, but is there any reason to suppose that such a list would get an AfD against it?
639:
MoPo was the FIRST discussion group and on-line resource for collectors of movie memorabilia (not "film" memorabilia), and is widely recognized within the community as the "first" and most notable. It is not a "fan's" artical as there are no "fans" to movie posters, duh. I think that NOBODY is
4074:
with fire and brimstone. No possible use for this category and its child categories. Completely agree with all of Kenosis' statements, with the additional issue that editors of an article are the best equipped to judge whether a statement is correctly sourced or not; hence adding this "backlog"
859:
Comments: I AM the individual in question. I did not write the article about myself. I do not appreciate having this article detailing political accusations towards me deleted (it makes it look like I did it myself and several of my opponents have accused me of this). My involvment in local
4718:
It is not a fact that any "plan" is needed for all fact tags on the Wiki. The plan was already in place, which is that editors who do the hard work of first noting that a citation appears needed or preferred on a particular statement, and later the harder work of finding citations, make these
4174:
May as well begin discussing the merits of the likely upcoming CfD so it can be as informed as possible on both sides of the debate. "Large and scary", in my estimation, is not a problem because merely "large and scary" categories can easily be automated. Here, though, a constantly shifting,
2607:
The biggest reason, historically, for not allowing "X Jews" articles is that their actual use for their authors and readers is as a hitlist. They're used as blacklists and anti-semitism, and not as boasts of the achievements of the people on the list. We don't need to be hosting the National
4729:
What I want to know is "What is the plan to deal with the tens of millions of unsourced statements on the wiki that do not have fact tags attached to them?" How about this solution: Program a bot to fact tag every sentence on the wiki without a citation and also attach a date to it starting
4245:
may not be useful to readers, but it is useful to editors. Not all editors enjoy going from article to article to source entire sections. Some (like myself), however, don't mind going through and sourcing (or performing other cleanup on) a couple of articles which have only 1 or 2 unsourced
4179:
And that the WP policy (one of three, we recall from the mouth of Jimbo) will ultimately not be "verifiable" but "verified and cited in writing for each and every statement on the wiki"? There's more to this potentially important analysis of course, but I just wanted to give these additional
3863:
rather than having it merged into "Category:Articles lacking sources". I cited the DRV reasons for Category:Articles lacking sources as justifying the undeletion, even though this second category with not explicitly mentioned in the DRV. For the record, I only became aware of the progenitor
2558:? It may prove no more than that you were unable to search very thoroughly. Even if there really is nothing now, stuff may appear at some time in the future. Anyway, this says nothing at all about those not selected - for whatever reason, you may happen to have selected the least notable.--
4799:. I strongly support the dating of the fact tags, as it helps editors know how long the tag has existed, and remove it if it has been uncited for too long. Specially in articles that get constantly updated, its really time consuming to go through the history to find when the tags were added.
4535:
opinion, after which the category was unilaterally reinstated without a DRV until now, and a new CfD was administratively truncated on the basis that it was an "obvious" keep in that administrators view, when in fact the debate had just begun. But I already spoke a bit about that above. ...
3905:
Congratulations if you followed all that. So in summary, the category was deleted 8 months ago at CFD and unilaterally restored 7 months ago following a closely related DRV (all the same arguments applied in my opinion). This restoration was discussed at ANI at the time and unchallenged.
4454:
That's not harmless in my opinion. It's downright misleading. What it does, essentially, is say to everyone on the wiki: "OK, Wikipedians, here are your new marching orders. Starting February 2007 y'all are going to start keeping track of these "citation-needed" templates starting now.
1127:
Speedy deletion for unknown reasons. The article I wrote on the software company Audiokinetic Inc. was deleted, but I do not know who deleted it or for what reasons. I am willing to rewrite the article to correct any faults and suit Knowledge (XXG)'s standards. I would like to contact the
177:
and companies in the industry can therefore achieve higher levels of success and still not draw mainstream media converage. The article is not spam and was written with strict adherence to the journalistic neutral point of view policy. Per the Knowledge (XXG) Notability requirements (
181:), "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". ...smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations."
2956:
I feel the admin acted against the consensus of the Wikipedians when it was deleted. It clearly passes a google test for reliable sources. However, if you want, I can remove some of the unsourced tracks and only put in the released singles (until a sourced tracklist is released).
3993:" (articles with the large "unreferenced" templates placed at the head of articles). This subcategory ("Articles with unsourced statements", involving "citation-needed" or "fact" templates on individual statements) currently makes up the overwhelming majority of the backlog at
3778:
I am asking for review of my own actions. I restored this in August under special circumstances and in just the last few days, several people (including a couple other admins) have jumped on me saying that doing so was horrible and asking that it be immediately re-deleted.
4060:, which under an initial broad grant to use the bot for "various categories" has now managed to tag many tens of thousands of fact templates throughout the wiki as "February 2007", thereby letting us all know nothing more than that the bot was active in February 2007. ...
2743:
It was improper to delete a member of a well established set of categories without consensus. The article should exist, and the fact that it was not better was just a result of systemic bias. We will get a better article sooner by having an article than by not having one.
3926:
If anyone wants this deleted on merit, rather than because the process wasn't perfect, I suggest a new CfD. There have been too many deletions/undeletions for any final state to truly have followed process, and the most recent CfDs and ANI discussions were to keep it.
3906:
Subsequently the category survived another CFD (6 months ago). And now there are calls that it should be "immediately deleted" because despite the ANI discussion and subsequent CFD, the appropriate "process" was not followed to justify undeletion several steps ago.
4677:
prompt to improve referencing. Most of the cititation requests are made for trivial points on minor articles, and people who want to do citation work would make a more useful contribution by concentrating on the major articles in their fields of interest.
2129:-- May I just note here please that out of 100+ names on the list, only 8 were blue-links. And for 5 of these 8, there is no indication (either a source or a statement in the article) that the individuals listed are in fact of Jewish background. I agree
1499:
deletion review isn't really the best first instance approach to this. Bots don't delete the images, bots tag them, admins then delete them. Have you explained the situation to the deleting admin and asked for them to be restored? What was their response?
2608:
Front's enemies lists. In this case, it's just a question of whether a notable physicist wakes up and the morning and says, "I must go be a Jew today" or "I must go do physics today." We have categories for Peruvians, for physicists, for authors.
4510:
Evidently you are willing to believe that the monthly categorizations are accurate? I have evidence to the contrary, among which are articles I'm involved in where there were templates placed upwards of a year ago and are now tagged "February
3712:– Keep for now with no prejudice against relisting. I must admit I'm still confused by this mess, but the consensus is fairly clear to not have the article deleted from here. Hopefully we can start fresh and put this hand-wringing behind us –
3478:'s defense, he was more or less the only person ever willing to close UCFD's back then. If you look at the current UCFD page, I have particpated in and closed almost every single discussion due to lack of other admins willing to close them.
2568:
they are not English wikipedia material. Ok, fate may have had it that I did choose the least notables, but the argument that there are PLENTY of red links with absolutely no evidence of notability is still strong even with that possibility.
4763:
if the category hadn't been undeleted a new one would have been needed to perform it's role, perhaps "Unsourced statements from an unknown date".... And the name of the sub-cats is "... since XXX" which is intended to mean that they are
2517:. There is no reason why this list should be so sternly argued for, especially when I've already proven numerous time that most, if not all, of the people mentioned, will never have articles written for them on the English encyclopedia.
1622:
I needed to go trough almost 700 articles to track all this, where to take it wasn't my first priority :D. If you type undeletion in the searchbox, you end up here, so that's where I made my list. I don't really care how it gets solved
4343:
4) the arbitrary nature of citation-needed templates throughout the wiki--there are an absolutely massive number of facts on the wiki in need of citing, and such a category only accounts for those that have been actually noted as a
4048:
4) the arbitrary nature of citation-needed templates throughout the wiki--there are an absolutely massive number of facts on the wiki in need of citing, and such a category only accounts for those that have been actually noted as a
2210:
1258:, a whole slew of images became unlinked and were subsequently automatically deleted by bots after seven days. I request this is reverted. I'm starting with these, I'm sure i'll find more later, and will add them here as well.
983:. Having political opponents accuse you of having an article deleted is not a valid reason to restore that article. If I'm not supposed to "vote" twice (yes, yes, I know this isn't a vote) then this is just a general comment.
4075:(which it will be now and forever amen) solves nothing and diverts attention from the very real issue of articles with no sources whatsoever. Incredibly bad idea which results in reverse-productive allocation of editor time.
2278:
Actually, the list you cite is manly blue - whereas this one was not. But once again, arguments based on 'we'd have to do x if we do y' are spurious. When you lay that aside, all the arguments articulated in the AfD were for
4194:
of the article's reliability in years to come. When it is 2008 and I see an article with a "lacking sources from September 2006" category, I'm going to seriously question whether anything in the article is valid at all. ---
974:
I'm not sure if it's okay for me to comment here since I commented at the original AfD and I have to run to class so I don't have time to find out. But the subject of the article posted on my talk suggesting I reconsider. I
3997:, involving tens of thousands of articles and still rapidly expanding. Category:Articles lacking sources, the more basic category, pertains directly to articles asserted to be not-in-keeping with the core WP policies of
4459:
ideally be cited. But by golly, if you're going to use that template, we're going to keep track of those dates (starting February 2007 of course)." (END OF STATEMENT FROM WP BIG BROTHER) I'm sorry, but aside from that
3651:
among other age-categories existence are not worthy of wikipedia. Consistensy should be applied and they should all be deleted. What subjective irrational argument can there be for one to exists while not the other?
3850:). Essentially the argument was that large meta-categories are a necessary evil and an accepted part of Knowledge (XXG). I participated in this DRV, but did not close it. I had not participated in the prior CFDs.
2809:. I'm not convinced by the arguments that there were errors in the original AfD. It makes no sense to have a list consisting mainly of red links. It appears that the closing administrator may have given weight to
1783:"Rename all (to "cast" rather than "actors"), and I am willing to delete any category on this list after a suitable list has been created and several interested people agree that this is a suitable alternative."
481:
I really hope this privides enough validity to a resource that most in the community find invaluable. I also believe a discussion to help me make it right would have been helpful, instead of just deleting. ]
3462:
the closer had given (no consensus == keep). Regarding Xevious's question, I would think that the rationale for deletion was that the consensus at the UCfD was for deletion, whether outright or by upmerging.
2194:
2429:
Actually, the GFDL requirements would be satisfied even better if the page was just undeleted; a redirect means that people looking just at the Latin America page would not see the history of the Peruvian
3669:
3169:
3806:. (In case it is unclear, "fact" is applied to solitary unsourced statements in otherwise healthy articles, while "unreferenced" is a banner applied to articles that are generically without sources.)
960:. The consensus was that you are non-notable, and arguing that you are is not a good enough reason to overturn the consensus, if you don't have any new information that was not present in the debate. -
2082:
It may be that the closing admin was confused because there were a number of subsidiary lists also up for deletion, and many people supported the retention of the main list but not the subsidiaries.
4298:
With 50,000 articles, it currently includes only 3% of the English Knowledge (XXG)'s article. Yes, the number of articles is high, but this is because the issue of unsourced statements is prevalent.
2202:
2572:. We're not going to have lists of people who "could" become notable in the future laying around. Nobody has yet to explain WHY the few Peruvian Jewish nota bles need to be on a separate article.
3865:
2206:
2198:
4335:
for all articles on Knowledge (XXG). And as long as Knowledge (XXG) keeps expanding, I think you are right. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't address problems that have been identified.
2173:
can become the targets for deletion. I generally do not favor the notion of "lists of Jews" but since they do exist and have been accepted multiple times by the Knowledge (XXG) community (see:
584:
and other blogs - the references listed on these are passing references, as the ones I listed were described above, rather than "about americablog." I can find other Wiki examples as needed.
923:
deletion. The people commenting on the AFD raised valid points, and I don't think that a few articles about a school board election are enough to dispel their concerns about notability (per
1761:
713:
appears not to grasp the need for reliable third-party commentary on MoPo. Millions and millions of people can be on the mailing list, but if no-one outside has written about the MoPo list
4464:
is presently said to not be a valid argument against deletion, this situation is arbitrary, intrusive, and highly misleading as to the situation those "date tags" are supposed to address.
3876:
3635:. This category is self-referential within Knowledge (XXG), one of the things generally discouraged. Our business is to report topics that are verifiable outside of Knowledge (XXG). ...
3623:
Most of these people are minors, and that is enough to rule this out as a good idea for me, using my own judgement about who needs protection, rather than following legal technicalities.
2594:"All" was an exaggeration. For a majority, there could be no "good" articles written for them. I don't see how anyone could disagree with that statement just by taking a quick analysis.
2072:
1877:
but deprecate the idea that voting is not a part of the process; that line of thought is just an excuse for the closing admin to do what he wants even if there is no consensus for it.
419:
as admin who deleted the page. All of the link provided as references in the article were either directly tied to the subject of the article, or very closely related. There were zero
2230:
I think Doc's reasoning in closing with delete lies within the administrator's discretion. While it's logical to have "List of Peruvian Jews" alongside "List of Canadian Jews," the
3358:
2797:
We have similar articles to this one, and they all contain notable people. The list violates no wikipedia policy that I am aware of, and it makes sense to have an article on this.--
3832:
841:
3868:
to review my actions, and no one directly complained about this undeletion, though there was discussion of the radical conflict between the CFD and DRV results mentioned above.
3818:
4407:
argument, but I think it is appropriate here. The category hurts no one, and is instead a useful tool for a certain portion of editors to help with ensuring compliance with
3163:
4926:
4921:
3825:). The primary arguments of the nominator were that the category was too large to be workable and that the existence of such categories interfered with the user experience.
2335:
1937:
and furthermore stick to the original wording, which was to rename to "cast", not "cast members" which resulted in several categories being renamed twice within a month. --
4930:
4664:, BUT, this should be an empty category, that is - one with only subcategories. If we have to, date all the remaining undated ones as _now_, to start the clock ticking. --
3648:
2941:
2097:
48:
34:
3981:
3894:
3753:
2541:
When I randomly selected several of the names and showed how nothing written in English could be found about them? In fact, for most, nothing even written in Spanish !
2234:
solution of moving the Peruvians to "List of Latin American Jews" was meant to deal with that (see in the AFD). Recreation as a redirect is not out of the question.
4955:
4913:
205:
158:
3553:
No, it can't be used to identify users under 18, because even if a user in this category _is_ under 18 there's no way to know that from inclusion in the category. --
4564:
tag was placed, she needs only look at the article's edit history. However, in light of your arguments, I'm changing my initial suggestion endorsing undeletion to
4438:
Black Falcon, I don't have time to respond to all six points at present, but please let me quickly tally just how "overrepresented" February is. As of early today:
3973:
was truncated when, after only two days of discussion by the community and votes on both sides of the issue, it was administratively terminated in a "speedy keep".
2190:
4312:
So? I would wager that the total inflow/outflow each day is not much more than 1% of the total (500 articles) at most. Also, it is a maintenace category, so it
3890:
started the task of breaking this category into dated subgroups. Doing so seems to have provoked new complaints about how horrible and unusable this category is.
870:
863:
P.S. I had a Knowledge (XXG) account at some point and have no idea how to access it now (or how to use it really) (full disclosure). Also, I can be reached at
43:
4292:
1) it is by far too overly inclusive, rapidly heading towards 50,000 articles and involving a growing mass of individual "citation-needed" or "fact" templates;
4038:
1) it is by far too overly inclusive, rapidly heading towards 50,000 articles and involving a growing mass of individual "citation-needed" or "fact" templates;
2947:
4306:
2) the category constantly changes in response to minor issues in individual articles (such as when fact templates are added and removed throughout the wiki);
4041:
2) the category constantly changes in response to minor issues in individual articles (such as when fact templates are added and removed throughout the wiki);
2644:
per all above. As stated although afd is not a vote, there has to be a b****y good reason to ignore an overwhelming majority Jcuk (I forgot to sign in sorry)
4441:
The total of "Articles with unsourced statements", according to this category, from January 2006 through November 2006 = a total of 21 articles on the wiki.
4551:
4242:
3872:
3744:
3708:
2263:
It is not the quality of an article that matters - articles can always be edited. By Doc's reasoning, we should have to delete hundreds of lists, such as
3596:
927:). If people are accusing you of having the article deleted yourself, you might want to direct them to this page or the AFD, to set the record straight. -
3488:
popular compared to AFD. Anybody who wants to can close an AFD (MFD, RFD) easily enough, but closing a CFD or UCFD is rather arcane, which doesn't help.
3353:
1755:
2756:
It seems that the closing admin may have been influenced by his own views, rather than making a dispassionate judgment on the basis of the discussion.--
2647:
2768:
There is no reason of principle why such a list should be deleted; any defects in the list should be fixed, and cannot be if the list does not exist.--
2213:. Therefore, as things stand, and to be consistent with Knowledge (XXG)'s standards for these lists, this list should be reinstated. By the way, I do
2037:
2032:
1149:, which means the article is essentially corporate advertising. If you work at the company, it would be advisable to read the policies/guidelines at
4961:
4804:
Although the cats may not seem useful now, editors could start going through them in he future and either cite the text or remove them completely. --
4399:
In summary, let me say this: I find the category to be a useful maintenance category that provides a distinction from and alternative to the broader
497:
2581:
So by Usedup's own evidence, there is something written about some of them in Spanish; thus it is unlikely that nothing could ever be written about
2041:
4639:. While I'd have a few words to spare about the usefulness of the category (for example, I'd like to hear some proofs for the assertions that it's
4516:
with the preferences of fellow editors on the articles you're working on. I already gave a perspective above that I am far more flexible about it,
2170:
391:
1910:, there was no "clear consensus to delete", and "if there is no consensus to delete one week after posting on CfD, the decision shall be keep."
2185:) and multiple efforts over many years to delete them always fail by an overwhelming consensus to keep them, as examples, see these votes that
2066:
2024:
806:
801:
4747:
without prejudice to listing at CfD. Given the time lapse since the last deletion debate, DRV is not the proper forum for this discussion.
810:
3782:
This category, and its dated subcategories, are collectively used on slightly less than 50,000 articles, primarily through association with
1907:
1128:
administrator who deleted it via his or her talk page, but I don't know how to figure out which one did it. I'd be grateful for any advice.
4604:. We don't have a statue of limitations, but I don't think you can use DRV to overturn an undeletion 6 months after the fact. Take it to
4390:
February 2007 may be overrepresented, but I assume the bot will start working properly from now on. Besides, this is really a minor issue.
2569:
2670:
By overwhelming majority you mean 9 (if you count my nomination) to 11? Not counting a username that seemed to register on that very day.
2451:
any such "list" is infinite and without definite include/exclude criteria. Further, they are all inherently POV. No, a thousand times.
866:
for comment. I will be going back and deleting my email address from these discussions at a later date, which doesn't seem unreasonable.
220:: I did the deletion. It wasn't "missing": it was deleted. The article fails to establish notability (A7) and then is a repost (G4).
39:
4375:
As I think this DRV indicates, there is, if not a consensus for keeping the category, then at least a lack of consensus for deleting it.
2651:
1566:
1242:
1118:
835:
793:
3275:) deleted "Category:Wikipedians born in 1989" (content was: 'Wikipedians who were born in 1989.Category:Wikipedians born in the 1980s')
496:
In addition to the above, I want to include references to articles in the print media about our community, such as: FORBES Magazine at
185:
Illinois at Chicago. Editing the article to remove questionable content is one thing, but it is no more a candidate for deletion than
3761:
2906:
2901:
2133:
should exist, but (for now) only as a redirect. It can be recreated when there is more content. The full list is still available in
529:. Sources above are about movie poster collecting, not about the MoPo mailing list. The article positively asserted non-notability.
509:
4284:. I would like to reply to the 6 points you bring up (especially as I get the feeling this article will be going to CFD if it kept).
4088:
the bottom that says "Articles with unsourced statements" is just a useful caveat that's worthwhile to know if you're looking there.
4400:
3994:
3793:
2910:
123:
118:
4002:
208:. As for the 're-write' ALL the sources are from the company's own website, press releases, or that of the founder. Take it away.--
886:. None of the articles are primarly about you. Just a mention here and there that you were a candidate once. Doesn't seem to meet
1083:
1078:
127:
21:
4161:
content. If these categories are annoying and distracting enough to cause editors to complain, then the system is working. ---
2935:
2893:
1087:
717:, it's not for us. If anyone who joins this debate can provide a true source of 3rd-party notability, I'd reconsider my vote.
4909:
4868:
891:
3591:- I would support any CfD listing for all by-year articles, but that has to be done rather than out-of-process ad-hockery. --
2264:
1157:. The first one is the policy regarding "conflict of interest" and the other is the notability guideline for corporations.
871:
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Christopher+Lotito%22+pequannock&btnG=Search+Archives&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
152:
110:
4360:. But why ignore those that are actually noted? Over time, editors will get around to the rest of the untagged statements.
3138:
3672:. If that's the one it would the basis for this review, and all changes to it would be a de-facto nomination for review. ~
2483:
type of identification is superior to another. Aside from that, such lists are far better done in categories. Aside from
4450:
The total of "Articles with unsourced statements", according to this category, since February 2007 = approximately 50,000.
4232:
4013:
3258:) restored "Category:Wikipedians born in 1989" (9 revisions restored: This is a bit much, it passed CFD not five days ago)
3255:
3217:
1112:
1070:
875:
EDIT: In response to commenters supporting deletion, questioning notability, and in general requesting more information:
4624:
3938:
3146:
4999:
4892:
4847:
3842:
On August 19th, DRV unanimously undeleted Category:Articles lacking sources with 23 undeletes and 0 endorse deletions (
3727:
3687:
3191:
3183:
3129:
3112:
3093:
3072:
2872:
2832:
2003:
1963:
1704:
1664:
1223:
1181:
1049:
1009:
772:
732:
609:, not an article about a particular Internet resource. For MoPo itself to warrant an article, it would have to satisfy
322:
282:
89:
17:
3970:
2690:
arguments, and was not within reasonable discretion to argue that the argument was for delete rather than undecided.--
2526:
Doc makes a strange argument: it's a list of Jews born in Peru or who have emigrated there. How and where has Usedup
2417:
2290:
2182:
2178:
2142:
2138:
1945:
1632:
1576:
1542:
1520:
1479:
1267:
1252:
4917:
2488:
and asserting the utility of identification by such a tag. To me, that's fishy at best and outrageous in general.
1730:
3507:, as it's been decided multiple times that categories with people under 18 are supposed to be deleted. But really,
2374:
2028:
3998:
3567:
because frankly, I don't care about it, and I don't need to be dragged into a frivolous ArbCom as RockMFR states.—
2386:
4774:
3272:
3238:
3055:
which fails to present any new information that isn't already covered in the Young Buck article, sans the hype.
498:
http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/2005/07/13/collecting-vintageposters-lifestyle_cz_ms_0713conn_ls.html?partner=rss
456:; 5) John Warren, one of the original contributors to MoPo and widely known for his price guides on the topic -
3346:
2364:
It may be this user's POV that a few thousand Jews don't matter much, but Knowledge (XXG) is meant to be NPOV.--
2999:
Mass AfD where everything was deleted is relinked. The first AfD was keep, however all the arguments are from
2515:
2378:
1721:
1685:
928:
356:
351:
4156:. The "delete maintenance cats because they are too large and scary" reasoning is laughable. These categories
2785:
arguments for restoring the list, not just a place to point fingers and relay your same reason as on the afd.
2390:
2382:
1738:
601:. The evidence provided so far is mostly about movie poster collecting in general, which should be covered in
4144:, after 6 months of (relatively) peaceful existence this should really go to a new CfD if you want deletion.
2655:
2394:
797:
444:; 2) The ONLY print magazine devoted to the topic and was the ONLY on-topic resource prior to the internet -
4621:
3492:
3466:
3052:
2986:
1825:
360:
4988:
4975:
4881:
4834:
4813:
4751:
4734:
4706:
4694:
4681:
4668:
4656:
4627:
4612:
4582:
4550:
they are not accurate. However, I don't see how they accuracy or inaccuracy has any relevance to the main
4540:
4524:
4503:
4474:
4431:
4415:
4275:
4211:
4198:
4184:
4165:
4148:
4132:
4108:
4092:
4079:
4064:
3917:
3839:). Essentially the same reasons were advanced, i.e. that it was unworkable large and unhelpful to readers.
3716:
3676:
3656:
3639:
3627:
3615:
3603:
3583:
3557:
3548:
3532:
3520:
3495:
3482:
3469:
3453:
3421:
3409:
3385:
3360:
3338:
3315:
3101:
3061:
3039:
3025:
3007:
2989:
2961:
2861:
2821:
2801:
2789:
2772:
2760:
2748:
2735:
2719:
2708:
2694:
2674:
2659:
2626:
2612:
2598:
2589:
2576:
2562:
2545:
2534:
2521:
2507:
2492:
2473:
2455:
2434:
2424:
2401:
2368:
2359:
2348:
2323:
2306:
2297:
2283:
2271:
2255:
2242:
2222:
2149:
2121:
2106:
2086:
1992:
1952:
1929:
1914:
1898:
1881:
1869:
1857:
1828:
1813:
1775:
1693:
1653:
1640:
1615:
1586:
1550:
1528:
1504:
1487:
1275:
1212:
1171:
1161:
1132:
1038:
996:
987:
969:
952:
931:
915:
887:
854:
761:
721:
699:
680:
651:
631:
617:
591:
569:
554:
542:
519:
486:
429:
404:
311:
271:
257:
236:
212:
171:
78:
2162:
1938:
1168:
1129:
4720:
4447:
The total of "Articles with unsourced statements", according to this category, since January 2007 = 1601.
4444:
The total of "Articles with unsourced statements", according to this category, since December 2006 = 153.
851:
501:
3875:
was again taken to CFD. This time it was closed speedy keep (after 2 days) with 8 keeps and 4 deletes (
3800:
2504:
2280:
2252:
2130:
2020:
1984:
789:
753:
385:
343:
244:. Valid AfD, still no sources. It doesn't matter if there's a good reason for that, we still need them.
209:
114:
4492:
4461:
4404:
4025:
4021:
3018:
460:; 6) The auction site dedicated ONLY to the topic of movie memorabilia, and respected in community -
2332:
696:
648:
588:
516:
483:
401:
4771:
4089:
4076:
3887:
3673:
3612:
2239:
1690:
758:
308:
75:
4012:
Here is the current orientation of categories relevant to this discussion: As of February 20, 2007,
2798:
186:
4665:
4268:
4228:
3914:
3600:
3592:
3554:
3379:
3348:. The same admin was wheel-warring to keep a similar category that listed much younger users. I'll
3332:
3309:
2897:
1583:
710:
693:
645:
614:
585:
551:
513:
510:
http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/7474/recreation_and_sports/movie_poster_collecting.html
106:
70:
4831:
4731:
4537:
4521:
4471:
4428:
4208:
4181:
4105:
4061:
3828:
After this was deleted, all references to it were replaced with Category:Articles lacking sources.
3636:
3528:, list on CFD, send all wheel warring admins to Arbcom, do not pass go, do not collect $ 200. ---
3322:
3207:
993:
452:; 4) One of the founders of MoPo and main contributor to The Antiques Roafdshow, Rudy Franchi -
4827:
4207:
In other words, now the category exists for purposes of futher tagging the tags with a date? ...
3853:
Later on August 19th, I undeleted Category:Articles with unsourced statements and restored it to
3489:
3475:
3463:
3430:
2983:
2174:
1926:
1866:
1847:
1836:. This was a sensible response to the discussion. No information need be lost. No worries, then.
1822:
1790:
1605:
905:
3393:
3280:
2478:
Well, to explain, lists of people have to have a good reason for including/excluding, and we're
1889:. Radiant! was bold to step in and close this at all, and his closure seems eminently sensible.
1142:
674:, so a comparison does nothing to support your claim of notability in this particular case. ···
347:
4972:
4579:
4500:
4412:
4272:
3982:
Category_talk:Articles_with_unsourced_statements#This_category_should_not_even_be_here,_AFAICS
3713:
3574:
3545:
3516:
3366:
3284:
3262:
3249:
3228:
3211:
3199:
3187:
2858:
2470:
2294:
2146:
1989:
1893:
1074:
984:
965:
253:
4267:
use it. But leave it available for others who do wish to utilize it. I extend my thanks to
3897:
that this category should not even exist because my undeletion was improper, including calls
3000:
1154:
178:
4609:
4250:
3935:
3653:
3241:) deleted "Category:Wikipedians born in 1989" (nah, some people in here are younger than 18)
3004:
2691:
2619:
2531:
2431:
2365:
1650:
1158:
602:
4822:
4605:
4231:
left a note for me that the orientation of the categories has just been changed somewhat.
4141:
3814:
3288:
3179:
2979:
2975:
2712:
2530:
that a single one of these redlinks will never have an article written about him or her? --
2302:
Agreed. If a Norwegian Jew doesn't merit a separate list, no reason a Peruvian Jew should.
1150:
1146:
980:
924:
610:
4748:
4703:
4017:
3990:
3022:
2958:
2818:
2289:
It's just that a separate article was not warranted when the content could easily go into
1628:
1538:
1516:
1475:
1263:
718:
505:
3831:
On July 31st, CFD deleted Category:Articles lacking sources with 21 deletes and 8 keeps (
3541:
1646:
1636:
1546:
1524:
1483:
1271:
1205:
663:
457:
420:
3909:
Frankly, I am bringing this here because I want to wash my hands of it. I'd ask people
4985:
4877:
4805:
4652:
3989:
Please note carefully that this category is a sub-category of the more basic category "
3540:
Can be used to identify users under 18; JzG, I already said I had a change of heart on
3374:
3327:
3304:
3098:
3057:
2889:
2853:
2814:
2117:- IZAK's argument (keep main list, remove all redlinks) was concise but appropriate. --
1772:
1594:. Probably should have been taken to the deleting admin(s) but we're already here now.
4554:. Truth be told, I don't see a need to date them. If an editor wants to know when a
4408:
4332:
3283:
based arguments that lead to the deletion of the 1993 category don't appear to apply.
3035:
and keep redirected, but recreate when sufficient reliable sources become available.
2810:
2704:
2503:
One of the problems here, is the subjectivity of the list. Define 'Jewish Peruvian'?--
2466:
671:
667:
245:
4719:
decisions on an article-by-article and statement-by-statement basis, in keeping with
4570:
4558:
4484:
4354:
4260:
4121:
4057:
3857:
3836:
3822:
3786:
3479:
3404:
3398:
3266:
3232:
2982:
material like the track listing, then the redirect could be changed into an article.
2757:
2732:
2559:
2158:
1923:
1839:
1597:
1501:
947:
941:
897:
675:
564:
537:
531:
424:
194:
168:
2465:
they do have definite include/exclude criteria: being a member of X group and being
4691:
4531:
One additional thing and I'm outta' here. This is not just my opinion. It was the
4195:
4162:
3624:
3568:
3529:
3512:
3418:
3245:
3195:
2745:
2421:
2345:
2268:
2118:
2083:
1890:
1209:
1066:
1035:
1030:
961:
448:; 3) The Internet Movie Data Base references MoPo in their movie poster section -
249:
4947:
4177:
every statement on the wiki will be expectied to have a citation attached to it???
2927:
2058:
1104:
827:
377:
144:
3817:
deleted Category:Articles with unsourced statements with 10 deletes and 4 keeps (
2412:
No comment on the Afd decision, but due to GFDL requirements, the page should be
464:; 7) Resource for beginning film makers and not necessarily hobby enthusiasts -
4779:
4678:
4325:
and creating an ever-increasing backlog that is impossible to properly maintain;
4145:
4045:
and creating an ever-increasing backlog that is impossible to properly maintain;
3932:
3928:
2786:
2769:
2716:
2671:
2623:
2609:
2595:
2586:
2573:
2542:
2518:
2489:
2452:
2398:
2356:
2320:
2303:
1878:
864:
659:
641:
628:
606:
581:
233:
2211:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Americans (2nd nomination)
1649:
to have other admins undelete I dont have time at the moment to do so my self.
3847:
2971:
1624:
1534:
1512:
1471:
1259:
4566:
endorse undeletion conditional on "by month" subcategoreis being deleted and
2157:
and keep this ONE list only because it is part of series that can be seen at
4873:
4648:
2219:
2103:
1911:
1511:
List seems to be complete now. Images linked again, Involved admins alerted
3302:" categories, there does not seem to be a concensus to delete all of them.
3051:
an album review, not even close. It is a promotional advertisement ran by
2715:, which are all of greater importance than how people "feel" about a list.
2373:
Actually, it seems to be the standard POV of wikipedia. That's why we have
512:- I can find more pretty easily, this was just a cursory glance on Google.
232:
those reports into a succinct explanation. None of that is the case now.
3429:, let's be consistent and get rid of all these "born in 0000" categories.
2618:
bothered by the lack of a "List of Peruvian Jews." If this was a "List of
204:
valid G4 deletion, as the thing was validly deleted at AfD just last week
3880:
3597:
Knowledge (XXG):User categories for discussion#Wikipedians born in (YEAR)
267:
2420:
because content was merged from the deleted article during the Afd. ---
869:
EDIT: HERE is a far better basis for notability, at least in this case:
441:
3589:
There is a place for this; that place is not here. Overturn and relist.
3220:) restored "Category:Wikipedians born in 1989" (9 revisions restored) (
3611:. Either delete all of these born by year categories or delete none.--
502:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/dot_life/2631273.stm
410:
2195:
Knowledge (XXG):Votes for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel Prize winners
1204:– moot; these were undeleted via community admin work originating at
472:; 9) The advertising aspect of movie posters also references MoPo -
2514:
Exactly. The term "Peruvian Jew" shows up on 8 pages of google. 8!!
1167:
Thank you very much for the information. I'll try to resolve this.
265:
I remember this one--I think I noticed it on CatCSD on its way out.
1988:– Overturn deletion with no prejudice against re-listing at AfD –
644:), but are not deleted? What the hell is "Fair" on Wiki anymore?
469:
190:
4331:
You are essentially saying that it is impossibly to ever satisfy
4316:
be variable as old articles are fixed and new problems are found.
3952:. First off, this is something of a "backwards DRV", in that it
3321:
It should be noted that the category has since been undeleted by
3003:
and didn't explain why they should be kept according to policy.
2355:
How many more? A few thousand? It really isn't a big difference.
2203:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of Jewish historians 2
1785:
Converting a category to a list is not a removal of information.
4782:
4499:. I don't think it applies to cleanup categories/templates. --
3279:
Given that everyone in that category is 17 or 18 years old, the
461:
339:
303:
2207:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Lists of Jewish-Americans
2199:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of Jewish historians
2189:
resulted in "KEEP" results, often even after two nominations:
2238:: I participated in the initial debate, and voted to delete.
890:
requirements. For non-admins, there is a copy of the article
709:. There was no procedural defect in the speedy deletion, and
468:; 8) The current price guide used by most in the community -
465:
4350:
True, many statements need sourcing that aren't tagged with
4120:
per Kenosis and KC. Horrendous category with no positives.
473:
453:
445:
2145:
of that article contains all of the blue-linked names. --
939:. Valid AfD, no credible reason advanced for overturning.
4014:
Category:Wikipedia_maintenance_categories_sorted_by_month
3287:
expressly says his reason for deleting the category was
228:
then it will be time for a Knowledge (XXG) article that
4943:
4939:
4935:
3967:
3964:
3961:
3843:
3792:. The category is very similar to, but distinct from,
3769:
3765:
3757:
3749:
3370:
3292:
3154:
3150:
3142:
3134:
3036:
2923:
2919:
2915:
2134:
2054:
2050:
2046:
1746:
1742:
1734:
1726:
1467:
1464:
1461:
1458:
1455:
1452:
1449:
1446:
1443:
1440:
1437:
1434:
1431:
1428:
1425:
1422:
1419:
1416:
1413:
1410:
1407:
1404:
1401:
1398:
1395:
1392:
1389:
1386:
1383:
1380:
1377:
1374:
1371:
1368:
1365:
1362:
1359:
1356:
1353:
1350:
1347:
1344:
1341:
1338:
1335:
1332:
1329:
1326:
1323:
1320:
1317:
1314:
1311:
1308:
1305:
1302:
1299:
1296:
1293:
1290:
1287:
1284:
1281:
1100:
1096:
1092:
823:
819:
815:
506:
http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/literacy/bear.htm
449:
373:
369:
365:
140:
136:
132:
4495:
is an article to avoid in discussions about mainspace
4035:
Among the reasons this category should be deleted are:
3392:
1ne is asking for trouble. This looks very much like
458:
http://www.icollectmovieposters.com/start-movieposters
2344:
Anyway, there are more Jews in Peru than in Norway.--
1533:
Mmm, the involved admins seem to be really quiet. --
4984:per existing links and entry in Serbian wikipedia.
206:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/WorldVentures
2191:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of Jews
3202:deleted it again. The summaries in the log were:
2686:The closing admin did not give due weight to the
3924:Endorse status quo (with the category undeleted)
2127:Endorse deletion, suggest recreation as redirect
992:No, commenting in an AfD and the DRV is fine. --
3901:that it be deleted without any further process.
411:http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Nihonjoe#MoPo
3222:Further undeletion following start of this DRV
2974:already contains all the info. When there are
2703:Actually the admin was giving more weight to
8:
3864:category well after the DRV had started. I
4891:The following is an archived debate of the
4872:– undeleted & expanded, too hasty A7 –
4552:Category:Articles with unsourced statements
4243:Category:Articles with unsourced statements
4026:Category:Articles_with_unsourced_statements
3873:Category:Articles with unsourced statements
3745:Category:Articles with unsourced statements
3726:The following is an archived debate of the
3709:Category:Articles with unsourced statements
3417:. I can see no valid reason for deletion.
3111:The following is an archived debate of the
2871:The following is an archived debate of the
2002:The following is an archived debate of the
1703:The following is an archived debate of the
1222:The following is an archived debate of the
1048:The following is an archived debate of the
771:The following is an archived debate of the
321:The following is an archived debate of the
88:The following is an archived debate of the
4861:
3701:
3086:
3017:I have a reliable source-an album review.
2846:
1977:
1865:. CFD is not a vote but a discussion. --
1678:
1195:
1023:
746:
296:
63:
3369:listed himself in the 1993 category, see
4246:statements. Just like we have multiple
3595:15:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC). See also
2585:of them. It will just take some time.--
2570:WP:Knowledge (XXG) is not a crystal ball
2096:: This debate has been included in the
1908:Knowledge (XXG):Category deletion policy
4998:The above is an archived debate of the
4846:The above is an archived debate of the
4608:and see what the current consensus is.
3686:The above is an archived debate of the
3071:The above is an archived debate of the
2831:The above is an archived debate of the
2171:Category:Lists of people by nationality
2165:. If this list remains vulnerable then
1962:The above is an archived debate of the
1922:Good call, and no information is lost.
1663:The above is an archived debate of the
1645:Simple undeletion request Im moving to
1180:The above is an archived debate of the
1008:The above is an archived debate of the
731:The above is an archived debate of the
281:The above is an archived debate of the
1034:– query answered, request withdrawn –
3365:Partially explained by the fact that
2978:things to write about it, other than
442:http://www.learnaboutmovieposters.com
7:
4647:), DRV is not supposed to be a XFD.
3298:Although I'm not a huge fan of the "
224:the world notices (3rd parties) and
3097:– Endorse deletion and redelete – —
2731:: Admin discretion was within line
4403:. I have never before utilized a
4022:Articles_with_unsourced_statements
2267:(which has plenty of red links).--
1819:Endorse closure and applaud closer
28:
4401:Category:Articles lacking sources
4056:6) the related widespread use of
3995:Category:Articles lacking sources
3991:Category:Articles_lacking_sources
3794:Category:Articles lacking sources
3649:Category:Wikipedians born in 1992
3192:Category:Wikipedians born in 1989
3184:Category:Wikipedians born in 1993
3130:Category:Wikipedians born in 1989
3094:Category:Wikipedians born in 1989
3021:Now would you look better on it?
2098:list of Judaism-related deletions
850:Arguments for deletion TOO weak.
563:to help establish notability. ···
3194:, apparently against concensus.
504:; Educational resources such as
508:; and other Countries as well:
470:http://www.posterprice.com/home
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
3544:. How about you stop baiting?
3047:. The link cited up above is
2446:: Oh, heavens above! Are we
2265:List of Asian American Writers
1:
4989:13:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
4976:12:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
4882:14:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
4835:02:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
4814:02:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
4752:10:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
4735:03:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
4707:01:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
4695:01:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
4682:00:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
4669:15:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
4657:08:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
4628:07:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
4613:06:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
4583:23:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
4541:21:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
4525:21:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
4504:19:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
4475:14:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
4432:06:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
4416:06:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
4276:03:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
4212:03:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
4199:03:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
4185:03:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
4180:thoughts for the moment. ...
4166:02:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
4149:23:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
4140:, relisting on CfD optional.
4133:20:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
4109:02:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
4093:19:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
4080:12:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
4065:11:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
3918:06:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
3717:05:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
3677:21:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
3657:11:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
3640:01:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
3628:01:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
3616:17:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
3604:16:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
3584:10:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
3558:14:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
3549:05:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
3533:02:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
3521:20:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
3496:01:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
3483:23:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
3470:17:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
3454:13:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
3422:13:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
3410:13:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
3386:13:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
3361:10:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
3339:04:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
3316:10:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
3102:07:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
3062:18:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
3040:02:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
3026:17:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
3008:17:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
2990:16:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
2962:10:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
2862:02:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
2822:01:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
2802:00:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
2790:22:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
2773:12:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
2761:11:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
2749:01:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
2736:23:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
2720:23:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
2695:23:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
2675:18:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
2660:13:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
2627:23:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
2613:21:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
2599:23:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
2590:12:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
2577:23:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
2563:11:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
2546:23:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
2535:23:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
2522:18:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
2508:18:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
2493:21:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
2474:03:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
2456:02:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
2435:23:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
2425:02:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
2402:23:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
2375:Category:Peruvian Australians
2369:23:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
2360:23:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
2349:23:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
2336:23:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
2324:22:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
2307:22:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
2298:21:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
2284:21:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
2272:20:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
2256:19:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
2243:19:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
2223:18:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
2150:16:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
2122:13:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
2107:18:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
2087:13:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
1993:01:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
1953:09:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
1930:12:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
1915:08:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
1899:20:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
1882:00:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
1870:11:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
1858:21:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
1829:16:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
1814:13:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
1776:13:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
1694:01:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
1654:21:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
1641:21:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
1616:21:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
1587:17:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
1551:20:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
1529:20:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
1505:16:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
1488:20:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
1276:16:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
1213:22:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
1172:19:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
1162:18:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
1133:17:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
1039:15:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
997:20:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
988:18:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
970:05:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
953:22:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
932:21:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
916:21:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
855:18:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
762:00:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
722:22:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
700:20:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
681:20:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
652:15:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
632:02:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
618:01:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
592:23:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
570:22:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
555:22:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
543:22:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
520:21:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
487:21:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
462:http://www.movieposterbid.com
430:19:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
405:19:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
312:01:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
272:00:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
258:05:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
237:02:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
213:00:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
172:22:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
79:00:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
4024:. As of February 20, 2007,
2387:list of Peruvian Australians
3960:reinstated in August 2006 (
3893:Starting on February 18th,
3198:undeleted the category and
3178:Following the close of the
2418:List of Latin American Jews
2291:List of Latin American Jews
2183:Talk:Lists of American Jews
2179:Category talk:Lists of Jews
2139:List of Latin American Jews
1781:My closing was as follows:
423:as far as I could tell. ···
5025:
4576:templates not being tagged
4518:depending on the situation
3956:deleted in July 2006, but
2709:Knowledge (XXG):Notability
1567:Infobox British television
1243:Infobox British television
888:Knowledge (XXG):Notability
466:http://www.film-makers.com
4910:Stanoje Stamatović Glavaš
4869:Stanoje Stamatović Glavaš
4480:Kenosis, I don't see how
3931:11:10, 20 February 2007 (
3261:23:32, February 16, 2007
3244:00:50, February 17, 2007
3227:03:47, February 17, 2007
3206:22:51, February 20, 2007
2379:Category:Peruvian Germans
1722:Category:Actors by series
1686:Category:Actors by series
474:http://onesheetdesign.com
5005:Please do not modify it.
4898:Please do not modify it.
4853:Please do not modify it.
4271:for the undeletion. --
4018:Articles_lacking_sources
3895:people began complaining
3733:Please do not modify it.
3693:Please do not modify it.
3538:Endorse my own deletion.
3526:Overturn speedy deletion
3118:Please do not modify it.
3078:Please do not modify it.
2878:Please do not modify it.
2838:Please do not modify it.
2414:undeleted and redirected
2391:List of Peruvian Germans
2383:Category:Peruvian Swedes
2009:Please do not modify it.
1969:Please do not modify it.
1710:Please do not modify it.
1670:Please do not modify it.
1238:Because of the merge of
1229:Please do not modify it.
1187:Please do not modify it.
1055:Please do not modify it.
1015:Please do not modify it.
778:Please do not modify it.
738:Please do not modify it.
692:See all comments above.
454:http://www.nostalgia.com
446:http://www.mcwonline.com
328:Please do not modify it.
288:Please do not modify it.
95:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
4003:WP:No original research
3796:which is associated to
2395:List of Peruvian Swedes
1202:Several unlinked images
5002:of the article above.
4895:of the article above.
4850:of the article above.
4821:. The participants in
3911:Endorse the undeletion
3730:of the article above.
3690:of the article above.
3565:Endorse 1ne's deletion
3115:of the article above.
3075:of the article above.
2875:of the article above.
2835:of the article above.
2163:Category:Lists of Jews
2006:of the article above.
1966:of the article above.
1707:of the article above.
1667:of the article above.
1637:WikiProject Television
1547:WikiProject Television
1525:WikiProject Television
1484:WikiProject Television
1272:WikiProject Television
1226:of the article above.
1184:of the article above.
1052:of the article above.
1012:of the article above.
775:of the article above.
757:– Deletion endorsed –
735:of the article above.
607:Film poster#Collecting
325:of the article above.
307:– Deletion endorsed –
285:of the article above.
197:, just to name a few.
92:of the article above.
74:– Deletion endorsed –
2857:– Closure endorsed –
2650:comment was added by
2131:List of Peruvian Jews
2021:List of Peruvian Jews
1985:List of Peruvian Jews
1689:– Closure endorsed –
3866:explicitly asked ANI
3355:Nearly Headless Nick
979:as this still fails
409:Discussion is here:
248:is not negotiable. -
4730:February 2007. ...
3871:On September 11th,
3352:it, in any case. —
3300:Wikipedians born in
929:Hit bull, win steak
662:very clearly meets
500:; BBC chimes in at
450:http://www.imdb.com
167:Company is Notable
4828:Template talk:Fact
4789:Endorse undeletion
4662:Endorse Undeletion
4622:Christopher Parham
4618:Endorse status quo
4282:Comment to Kenosis
4239:Endorse undeletion
4154:Endorse undeletion
4138:Endorse status quo
3509:stop wheel warring
2248:Admin's reasoning:
2175:Talk:Lists of Jews
2143:the "Peru" section
1577:Infobox television
1572:was redirected to
1253:Infobox Television
790:Christopher_Lotito
754:Christopher Lotito
5012:
5011:
4860:
4859:
4797:Close without Cfd
4645:might have become
3886:On February 5th,
3700:
3699:
3519:
3408:
3085:
3084:
2845:
2844:
2684:Overturn Deletion
2663:
2642:Overturn Deletion
2228:Endorse deletion.
2109:
2101:
1976:
1975:
1677:
1676:
1194:
1193:
1022:
1021:
968:
951:
745:
744:
541:
295:
294:
256:
5016:
5007:
4951:
4933:
4900:
4880:
4862:
4855:
4761:Support undelete
4655:
4575:
4569:
4563:
4557:
4489:
4483:
4359:
4353:
4265:
4259:
4255:
4249:
4234:
4233:
4130:
4127:
4124:
3999:WP:Verifiability
3862:
3856:
3805:
3799:
3791:
3785:
3774:
3773:
3735:
3702:
3695:
3645:Endorse deletion
3633:Endorse deletion
3621:Endorse deletion
3580:
3577:
3571:
3515:
3505:Endorse deletion
3459:Endorse deletion
3450:
3448:
3446:
3444:
3442:
3427:Endorse deletion
3402:
3384:
3356:
3337:
3314:
3159:
3158:
3120:
3087:
3080:
3060:
3019:It's right here.
2931:
2913:
2880:
2847:
2840:
2807:Endorse deletion
2729:Endorse deletion
2645:
2620:Chinese Peruvian
2444:Endorse deletion
2102:
2092:
2062:
2044:
2011:
1978:
1971:
1950:
1943:
1896:
1854:
1850:
1846:
1843:
1810:
1808:
1806:
1804:
1802:
1751:
1750:
1712:
1679:
1672:
1612:
1608:
1604:
1601:
1581:
1575:
1571:
1565:
1257:
1251:
1247:
1241:
1231:
1196:
1189:
1108:
1090:
1057:
1024:
1017:
977:endorse deletion
964:
958:Endorse deletion
945:
937:Endorse deletion
912:
908:
904:
901:
884:Endorse deletion
831:
813:
780:
747:
740:
707:Endorse deletion
678:
625:Endorse deletion
603:Film memorabilia
599:Endorse deletion
567:
535:
527:Endorse deletion
427:
421:reliable sources
417:Endorse deletion
381:
363:
330:
297:
290:
263:endorse deletion
252:
242:Endorse deletion
202:Endorse deletion
148:
130:
97:
64:
59:20 February 2007
53:
49:2007 February 21
35:2007 February 19
33:
5024:
5023:
5019:
5018:
5017:
5015:
5014:
5013:
5003:
5000:deletion review
4966:
4960:
4954:
4924:
4908:
4896:
4893:deletion review
4876:
4851:
4848:deletion review
4651:
4573:
4567:
4561:
4555:
4487:
4481:
4357:
4351:
4263:
4257:
4253:
4247:
4128:
4125:
4122:
4077:KillerChihuahua
3888:Rich Farmbrough
3860:
3854:
3803:
3797:
3789:
3783:
3747:
3743:
3731:
3728:deletion review
3691:
3688:deletion review
3674:trialsanderrors
3666:I believe to be
3613:Grace E. Dougle
3578:
3575:
3569:
3440:
3438:
3436:
3434:
3432:
3373:
3354:
3326:
3303:
3174:
3168:
3162:
3132:
3128:
3116:
3113:deletion review
3076:
3073:deletion review
3056:
3045:Endorse closure
3033:Endorse closure
2968:Keep redirected
2952:
2946:
2940:
2934:
2904:
2888:
2876:
2873:deletion review
2836:
2833:deletion review
2646:—The preceding
2552:What does this
2077:
2071:
2065:
2035:
2019:
2007:
2004:deletion review
1967:
1964:deletion review
1946:
1939:
1920:Endorse closure
1894:
1887:Endorse closure
1875:Endorse closure
1863:Endorse closure
1852:
1848:
1841:
1837:
1834:Endorse closure
1800:
1798:
1796:
1794:
1792:
1766:
1760:
1754:
1724:
1720:
1708:
1705:deletion review
1691:trialsanderrors
1668:
1665:deletion review
1610:
1606:
1599:
1595:
1579:
1573:
1569:
1563:
1255:
1249:
1245:
1239:
1227:
1224:deletion review
1185:
1182:deletion review
1169:Kitsune Raynard
1130:Kitsune Raynard
1123:
1117:
1111:
1081:
1065:
1053:
1050:deletion review
1013:
1010:deletion review
910:
906:
899:
895:
846:
840:
834:
804:
788:
776:
773:deletion review
759:trialsanderrors
736:
733:deletion review
676:
565:
425:
396:
390:
384:
354:
338:
326:
323:deletion review
309:trialsanderrors
286:
283:deletion review
163:
157:
151:
121:
105:
93:
90:deletion review
76:trialsanderrors
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
5022:
5020:
5010:
5009:
4994:
4993:
4992:
4991:
4968:
4967:
4964:
4958:
4952:
4903:
4902:
4887:
4886:
4885:
4884:
4858:
4857:
4842:
4841:
4840:
4839:
4838:
4837:
4801:
4800:
4786:
4754:
4741:
4740:
4739:
4738:
4725:
4724:
4710:
4709:
4697:
4684:
4671:
4659:
4630:
4615:
4598:
4597:
4596:
4595:
4594:
4593:
4592:
4591:
4590:
4589:
4588:
4587:
4586:
4585:
4528:
4512:
4466:
4451:
4448:
4445:
4442:
4439:
4436:
4435:
4434:
4397:
4396:
4395:
4394:
4393:
4392:
4391:
4384:February 2007.
4380:
4379:
4378:
4377:
4376:
4365:
4364:
4363:
4362:
4361:
4340:
4339:
4338:
4337:
4336:
4321:
4320:
4319:
4318:
4317:
4303:
4302:
4301:
4300:
4299:
4286:
4285:
4279:
4269:Dragons flight
4235:
4229:Dragons flight
4221:
4220:
4219:
4218:
4217:
4216:
4215:
4214:
4202:
4201:
4188:
4187:
4169:
4168:
4151:
4135:
4129:sch•
4123:•Jim
4114:
4113:
4112:
4111:
4096:
4095:
4082:
4068:
4067:
4054:
4050:
4046:
4042:
4039:
4036:
4032:
4031:
4016:includes both
4008:
4007:
3986:
3975:
3974:
3945:
3943:
3942:
3915:Dragons flight
3903:
3902:
3891:
3884:
3869:
3851:
3840:
3829:
3826:
3813:On July 19th,
3776:
3775:
3738:
3737:
3722:
3721:
3720:
3719:
3698:
3697:
3682:
3681:
3680:
3679:
3659:
3642:
3630:
3618:
3606:
3586:
3562:
3561:
3560:
3535:
3523:
3502:
3501:
3500:
3499:
3498:
3490:Angus McLellan
3464:Angus McLellan
3456:
3424:
3412:
3390:
3389:
3388:
3342:
3341:
3277:
3276:
3259:
3242:
3225:
3176:
3175:
3172:
3166:
3160:
3123:
3122:
3107:
3106:
3105:
3104:
3083:
3082:
3067:
3066:
3065:
3064:
3042:
3029:
3028:
3011:
3010:
2993:
2992:
2984:Angus McLellan
2954:
2953:
2950:
2944:
2938:
2932:
2890:Buck the World
2883:
2882:
2867:
2866:
2865:
2864:
2854:Buck the World
2843:
2842:
2827:
2826:
2825:
2824:
2815:List of Cubans
2804:
2792:
2775:
2763:
2751:
2738:
2725:
2724:
2723:
2722:
2698:
2697:
2680:
2679:
2678:
2677:
2665:
2664:
2638:
2637:
2636:
2635:
2634:
2633:
2632:
2631:
2630:
2629:
2605:
2604:
2603:
2602:
2601:
2579:
2550:
2549:
2548:
2524:
2511:
2510:
2498:
2497:
2496:
2495:
2459:
2458:
2440:
2439:
2438:
2437:
2409:
2408:
2407:
2406:
2405:
2404:
2352:
2351:
2338:
2326:
2312:
2311:
2310:
2309:
2286:
2275:
2274:
2258:
2245:
2225:
2152:
2124:
2111:
2110:
2079:
2078:
2075:
2069:
2063:
2014:
2013:
1998:
1997:
1996:
1995:
1974:
1973:
1958:
1957:
1956:
1955:
1932:
1917:
1901:
1884:
1872:
1867:Samuel Wantman
1860:
1831:
1823:Angus McLellan
1816:
1768:
1767:
1764:
1758:
1752:
1715:
1714:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1675:
1674:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1643:
1619:
1618:
1589:
1584:Dragons flight
1556:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1508:
1507:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1234:
1233:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1192:
1191:
1176:
1175:
1165:
1164:
1145:deleted it as
1141:it looks like
1125:
1124:
1121:
1115:
1109:
1060:
1059:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1020:
1019:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
972:
955:
934:
918:
852:68.197.108.232
848:
847:
844:
838:
832:
783:
782:
767:
766:
765:
764:
743:
742:
727:
726:
725:
724:
703:
702:
686:
685:
684:
683:
634:
621:
620:
615:Metropolitan90
596:
595:
594:
574:
573:
572:
523:
522:
490:
489:
478:
477:
433:
432:
398:
397:
394:
388:
382:
333:
332:
317:
316:
315:
314:
293:
292:
277:
276:
275:
274:
260:
239:
215:
187:Sibu (company)
165:
164:
161:
155:
149:
100:
99:
84:
83:
82:
81:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
5021:
5008:
5006:
5001:
4996:
4995:
4990:
4987:
4983:
4980:
4979:
4978:
4977:
4974:
4963:
4957:
4949:
4945:
4941:
4937:
4932:
4928:
4923:
4919:
4915:
4911:
4907:
4906:
4905:
4904:
4901:
4899:
4894:
4889:
4888:
4883:
4879:
4875:
4871:
4870:
4866:
4865:
4864:
4863:
4856:
4854:
4849:
4844:
4843:
4836:
4833:
4829:
4824:
4820:
4817:
4816:
4815:
4812:
4811:
4808:
4803:
4802:
4798:
4794:
4790:
4787:
4784:
4781:
4777:
4776:
4773:
4767:
4762:
4758:
4755:
4753:
4750:
4746:
4743:
4742:
4737:
4736:
4733:
4727:
4726:
4722:
4717:
4714:
4713:
4712:
4711:
4708:
4705:
4701:
4698:
4696:
4693:
4688:
4685:
4683:
4680:
4675:
4672:
4670:
4667:
4663:
4660:
4658:
4654:
4650:
4646:
4642:
4638:
4634:
4631:
4629:
4626:
4623:
4619:
4616:
4614:
4611:
4607:
4603:
4600:
4599:
4584:
4581:
4577:
4572:
4560:
4553:
4549:
4545:
4544:
4543:
4542:
4539:
4534:
4529:
4527:
4526:
4523:
4519:
4513:
4509:
4508:
4507:
4506:
4505:
4502:
4498:
4494:
4486:
4479:
4478:
4477:
4476:
4473:
4467:
4465:
4463:
4458:
4452:
4449:
4446:
4443:
4440:
4437:
4433:
4430:
4426:
4423:
4422:
4421:
4420:
4419:
4418:
4417:
4414:
4410:
4406:
4402:
4398:
4389:
4388:
4387:
4386:
4385:
4381:
4374:
4373:
4372:
4371:
4370:
4366:
4356:
4349:
4348:
4347:
4346:
4345:
4341:
4334:
4330:
4329:
4328:
4327:
4326:
4322:
4315:
4311:
4310:
4309:
4308:
4307:
4304:
4297:
4296:
4295:
4294:
4293:
4290:
4289:
4288:
4287:
4283:
4280:
4278:
4277:
4274:
4270:
4262:
4252:
4244:
4240:
4236:
4230:
4227:. An update:
4226:
4223:
4222:
4213:
4210:
4206:
4205:
4204:
4203:
4200:
4197:
4192:
4191:
4190:
4189:
4186:
4183:
4178:
4173:
4172:
4171:
4170:
4167:
4164:
4159:
4155:
4152:
4150:
4147:
4143:
4139:
4136:
4134:
4131:
4119:
4116:
4115:
4110:
4107:
4103:
4100:
4099:
4098:
4097:
4094:
4091:
4086:
4083:
4081:
4078:
4073:
4070:
4069:
4066:
4063:
4059:
4058:User:SmackBot
4055:
4051:
4047:
4043:
4040:
4037:
4034:
4033:
4030:
4027:
4023:
4019:
4015:
4010:
4009:
4006:
4004:
4000:
3996:
3992:
3987:
3985:
3983:
3977:
3976:
3972:
3968:
3965:
3962:
3959:
3955:
3951:
3948:
3947:
3946:
3940:
3937:
3934:
3930:
3925:
3922:
3921:
3920:
3919:
3916:
3912:
3907:
3900:
3896:
3892:
3889:
3885:
3882:
3878:
3874:
3870:
3867:
3859:
3852:
3849:
3845:
3841:
3838:
3834:
3830:
3827:
3824:
3820:
3816:
3812:
3811:
3810:
3807:
3802:
3795:
3788:
3780:
3771:
3767:
3763:
3759:
3755:
3751:
3746:
3742:
3741:
3740:
3739:
3736:
3734:
3729:
3724:
3723:
3718:
3715:
3711:
3710:
3706:
3705:
3704:
3703:
3696:
3694:
3689:
3684:
3683:
3678:
3675:
3671:
3668:the relevant
3667:
3664:I added what
3663:
3660:
3658:
3655:
3650:
3646:
3643:
3641:
3638:
3634:
3631:
3629:
3626:
3622:
3619:
3617:
3614:
3610:
3607:
3605:
3602:
3598:
3594:
3590:
3587:
3585:
3581:
3572:
3566:
3563:
3559:
3556:
3552:
3551:
3550:
3547:
3543:
3539:
3536:
3534:
3531:
3527:
3524:
3522:
3518:
3514:
3510:
3506:
3503:
3497:
3494:
3491:
3486:
3485:
3484:
3481:
3477:
3476:Mike Selinker
3473:
3472:
3471:
3468:
3465:
3460:
3457:
3455:
3452:
3451:
3428:
3425:
3423:
3420:
3416:
3413:
3411:
3406:
3401:
3400:
3395:
3391:
3387:
3383:
3382:
3378:
3377:
3371:
3368:
3364:
3363:
3362:
3359:
3357:
3351:
3347:
3344:
3343:
3340:
3336:
3335:
3331:
3330:
3324:
3320:
3319:
3318:
3317:
3313:
3312:
3308:
3307:
3301:
3296:
3294:
3290:
3286:
3282:
3274:
3271:
3268:
3264:
3260:
3257:
3254:
3251:
3247:
3243:
3240:
3237:
3234:
3230:
3226:
3223:
3219:
3216:
3213:
3209:
3205:
3204:
3203:
3201:
3197:
3193:
3189:
3185:
3181:
3171:
3165:
3156:
3152:
3148:
3144:
3140:
3136:
3131:
3127:
3126:
3125:
3124:
3121:
3119:
3114:
3109:
3108:
3103:
3100:
3096:
3095:
3091:
3090:
3089:
3088:
3081:
3079:
3074:
3069:
3068:
3063:
3059:
3054:
3050:
3046:
3043:
3041:
3038:
3034:
3031:
3030:
3027:
3024:
3020:
3016:
3013:
3012:
3009:
3006:
3002:
2998:
2995:
2994:
2991:
2988:
2985:
2981:
2977:
2973:
2969:
2966:
2965:
2964:
2963:
2960:
2949:
2943:
2937:
2929:
2925:
2921:
2917:
2912:
2908:
2903:
2899:
2895:
2891:
2887:
2886:
2885:
2884:
2881:
2879:
2874:
2869:
2868:
2863:
2860:
2856:
2855:
2851:
2850:
2849:
2848:
2841:
2839:
2834:
2829:
2828:
2823:
2820:
2816:
2812:
2808:
2805:
2803:
2800:
2796:
2793:
2791:
2788:
2784:
2779:
2776:
2774:
2771:
2767:
2764:
2762:
2759:
2755:
2752:
2750:
2747:
2742:
2739:
2737:
2734:
2730:
2727:
2726:
2721:
2718:
2714:
2710:
2706:
2702:
2701:
2700:
2699:
2696:
2693:
2689:
2685:
2682:
2681:
2676:
2673:
2669:
2668:
2667:
2666:
2661:
2657:
2653:
2652:88.107.154.53
2649:
2643:
2640:
2639:
2628:
2625:
2621:
2616:
2615:
2614:
2611:
2606:
2600:
2597:
2593:
2592:
2591:
2588:
2584:
2580:
2578:
2575:
2571:
2566:
2565:
2564:
2561:
2557:
2556:
2551:
2547:
2544:
2540:
2539:
2538:
2537:
2536:
2533:
2529:
2525:
2523:
2520:
2516:
2513:
2512:
2509:
2506:
2502:
2501:
2500:
2499:
2494:
2491:
2486:
2481:
2477:
2476:
2475:
2472:
2468:
2463:
2462:
2461:
2460:
2457:
2454:
2449:
2445:
2442:
2441:
2436:
2433:
2428:
2427:
2426:
2423:
2419:
2415:
2411:
2410:
2403:
2400:
2396:
2392:
2388:
2384:
2380:
2376:
2372:
2371:
2370:
2367:
2363:
2362:
2361:
2358:
2354:
2353:
2350:
2347:
2342:
2339:
2337:
2334:
2330:
2327:
2325:
2322:
2317:
2314:
2313:
2308:
2305:
2301:
2300:
2299:
2296:
2292:
2287:
2285:
2282:
2277:
2276:
2273:
2270:
2266:
2262:
2259:
2257:
2254:
2249:
2246:
2244:
2241:
2237:
2233:
2229:
2226:
2224:
2221:
2216:
2212:
2208:
2204:
2200:
2196:
2192:
2188:
2184:
2180:
2176:
2172:
2169:the lists at
2168:
2164:
2160:
2159:Lists of Jews
2156:
2153:
2151:
2148:
2144:
2140:
2136:
2132:
2128:
2125:
2123:
2120:
2116:
2113:
2112:
2108:
2105:
2099:
2095:
2091:
2090:
2089:
2088:
2085:
2074:
2068:
2060:
2056:
2052:
2048:
2043:
2039:
2034:
2030:
2026:
2022:
2018:
2017:
2016:
2015:
2012:
2010:
2005:
2000:
1999:
1994:
1991:
1987:
1986:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1972:
1970:
1965:
1960:
1959:
1954:
1951:
1949:
1944:
1942:
1936:
1933:
1931:
1928:
1925:
1921:
1918:
1916:
1913:
1909:
1905:
1902:
1900:
1897:
1892:
1888:
1885:
1883:
1880:
1876:
1873:
1871:
1868:
1864:
1861:
1859:
1855:
1845:
1835:
1832:
1830:
1827:
1824:
1820:
1817:
1815:
1812:
1811:
1788:
1784:
1780:
1779:
1778:
1777:
1774:
1763:
1757:
1748:
1744:
1740:
1736:
1732:
1728:
1723:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1713:
1711:
1706:
1701:
1700:
1695:
1692:
1688:
1687:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1673:
1671:
1666:
1661:
1660:
1655:
1652:
1648:
1644:
1642:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1626:
1621:
1620:
1617:
1613:
1603:
1593:
1590:
1588:
1585:
1578:
1568:
1561:
1558:
1557:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1540:
1536:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1509:
1506:
1503:
1498:
1495:
1494:
1489:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1473:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1465:
1462:
1459:
1456:
1453:
1450:
1447:
1444:
1441:
1438:
1435:
1432:
1429:
1426:
1423:
1420:
1417:
1414:
1411:
1408:
1405:
1402:
1399:
1396:
1393:
1390:
1387:
1384:
1381:
1378:
1375:
1372:
1369:
1366:
1363:
1360:
1357:
1354:
1351:
1348:
1345:
1342:
1339:
1336:
1333:
1330:
1327:
1324:
1321:
1318:
1315:
1312:
1309:
1306:
1303:
1300:
1297:
1294:
1291:
1288:
1285:
1282:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1254:
1244:
1236:
1235:
1232:
1230:
1225:
1220:
1219:
1214:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1190:
1188:
1183:
1178:
1177:
1174:
1173:
1170:
1163:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1131:
1120:
1114:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1089:
1085:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1058:
1056:
1051:
1046:
1045:
1040:
1037:
1033:
1032:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1018:
1016:
1011:
1006:
1005:
998:
995:
991:
990:
989:
986:
982:
978:
973:
971:
967:
963:
959:
956:
954:
949:
944:
943:
938:
935:
933:
930:
926:
922:
919:
917:
913:
903:
893:
889:
885:
882:
881:
880:
876:
873:
872:
867:
865:
861:
857:
856:
853:
843:
837:
829:
825:
821:
817:
812:
808:
803:
799:
795:
791:
787:
786:
785:
784:
781:
779:
774:
769:
768:
763:
760:
756:
755:
751:
750:
749:
748:
741:
739:
734:
729:
728:
723:
720:
716:
712:
711:User:phishman
708:
705:
704:
701:
698:
695:
694:user:phishman
691:
688:
687:
682:
679:
673:
669:
665:
661:
658:
655:
654:
653:
650:
647:
646:user:phishman
643:
638:
635:
633:
630:
626:
623:
622:
619:
616:
612:
608:
604:
600:
597:
593:
590:
587:
586:user:phishman
583:
578:
575:
571:
568:
561:
558:
557:
556:
553:
552:user:phishman
549:
546:
545:
544:
539:
534:
533:
528:
525:
524:
521:
518:
515:
514:user:phishman
511:
507:
503:
499:
495:
492:
491:
488:
485:
480:
479:
475:
471:
467:
463:
459:
455:
451:
447:
443:
438:
435:
434:
431:
428:
422:
418:
415:
414:
413:
412:
407:
406:
403:
393:
387:
379:
375:
371:
367:
362:
358:
353:
349:
345:
341:
337:
336:
335:
334:
331:
329:
324:
319:
318:
313:
310:
306:
305:
301:
300:
299:
298:
291:
289:
284:
279:
278:
273:
270:
269:
264:
261:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
240:
238:
235:
231:
227:
223:
219:
216:
214:
211:
207:
203:
200:
199:
198:
196:
195:Tahitian Noni
192:
188:
182:
180:
174:
173:
170:
160:
154:
146:
142:
138:
134:
129:
125:
120:
116:
112:
108:
107:WorldVentures
104:
103:
102:
101:
98:
96:
91:
86:
85:
80:
77:
73:
72:
71:WorldVentures
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
44:2007 February
41:
36:
23:
19:
5004:
4997:
4981:
4973:Jerry lavoie
4969:
4897:
4890:
4867:
4852:
4845:
4818:
4809:
4806:
4796:
4792:
4788:
4780:24 February
4770:
4765:
4760:
4756:
4744:
4728:
4721:WP:CONSENSUS
4715:
4699:
4686:
4673:
4661:
4644:
4640:
4636:
4632:
4617:
4601:
4580:Black Falcon
4565:
4547:
4546:Actually, I
4532:
4530:
4517:
4514:
4501:Black Falcon
4496:
4468:
4456:
4453:
4424:
4413:Black Falcon
4382:
4367:
4342:
4323:
4313:
4305:
4291:
4281:
4273:Black Falcon
4238:
4237:
4224:
4176:
4157:
4153:
4137:
4117:
4101:
4084:
4071:
4011:
3988:
3978:
3958:unilaterally
3957:
3953:
3949:
3944:
3923:
3910:
3908:
3904:
3898:
3879:, closed by
3846:, closed by
3835:, closed by
3821:, closed by
3808:
3801:unreferenced
3781:
3777:
3732:
3725:
3714:IronGargoyle
3707:
3692:
3685:
3665:
3661:
3654:Lord Metroid
3644:
3632:
3620:
3608:
3588:
3564:
3537:
3525:
3508:
3504:
3458:
3431:
3426:
3414:
3397:
3380:
3375:
3349:
3333:
3328:
3310:
3305:
3299:
3297:
3278:
3269:
3252:
3235:
3221:
3214:
3177:
3117:
3110:
3092:
3077:
3070:
3048:
3044:
3032:
3014:
2996:
2967:
2955:
2877:
2870:
2859:IronGargoyle
2852:
2837:
2830:
2806:
2794:
2782:
2781:to give new
2777:
2765:
2753:
2740:
2728:
2687:
2683:
2641:
2582:
2554:
2553:
2527:
2484:
2479:
2471:Black Falcon
2447:
2443:
2413:
2340:
2331:per Newport
2328:
2315:
2295:Black Falcon
2260:
2247:
2235:
2231:
2227:
2214:
2186:
2166:
2154:
2147:Black Falcon
2135:this version
2126:
2114:
2093:
2080:
2008:
2001:
1990:IronGargoyle
1983:
1968:
1961:
1947:
1941:BlueSquadron
1940:
1934:
1919:
1903:
1886:
1874:
1862:
1833:
1818:
1791:
1786:
1782:
1771:both sides!
1769:
1709:
1702:
1684:
1669:
1662:
1591:
1559:
1496:
1237:
1228:
1221:
1201:
1186:
1179:
1166:
1138:
1126:
1067:Audiokinetic
1054:
1047:
1031:Audiokinetic
1029:
1014:
1007:
976:
957:
940:
936:
920:
883:
877:
874:
868:
862:
858:
849:
777:
770:
752:
737:
730:
714:
706:
689:
656:
636:
624:
598:
576:
559:
547:
530:
526:
493:
436:
416:
408:
399:
327:
320:
302:
287:
280:
266:
262:
241:
229:
225:
221:
217:
201:
183:
175:
166:
94:
87:
69:
58:
4610:Chick Bowen
4533:community's
4493:WP:HARMLESS
4462:WP:HARMLESS
4411:. Cheers,
4405:WP:HARMLESS
3899:from admins
3037:Yamaguchi先生
3005:ColourBurst
2692:Holdenhurst
2532:Holdenhurst
2432:Holdenhurst
2366:Holdenhurst
2279:deletion.--
1651:Betacommand
1159:ColourBurst
697:207.82.44.3
660:Americablog
649:207.82.44.3
642:americablog
589:207.82.44.3
582:americablog
517:207.82.44.3
484:207.82.44.3
402:207.82.44.3
4775:Farmbrough
4749:Eluchil404
4704:EdJohnston
4090:YechielMan
3809:Timeline:
3345:Strange –
3023:Tom Danson
2976:verifiable
2972:Young Buck
2959:Tom Danson
2819:EdJohnston
2385:, and not
2240:YechielMan
2236:Disclosure
1147:WP:CSD#G11
719:EdJohnston
4986:Catchpole
4666:Random832
4344:template;
4049:template;
3969:), and a
3601:Random832
3593:Random832
3555:Random832
3293:this post
3099:Doug Bell
3058:(jarbarf)
3053:Aftermath
2799:Sefringle
1773:Mr. Stabs
1143:User:Teke
226:comments,
4982:Undelete
4778:, 00:05
4766:at least
4497:articles
3837:Kbdank71
3823:Syrthiss
3480:VegaDark
3415:Overturn
3394:WP:POINT
3281:WP:CHILD
3273:contribs
3256:contribs
3239:contribs
3218:contribs
3190:deleted
2948:Mass AfD
2795:Overturn
2766:Overturn
2758:Brownlee
2754:Overturn
2741:Overturn
2733:Feydakin
2648:unsigned
2560:Brownlee
2341:Overturn
2333:Mad Jack
2329:Overturn
2261:Overturn
2155:Overturn
2141:and the
2115:Overturn
1935:Overturn
1924:Garion96
1904:Overturn
1633:contribs
1592:Undelete
1560:Undelete
1543:contribs
1521:contribs
1480:contribs
1268:contribs
657:Comment:
637:Comment:
577:comment:
560:Comment:
494:Comment:
437:Overturn
400:NOTABLE
169:Virgil06
20: |
4956:restore
4927:protect
4922:history
4832:Kenosis
4830:?. ...
4819:Comment
4807:snowolf
4732:Kenosis
4716:Comment
4692:Sumahoy
4538:Kenosis
4522:Kenosis
4472:Kenosis
4429:Kenosis
4425:Comment
4251:cleanup
4225:Comment
4209:Kenosis
4196:RockMFR
4182:Kenosis
4163:RockMFR
4106:Kenosis
4102:Comment
4062:Kenosis
4001:and/or
3971:new_CfD
3758:history
3662:Comment
3637:Kenosis
3625:Sumahoy
3609:Restore
3570:Ryūlóng
3530:RockMFR
3513:Amarkov
3350:endorse
3323:Jaranda
3246:Ryulong
3208:Jaranda
3196:Ryulong
3164:restore
3143:history
3015:Comment
3001:WP:AADD
2997:Comment
2936:restore
2907:protect
2902:history
2778:Comment
2746:Sumahoy
2467:notable
2422:RockMFR
2346:R613vlu
2316:Endorse
2269:Runcorn
2161:and at
2119:Dweller
2084:Newport
2067:restore
2038:protect
2033:history
1891:the wub
1787:Endorse
1756:restore
1735:history
1497:Comment
1210:GRBerry
1155:WP:CORP
1139:Comment
1113:restore
1084:protect
1079:history
1036:GRBerry
994:W.marsh
985:Natalie
962:Amarkov
921:Endorse
836:restore
807:protect
802:history
715:by name
690:Comment
548:Comment
386:restore
357:protect
352:history
250:Amarkov
230:digests
218:Endorse
179:WP:CORP
153:restore
124:protect
119:history
4931:delete
4823:WP:BOT
4785:(GMT).
4690:know?
4687:Delete
4679:Osomec
4674:Delete
4641:useful
4637:delete
4633:Relist
4625:(talk)
4606:WP:CFD
4602:Relist
4511:2007".
4457:should
4314:should
4146:BryanG
4142:WP:IAR
4118:Delete
4072:Delete
3950:Delete
3929:ais523
3815:WP:CFD
3493:(Talk)
3467:(Talk)
3381:scribe
3334:scribe
3311:scribe
3289:WP:IAR
3180:WP:DRV
2987:(Talk)
2980:WP:NOT
2911:delete
2787:Usedup
2783:better
2770:Osidge
2717:Usedup
2713:WP:BLP
2711:, and
2672:Usedup
2624:Usedup
2610:Geogre
2596:Usedup
2587:Osidge
2574:Usedup
2543:Usedup
2528:proven
2519:Usedup
2490:Geogre
2480:always
2469:. --
2453:Geogre
2430:one.--
2399:Usedup
2393:, and
2357:Usedup
2321:Usedup
2304:Usedup
2232:ad hoc
2187:always
2042:delete
1927:(talk)
1879:Osomec
1826:(Talk)
1151:WP:COI
1088:delete
981:WP:BIO
925:WP:BIO
811:delete
670:, and
629:Geogre
611:WP:WEB
361:delete
234:Geogre
128:delete
4948:views
4940:watch
4936:links
4757:Close
4745:Close
4578:. --
4085:Keep.
3848:Xoloz
3766:watch
3762:links
3647:, if
3542:WP:AN
3433:: -->
3405:Help!
3151:watch
3147:links
2928:views
2920:watch
2916:links
2555:prove
2485:that,
2448:still
2319:end.
2293:. --
2059:views
2051:watch
2047:links
1948:Raven
1793:: -->
1743:watch
1739:links
1647:WP:AN
1625:TheDJ
1535:TheDJ
1513:TheDJ
1472:TheDJ
1260:TheDJ
1206:WP:AN
1105:views
1097:watch
1093:links
948:Help!
828:views
820:watch
816:links
664:WP:RS
538:Help!
378:views
370:watch
366:links
193:, or
191:Vemma
145:views
137:watch
133:links
52:: -->
16:<
4944:logs
4918:talk
4914:edit
4874:Duja
4795:and
4793:Keep
4783:2007
4772:Rich
4759:and
4700:Keep
4649:Duja
4571:fact
4559:fact
4548:know
4485:fact
4470:...
4409:WP:V
4355:fact
4333:WP:V
4261:stub
4256:and
4158:will
4020:and
3858:fact
3787:fact
3770:logs
3754:talk
3750:edit
3670:UCfD
3599:. --
3517:moo!
3449:<
3267:talk
3250:talk
3233:talk
3212:talk
3170:UCfD
3155:logs
3139:talk
3135:edit
2924:logs
2898:talk
2894:edit
2811:WP:V
2705:WP:V
2688:keep
2656:talk
2220:IZAK
2104:IZAK
2094:Note
2055:logs
2029:talk
2025:edit
1912:Tim!
1906:per
1895:"?!"
1844:acan
1809:<
1747:logs
1731:talk
1727:edit
1629:talk
1602:acan
1539:talk
1517:talk
1476:talk
1264:talk
1153:and
1101:logs
1075:talk
1071:edit
966:moo!
902:acan
892:here
824:logs
798:talk
794:edit
672:WP:N
668:WP:V
613:. --
605:and
374:logs
348:talk
344:edit
340:MoPo
304:MoPo
254:moo!
246:WP:V
222:When
141:logs
115:talk
111:edit
32:<
4962:AfD
4643:or
4635:or
4241:.
3954:was
3881:JzG
3877:log
3844:log
3833:log
3819:log
3546:1ne
3511:. -
3474:In
3419:Tim
3399:Guy
3396:.
3376:WjB
3367:1ne
3329:WjB
3306:WjB
3291:in
3285:1ne
3263:1ne
3229:1ne
3200:1ne
3188:1ne
3182:on
3049:not
2942:AfD
2583:all
2505:Doc
2416:to
2281:Doc
2253:Doc
2215:not
2167:all
2137:of
2100:.
2073:AfD
1840:coe
1762:CfD
1598:coe
1562:.
1502:pgk
1248:to
1119:AfD
942:Guy
898:coe
842:AfD
677:日本穣
566:日本穣
532:Guy
426:日本穣
392:AfD
268:DGG
210:Doc
159:AfD
22:Log
4946:|
4942:|
4938:|
4934:|
4929:|
4925:|
4920:|
4916:|
4810:D4
4791:,
4574:}}
4568:{{
4562:}}
4556:{{
4488:}}
4482:{{
4358:}}
4352:{{
4264:}}
4258:{{
4254:}}
4248:{{
4126:62
3966:,
3927:--
3883:).
3861:}}
3855:{{
3804:}}
3798:{{
3790:}}
3784:{{
3768:|
3764:|
3760:|
3756:|
3752:|
3582:)
3372:.
3325:.
3295:.
3186:,
3153:|
3149:|
3145:|
3141:|
3137:|
2970:.
2926:|
2922:|
2918:|
2914:|
2909:|
2905:|
2900:|
2896:|
2817:.
2707:,
2658:)
2397:.
2389:,
2381:,
2377:,
2209:;
2205:;
2201:;
2197:;
2193:;
2181:;
2177:;
2057:|
2053:|
2049:|
2045:|
2040:|
2036:|
2031:|
2027:|
1856:—
1853:lk
1838:—
1789:.
1745:|
1741:|
1737:|
1733:|
1729:|
1639:)
1635:•
1631:•
1614:—
1611:lk
1596:—
1580:}}
1574:{{
1570:}}
1564:{{
1549:)
1545:•
1541:•
1527:)
1523:•
1519:•
1500:--
1486:)
1482:•
1478:•
1466:,
1463:,
1460:,
1457:,
1454:,
1451:,
1448:,
1445:,
1442:,
1439:,
1436:,
1433:,
1430:,
1427:,
1424:,
1421:,
1418:,
1415:,
1412:,
1409:,
1406:,
1403:,
1400:,
1397:,
1394:,
1391:,
1388:,
1385:,
1382:,
1379:,
1376:,
1373:,
1370:,
1367:,
1364:,
1361:,
1358:,
1355:,
1352:,
1349:,
1346:,
1343:,
1340:,
1337:,
1334:,
1331:,
1328:,
1325:,
1322:,
1319:,
1316:,
1313:,
1310:,
1307:,
1304:,
1301:,
1298:,
1295:,
1292:,
1289:,
1286:,
1283:,
1274:)
1270:•
1266:•
1256:}}
1250:{{
1246:}}
1240:{{
1208:–
1103:|
1099:|
1095:|
1091:|
1086:|
1082:|
1077:|
1073:|
914:—
911:lk
896:—
894:.
826:|
822:|
818:|
814:|
809:|
805:|
800:|
796:|
666:,
376:|
372:|
368:|
364:|
359:|
355:|
350:|
346:|
189:,
143:|
139:|
135:|
131:|
126:|
122:|
117:|
113:|
42::
4965:)
4959:|
4953:(
4950:)
4912:(
4878:►
4653:►
3984:.
3963:,
3941:)
3939:C
3936:T
3933:U
3772:)
3748:(
3579:龍
3576:竜
3573:(
3447:t
3445:n
3443:a
3441:i
3439:d
3437:a
3435:R
3407:)
3403:(
3270:·
3265:(
3253:·
3248:(
3236:·
3231:(
3224:)
3215:·
3210:(
3173:)
3167:|
3161:(
3157:)
3133:(
2951:)
2945:|
2939:|
2933:(
2930:)
2892:(
2662:.
2654:(
2076:)
2070:|
2064:(
2061:)
2023:(
1851:a
1849:t
1842:l
1807:t
1805:n
1803:a
1801:i
1799:d
1797:a
1795:R
1765:)
1759:|
1753:(
1749:)
1725:(
1627:(
1609:a
1607:t
1600:l
1537:(
1515:(
1474:(
1262:(
1122:)
1116:|
1110:(
1107:)
1069:(
950:)
946:(
909:a
907:t
900:l
845:)
839:|
833:(
830:)
792:(
540:)
536:(
395:)
389:|
383:(
380:)
342:(
162:)
156:|
150:(
147:)
109:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.