Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2007 July 4

2688:"press kit," which these days, is usually electronic and/or on-line, in order for an image to be useable on Knowledge (XXG). It makes no difference if the uploader "claims" the image comes from a press kit; the image DOES come from press material, and therefore, its deletion on grounds that "it doesn't come from a press kit" is not valid. And if an image comes from another website, so what? We know who the copyright holder OF THE IMAGE is! It doesn't make a difference whether or not it was downloaded from CBS.com, NPR.org, SeattleTimes.com, photos.ap.com, whatever -- that's a delivery method. The image itself, it should be noted, is clearly and unambiguosly the copyrighted property of CBS. Its resolution was reduced, and it was being used in full compliance with all ten points of 3000:(3) the photo is only being used for informational purposes. (4) Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it shows the subject of this article and how the event depicted was very historically significant to the general public." Of these four statements, number one is plainly false, and number 4 is linguistically meaningless. ("event?" - "depicted?" - "show ... how"? - "historically significant"? - "general public"? - "was"? - not a single word of this phrase makes any sense at all.) 1949:

to help them improve or merge the articles c) provide a format for review (not deletion) of said articles. We have never proposed deletion, since we believe Knowledge (XXG) is enriched by GOOD articles about television, but most shows create GOOD articles by merging episodes together (ie. one good season article rather than two dozen near-empty episode articles or, more commonly, two dozen episode articles which breach copyright by overlong plots and which fail

456:); articles for other visual effects companies exist in Knowledge (XXG). Content was submitted in good faith but might have been seen as POV or advertising (I can't tell as the history is not available). The marketing manager for the company (for which I work) would like the page restored so that it can be edited from its current press release style into a sound, NPOV Knowledge (XXG) article. — 2225:"marginal" is the word, and I cannot predict what the consensus will be at AfD. Their sole current product is a purported tonic made from mineralized water and fruit extracts. The refs given are marginal to--the Townsend Letter is the sort of "medical" journal that will endorse anything, & some other refs are peripheral. But the Dallas Morning News article is an acceptable source. 3050:

far and wide as possible, with the encouragement given to media members to use them), no evidence that NPR pays people for content, no evidence that the Seattle Times pays entertainment companies for this type of promotional content... In short, if this image was deleted because "Maybe it could be a problem," that's not good enough. Delete an image because there

3570:"Notable" doesn't necessarily mean "good". This is a game developed by a noteworthy developer, published by a noteworthy publisher, and covered in major game publications. I can understand the AFD, since the article wasn't anything but an incomplete infobox when it was put on AFD, but I don't understand why there's this DRV. - 2024:, the date stamper part of the template, didn't get deleted or mentioned). I strongly believe that we would have evolved to something easier and better regardless of the TfD, and that the TfD (regardless of how it was closed) really didn't do much other than make the situation more frustrating and difficult. -- 3181:

photo service, CBS.com and CBSPressExpress.com, physical electronic distribution via promotional CD-ROM and DVD, and printed photos mailed as part of the standard promotional service to CBS television stations, promotion departments, non-affiliated newspapers, general interest entertainment magazines, etc.

3080:

The burden of proof was in you (the uploader), to show that CBS welcomes anyone to distribute this image without the necessity of a case-by-case approval. Showing that the images is used by some parties isn't enough for determining that. I see you criteria for calling an image "promotional" is weaker

2877:

deletion. Image was verifiably promotional in nature and thus its use does not pose any problems. There was, equally verifiably, no consensus to delete. This continued behavior on the part of closing admins seriously undermines the faith and trust we should be able to have in individuals holding such

2803:

And, I hate to bring this up, but what if the editor is nominating images uploaded by a particular user out of spite? That certainly could be what's happening here. I should point out that I'm no flagrant abuser of our image policy -- every single image I've every uploaded has been completely legal

1936:

Much of the concern centered around the 'fourteen days'. This was NEVER intended as a deadline, but as a courtesy to editors. Normal tags can be actioned immediately; this gave two weeks grace before it was looked at. HOWEVER, if consensus suggests the 14 days is unnecessary, or leads to confusion,

1263:

I'm not seeing how including a category is beneficial, there's no rush to fix the issue (if there is one). Remember that the introduction of these templates is purely based on opinion, that may not be shared, anybody may remove these templates if they disagree -- even if you've created some arbitrary

1075:

Deleting this template also removed a notice stating that episode articles were under review, as well as the link to said review, and links to our guidelines regarding TV episodes. It is inappropriate to single out the template being used by guidelines and review processes for these very reasons, and

3180:

The source of the image - the copyright holder - is CBS. (This, of course, makes it extremely unlikely to be released as free content.) More specifically, the image itself was distributed to thousands of worldwide media outlets via a variety of methods, not limited to but possibly including the AP

3049:

I've provided at least four links as "evidence" that this image was distributed as a standard hand-out photo; so far, I've seen no evidence that CBS has a second tier of "paid promotional material," that CBS demands payments for the reuse of its promotional photos (in reality, they're distributed as

2999:

Huh? "Perfectly valid fair use claim"? This is a non-free image used for the biography of a living person, ('only showing what they look like'), and the fair use claim said that: "(1) it is a historically significant photo of a famous individual; (2) it is of much lower resolution than the original;

2687:

I certainly disagree that the consensus opinion was to delete. I certainly take issue with the idea that CBS provides press kit photos to only a few media outlets, not to all legitimate media outlets. I cannot image a situation which requires me to physically be in possesion of a photograph from a

2682:

The result was delete. I don't think there is any doubt that the image was provided by CBS to the media outlets referenced, however, we do not know the circumstances surrounding the conditions on which the image was provided. It could be part of a press kit or could be an exclusive image these media

1948:

suggestions have been made above to modify another template for the purpose, which might provide a compromise. NOTE. The 'purpose' is simply to a) identify articles relating to television which do not meet Knowledge (XXG)'s own guidelines for inclusion, b) provide links and encouragement to editors

1845:

If editors were warring about this then deal with those editors. With this same logic we could say that we shouldn't be tagging non-free images via bots and scripts, because then less people will be mad. None the less, the template was originally a notability template, with the review features added

1420:

I don't anything is arguing that tagging unreferenced episode articles as such is a bad idea. The main objections in the old TFD seemed to be over the implication of a deadline and the appearance resembling that of a deletion tag. Thus, I propose, instead of going through all the DRV bureaucracy, we

998:— There was a very clear consensus established at the TfD, that was to delete and redirect. I'm saddened that you feel that consensus was not established, and that you had to resort to canvassing to advance your POV (now, why does that feel odd?). Frankly the reason given to keep are extremely weak. 3198:

All we're asking for is some proof of this detailed description of CBS's distribution methods and and this image was really distributed according to this description. Simply showing some webpages that use this image is no such proof. You know that we can't just trust some user's words and expertise

3031:

Several people here are debating whether the image is "fair use" or not. But the only relevant question here is "Did the closing admin follow policy correctly?", not "Do I agree with his decision?". This case wasn't clear-cut, and I can see how people could (and did) argue both sides in good faith.

2783:

Then how come no other editor bothered to put a "DELETE" in front of their comments? There's only a "SPEEDY KEEP" from me...Yes, yes, I know this is not a vote, but NO ONE, other than the original nominator, made a cogent argument for deleting the image, they only replied to my initial evidence as

2750:

is making assumptions about the pedigree of the image just as I am, but per current Knowledge (XXG) non-free content criteria we err on the side of caution. We have many cases of where promotional images were properly taken from the electronic press kit and this standard will be applied to all such

1026:

wrote it. That is irrelevent. Please don't make accusations of canvassing, as you canvassed in the deletion as well. I feel, however, that deleting the template (technically redirect) should be left. It was a lenglthy discussion, and although consensus was not established, people wanted it deleted,

2696:

could (and perhaps someday will) be applied to EVERY press-kit style photo. But in fact, we do know that this image was provided to multiple media outlets (links were provided), with no indication anywhere that there is any standard or practice that CBS promtional images are limited to only a few

2795:

What happened to actually taking a look at the evidence, and making a rational decision? I think it takes more than just the allegation of misuse -- the image nominator offered NO support to his claim that the image was, somehow, maybe exclusive content. And I offered several pieces of evidence

2701:

might make some sense, if there was ever any example or indication given that this has ever happened. This is so contrary to the standard practice in the promotional photo world that's it's difficult to understand how anyone could allege this with a straight face. As pointed out in the original

2013:

I guess there really isn't a point to this DRV. We're still going to use something, template wise, that more people won't object to, or get the wrong impression of. Which kind of makes deleting the template in the first place pointless, since such a discussion should have lead to modification, as

1330:

I would be all for that, as long as it could still be date-stamped just like all of our other cleanup tags. The "deadline" was another part of the misconception, as it was just an arbitrary time frame so people could easily remove the tag before a review process started when it wasn't needed. The

1860:

the closure followed general policy--one does not change WP policy by means of a template introduced by a single workgroup even for their own material. Proposals to establish a 14 day period for deleting unreferenced articles have been repeatedly defeated. I remember that I supported one of them

1478:

The problem with that is that, like all other cleanup tags, they almost never get worked on. And, technically, they dont need to be cleaned up usually, they violate policy, and need to be removed. That happened, people got mad, so a timeline was set up. Removing the timeline just lets it exist

3351:

Page was changed to eliminate bias and simply served to be informative in regards to a new invention but was still deleted. I have nothing to do with the product but feel that it is useful knowledge for anyone, especially amputees. I only wrote it for the public benefit -- including several

722:

He left a note on my talk page asking me to undelete the article, also stating he'd authored the text. I haven't looked into the issue, but he does appear to be trying to get the article back. I've declined his request for the deleted material so long as this deletion review is on going. -

3598:

My closing rationale was "speedy keep because the article has been fundamentally improved." I have made this decision on several past AFDs without incident. If anyone feels there are still concerns about notability (i.e. the game was unpopular), by all means I'm okay with a relist.

1910:

TfD, according to its own regulations, is not the place to discuss templates that are "part of the functioning of a Knowledge (XXG) policy or guideline". The TfD should have been suspended and discussion about the wording and use of the guideline should have occurred at

3054:

a problem - like, "we don't know who the copyright holder is" (of course in this case, we do know who the copyright holder is, but that has somehow, bizarrely, become of secondary importance of late) -- not because we can think of one type of unlikely eventuality that

1007:

I have done no canvassing, and POV is not a factor here at all. Matthew here is the user who nominated the template in an attempt to snipe the developing process, and is also the one who presented the misleading claims that the template was for a deletion process. --

1737:

is the policy/process that can be used. Sorry if it takes a lot of time, but if you care so much, you'll be willing to follow it through. The TFD appears to have been closed correctly, given the breach of policy and one of the pillars of the project (it's a 💕).

1205:"The subject of this article may not satisfy the notability guideline or one of the following guidelines for inclusion on Knowledge (XXG): Biographies, Books, Companies, Fiction, Music, Neologisms, Numbers, Web content, or several proposals for new guidelines." 1451:

I haven't bulleted this comment because it's an alternate proposal from undeleting or endorsing. If this sounds good to everyone, we can just say "Let's do AMIB's thing" and forget all about the old template, deleting or merging or restoring or whatever. -

2791:

required to delete an image? Just to keep it? If an editor nominates something for deletion, and one other editor thinks it should be kept, isn't this usually considered a "no consensus" situation? Since when does "no consensus" default to "delete"?

961:

Completely inappropriate closure. By "votes" alone, consensus was not established in any way. The vast majority of the deletion support was based on misleading comments by the nom that the template was used to delete articles. Deletion admin also cites

1244:, obviously. However, deleting and redirecting the template like this does not preserve the message, links, or categorization, and makes a mess of the pages that were previously using the template. This deletion is not how you merge templates. -- 232: 2965:, promotional material or not, it's a perfectly valid fair use claim, since you can't take a free image of a fictional character. This pointless squibbling over official circumstances of release has no relevance to our policy or copyright law. 2946:

These links were already provided in the IFD discussion and nobody but you considered them enough evidence that CBS welcomes everyone to distribute this image without prior notice. Deletion review is not a place to repeat the IFD discussion.

469:

The article was deleted in April 2007 as advertising, and has been deleted seven times previously for various reasons. A Google search shows that it's notable, so I'll take five minutes to write a non-COI stub, and we'll take it from there.

3129:

was. The tag may or may not be correct but the claim can be applied independently. Even images incorrectly tagged GFDL may be retainable under fair use. The fair use rationale on the deleted page didn't even mention promotional status.

277:. Long-time and well-known American publishing house, which a cursory Google check would turn up copius evidence of. Yeah, they publish a lot of calendars -- those Page-a-Day® calendars? Theirs -- as well a fair number of trade books. One 2921:? That, combined with your mistaken assertation that Mr. Kirby is alive (he's not) makes me think you either didn't read the previous deletion argument, didn't read it very carefully, or don't care about the "facts." Well, this image 1714:

significant discussion and debate at the TfD. It seems like the concerns have been addressed and a work around has been established. I think it is time to let this template go and move on with the work of improving the encyclopedia.

1050: 2683:

outlets pay to get rights to. Also, there is no claim the uploader got the image from a press kit, which means the image was possibly copied from another website with possible violation of that website's terms and conditions of use.

166:

This company has been mentioned in thousands of book reviews, and other articles covering the books they and their imprints publish. It is notable within the publishing industry for entry into use of video to promote it's books.

1098:

If a template is part of (the functioning of) a Knowledge (XXG) policy or guideline, the template cannot be listed for deletion on TfD separately, the template should be discussed where the discussion for that guideline is taking

2983:

No. The image wasn't being used to illustrate a fictional character. It was being used to illustrate a biography. Anyway, this is irrelevant, since replaceability wasn't really questioned in the IFD discussion (remember we have

1757:

This is exactly what went wrong with the old TFD. We ended up with a bunch of scare tactics and misunderstanding that this was some sort of deletion process. It wasn't, it wasn't ever intended to be, and it wasn't anything even

1253:

Not only that, but it makes the deletion a technical issue. If all you wanted was to remove the message that said "14 days" that would be one thing, allowing time to plan to merge this (and all the other) templates to one. --

3081:

than the one used in Knowledge (XXG). You can you this image (for instance) in your blog at your own discernment, but please accept that we may choose to be a little bit more strict on our content than the average blogger. --

786:. If this is the case though, there needs to be some assertion of release of that material under the GFDL or into public domain. I'll explain this to the editor and also talk to him/her about conflict of interest. 2350: 802:

I am asking for speedy delete on the basis of A7. The organisation is not notable, as is obvious from a Google search for "Pan African School of Theology", which gives only 2 hits, one of which is the wikipedia

2014:

Gwinva pointed out. What we have now is a technical deletion. We don't need the deleted data to continue, and we don't even need the name of a template like "Dated episode notability" (I do find it funny that

3516: 1921:

Some of the votes for deletion were on the basis that the template advocated deletion of articles (ie. replicating prod or AfD templates). It cannot be stated clearly enough that the template was advocating

208:

a useful book that has been referenced here on Knowledge (XXG) (and probably should be more). You are correct that the Workman imprint is best known for cutesy calenders but Workman also counts Authors like

159:

This is a legitimate publishing company that is notable because it is known for taking in smaller publishers and bringing their books to a wide audience. They are also notable as the publisher of the

2892:

and speedy close. Obviously valid deletion. No evidence of "promotional" nature; obviously invalid fair use rationale (basically, any fair use rationale that just copies that infamous bogus template

289:

Industry consultants estimated that, with sales of more than $ 100 million a year, Perseus will be smaller than the privately owned Workman Publishing but larger than Disney's Hyperion books division

2830:

is an equal opportunity harasser (and I use that term as in the kindest sense). This nomination is very consistant with his other nominations for the same reason with other editors (me included). -

2043:

now has an episode trigger. {{notability|episode}} will now generate a similar message, but holds no review functions (the 14 days, etc). I also plan on suggesting categorization to be done for

2697:

select websites. To buy the argument that this is a promotional image, as the closing admin seems to do, but then to delete it anyway doesn't make any sense. Finally, the argument that this

3016:" is surely the most misused copy&paste phrase in rationales. I have seen it's being used for anything from headshots (historically significant?) to images with no individuals at all. -- 1816:

Exactly. Especially when fueled by TTN's over-usage of the template, and Matthew's disruptively misleading deletion comments, this template was being prosecuted for something it was not. --

186:

after preparation of a sourced article offline. Frankly, i would have been inclined to speedy; but a quick check of Google finds apparent publication of an actual best-selling travel guide

1630:

I'm done with the infrastructure, and the template is essentially done. All that's left to do is for people to adjust the wording to taste. I invite anyone interested in doing so to edit

1040:

So it's ok to screw the users who wanted to keep the template, wanting to improve such articles, because some other users wanted it deleted? You said yourself, there was no consensus. --

170:

I had barely created the page and was gathering additional information to add when it was speedily deleted apparently by a bot. I would like it restored so that work can continue on it.

2804:

and within policy at the time I uploaded it. Sure, I know policies change, requiring subsequent deletion of previously acceptable material, but c'mon... This is way, way out of whack.

2706:

radio network. The "fear" that this image is somehow exclusive, paid content being used by all of the example sites given in the deletion should be put to rest by its inclusion there.

2325: 1677:

placed on numerous series talk pages, please note that some of the text in that message is incorrect. Episode articles are not "at risk with this template" - they are handled under the

3529:??. The review states "one of the worst games to come out for the Xbox this year." How is that sufficiently notable to warrant a speedy keep? I think this AfD should run its course. 2675: 2512:

is an essay. If it were to become policy, we'd end up with a project we'd all hate. Knowledge (XXG) might not be myspace, but that doesn't mean we all have to be antisocial. --

3525:

I don't understand this. This was speedy closed, having been open for less than a day, by a user who has no indication on his user page that he is an admin with the reason given

2800:

offered by the nominator -- just a nomination that talks about how this "might" be something we can't use. Well, I'd like to think our standards are a little higher than that.

1105:

The deletion of the template made it quite clear that the guideline and process carries no weight and has no consensus to support it. Those two issues will be addressed shortly.

909: 904: 3365:

but allow for recreation if reliable sources are provided about the product's notability. But note that Knowledge (XXG) is not here to provide free publicity for any product.

2373:

This was closed as keep. However, none of the arguments to keep were really much of an argument at all, just that the existence of users in it means that it should exist, which

3684: 1929:

Some of the deletion votes called for a modified notability template. THIS was the modified notability template. Modification was required so it provided links to appropriate

1517:

I'm not sure I like that solution. It just looks like the original template, but redesigned. The original was misleading and I think that design would make it more misleading.

1273:

I don't think you understood me. I would not oppose removing the deadline and review features of the template, returning it to it's original state (an episode-specific copy of

913: 204:

If you refer to the original article before it was deleted, this publisher has several imprints which publish a range of fiction and non-fiction works. One of which publishes

952: 3473: 3468: 2316: 2280: 1988:

Just to say, the template doesn't change the "episode ordeal". Deletion of it did nothing but slow the process of keeping track of articles, which has since been corrected.

3477: 938: 900: 621: 616: 2200: 2187: 625: 3502: 3460: 3114:

The whole fair use claim was based on the assumption that this image was released by CBS for anyone to use (this whole thing has been discussed in the IFD already!) --

2459:

no real arguments were presented for any of this very large group of deletions, except idontlikeit. At least a few of them, such as this, were adequately defended.

650: 608: 187: 3158:

Endorse deletion until such time as a satisfactory justification is provided. This process must never be abused in order to subvert our non-free images policy. --

1331:

deletion and redirection does not preserve any categorization or individual message, however. Removing the "deadline" did not require deletion, whatsoever. --

967: 48: 34: 1125:. I see a lot of opposition to some sort of deadline, but no real opposition to having an episode-specific notability template. Why not add a parameter to 2364: 664: 488:'''Cinesite''' is a ], specializing in ]. Founded in 1992, it has offices in ] and ]. It has helped to produce many films, such as ], ], ], ], ] and ]. 189:. This may or may not be a vanity publisher, but it does seem notable The only publications Amazon lists, unfortunately, are a line of amusing calendars 43: 2605: 2600: 709:

he asserts he wrote the text himself. I think he's here trying to ask us to stop deleting his page. Someone needs to have a talk with this user about

2609: 1022:

There was not a consensus, even numbers alone hardly had a majority. Ned Scott's original speedy keep was correct, people just didn't like it since

2648: 2333: 2634: 2596: 130: 125: 773:, thus resulting in a second deletion. If it will be created again, it must be from scratch, without copyright material as a starting point. 134: 2911: 217:. It's probably best that these individual imprints be redirected to the Workman page and be listed there to make the article more useful. 3585: 3464: 1806: 1659: 1620: 1587: 1551: 1507: 1467: 1403: 1150: 863: 39: 844:– endorsed by default. I guess. Whatever. This DRV isn't going anywhere useful, as the article's main functionality has been salvaged in 3004: 2900: 2144: 2139: 2053:, so that episode-specific notability concerns can be tracked individually, as well as for any of the other notability sub messages. -- 706: 612: 117: 2826:

You shouldn't have brought that last point up as it is a personal attack and irrelevant, but since you did let me assure everyone that

974:

being developed. We date maintenance tags all the time, and we give individual messages regarding specific cleanup tags all the time.

3342: 2148: 2929:, Mr. Kirby, sadly, is dead, and your arguments for endorsing deletion seem, well, based on a misunderstanding of the situation. 2173: 2131: 1965:

Ah, good point about the deletes that were calling for modification. I should have mentioned that when I listed this on DRV. --

21: 3456: 3415: 2560:– Deletion endorsed. The image may always be re-uploaded, if there is a substantially different, better claim to fair use. – 2378: 205: 3001: 2897: 1431:, to fill the same task but in a different way. This template would clearly be a cleanup template (unlike the very prod-like 604: 568: 3377:

but permit re-creation if sourced per Corvus cornix. The article deleted was a mere catalog description and a valid speedy.

1634:

to that effect. If everyone can live with this template, I'll move it out to template space, make an enabler template like

3299: 3294: 2473:. Multiple people (including myself) refuted the "go to the Wikiproject category" argument. DRV is not Xfd round two. --- 1345:

a specialized template for one Wikiproject telling the world "this tv show isn't good enough" is just somehow offensive. -

529: 3059:

be a problem. I mean really - do we want to delete every promotional photo from Knowledge (XXG), on the basis that they

3303: 424: 419: 160: 3614: 3439: 3394: 3265: 3220: 2575: 2535: 2299: 2259: 2110: 2070: 896: 879: 840: 819: 587: 547: 390: 350: 96: 17: 2018: 1695: 1638: 428: 243: 241: 239: 1283:). Merging the two templates would be for technical reasons, and if we are doing that we should so the same for the 3328: 3286: 845: 3638: 3096:

a requirement. There's no requirement for an explicit release from CBS to meet our fair use criteria or the law.

1287:

notability templates. There would be no reason to delete the template in that case, and we then lose the links to

2738:

was the only voice in support of keeping the image, so there appears to be no broad consensus to keep the image.

1264:

discussion forum. If you still feel that an article should be deleted after the template is removed then AfD it.

411: 2203:

in which I closed delete, the author of the page asked if the page could be made better. I improved on it a bit

3581: 3546:

that this Ubi Soft game would be closed as delete. Apparently it sucked, but that isn't a deletion criterion.

2908: 1802: 1655: 1631: 1616: 1583: 1547: 1503: 1463: 1445: 1399: 1146: 859: 1602: 501:

I think what Shalom did is acceptable as a stub, but a source is needed for its production work on the films.

2204: 121: 1367:

It's quite apparent that guideline has no consensus, as has been show to you. You need to accept this, Ned.

3159: 2592: 2556: 1876:

is not allowed to create templates to help in article cleanup? What on earth are you thinking? And again,

2796:

that the image was NOT some kind of heretofore unheard of "paid promotional material". Again, there was

2702:

deletion discussion, the image was used on NPR.org, which, as far as I know, is a part of the non-profit

1912: 1682: 971: 3012:

The subject of the biography isn't living anymore, but that doesn't weakens the rest of your argument. "

1530: 1425: 732: 521: 3353: 2415:

user categories are pointless from a certain point of view. Only the "keep"s had rationale arguments. -

1834:- though I saw more of a consensus to keep, it was a correct decision to keep both sides from warring. 1200:

I can't think of anything that would need to be merged. I'm actually thinking of (when I say enhanced)

3419:– Keep endorsed. No procedural problems, no objections during the AFD. DRV is not an extended AfD. – 3172: 3047:

could be part of a press kit or could be an exclusive image these media outlets pay to get rights to.

2927:"In this undated photo provided by CBS, Bruno Kirby appears in character as attorney Barry Scheck.... 1720: 782:

Comment. If Jwroland is the principle, it is possible that he/she actually wrote the material on the

3603: 3590: 3565: 3533: 3428: 3383: 3369: 3356: 3290: 3254: 3205: 3193: 3175: 3162: 3143: 3120: 3109: 3087: 3075: 3040: 3022: 3007: 2994: 2978: 2953: 2941: 2903: 2882: 2867: 2837: 2816: 2758: 2718: 2669: 2564: 2524: 2509: 2501: 2489: 2477: 2465: 2451: 2437: 2419: 2394: 2374: 2288: 2248: 2231: 2216: 2135: 2099: 2057: 2028: 2003: 1983: 1969: 1957: 1930: 1893: 1884: 1873: 1867: 1850: 1840: 1820: 1811: 1752: 1724: 1702: 1678: 1664: 1625: 1592: 1567: 1556: 1521: 1512: 1487: 1472: 1408: 1385: 1380: 1371: 1362: 1355: 1349: 1335: 1305: 1288: 1268: 1258: 1248: 1224: 1183: 1174: 1155: 1109: 1084: 1061: 1044: 1035: 1012: 1002: 988: 981: 868: 808: 790: 777: 757: 737: 717: 700: 687: 677: 576: 534: 507: 474: 460: 379: 339: 306: 269: 257: 221: 197: 176: 85: 3571: 3139: 3135: 3105: 3101: 2974: 2970: 2432: 2389: 2047: 2037: 1792: 1785: 1765: 1645: 1606: 1573: 1563:

A fine message for episode articles that are unreferenced, but the issue at hand is notability. --

1537: 1493: 1453: 1435: 1389: 1295: 1277: 1237: 1164: 1136: 1129: 849: 674: 265:. By sheer coincidence, I cited a work from this publisher just today. It is sufficiently notable. 218: 173: 81: 77: 1950: 765:. As the first deleting administrator, the page was created as a blatant copyright violation from 3702: 3656: 3600: 3366: 3171:

mirror)? Also, have you tried getting this image released as free content? I bet you could. --

2864: 2416: 1346: 977:

Regardless of how you feel about the situation, there was anything but a consensus to delete. --

714: 697: 471: 266: 254: 113: 2860: 2497:

I would have preferred that this get deleted, however, DRV is not AfD 2. The close seems valid.

2447:

This is a user category, and user categories are necessarily defined by the interests of users.

963: 3282: 3241: 2918: 2915: 2127: 2091: 3530: 3187: 3069: 2935: 2834: 2810: 2773: 2755: 2744: 2732: 2712: 2663: 2381:

is superior in terms of encyclopedia-building. This left a stronger argument for deletion, so

1998: 1926:, but since concerns were expressed, the template was reworded to make the purpose more clear. 1748: 787: 774: 3543: 2985: 2689: 2095:– New draft moved into article-space; listed at AfD for notability concerns, as suggested. – 1734: 1049:

No. Just incase there is confusion, I am user:Alcemáe, this is a new name. If you would look

2239:

These are probably all of the refs I can find, a Google search is bombarded with promotion.

724: 303: 3526: 2856: 2852: 2694:

we do not know the circumstances surrounding the conditions on which the image was provided

2425: 2197: 1388:

is not what we're discussing here, Matt, please stop beating that particular dead horse. -

1077: 1027:

and its deletion makes the review less complicated, and an alternative is being discussed.

710: 693: 3715: 3669: 3201: 3116: 3083: 3018: 2990: 2949: 2827: 1716: 1693: 1170:

is a fine idea from my perspective -- I believe I supported something similar at the TfD.

754: 214: 3509: 3335: 3032:

But the closing admin clearly followed policy, whether I agree with his decision or not.

2726:

I never said that there was a consensus to delete. However, if you review the discussion

2641: 2513: 2357: 2180: 1979:

I just feel shaken up from the whole "episodes" ordeal. I don't want it to happen again.

1301:. If the opposition is not to the message or link, then why delete it before merging? -- 945: 657: 3245:– Deletion endorsed. If reliable sources can be found, however, allow for recreation. – 1492:

I'm planning on retaining the 14-day functionality. It just won't be so in-your-face. -

3547: 3424: 3250: 3131: 3097: 2966: 2879: 2429: 2386: 2244: 2212: 2054: 2025: 1966: 1944:

the template should not have been deleted, but suggestions presented for modification.

1890: 1881: 1847: 1817: 1564: 1441:

or this template), but would allow for the management and cleanup of episode articles.

1377: 1359: 1332: 1302: 1255: 1245: 1180: 1081: 1041: 1009: 978: 805: 321: 73: 2486: 2404: 1980: 1775: 415: 250: 2894:"...how the event depicted was very historically significant to the general public." 3182: 3064: 3037: 2930: 2831: 2805: 2768: 2752: 2739: 2727: 2707: 2658: 2498: 2474: 1989: 1836: 1739: 1674: 1518: 1368: 1265: 1221: 1171: 1106: 999: 298:

meaning that their sales are somewhere north of $ 100 million. No question here. --

210: 3494: 3320: 3045:

Well, the deleting admin thinks that policy calls for us to delete images if they

2626: 2165: 1681:

guideline. This template is for notification purposes only, alerting editors to a

930: 753:

and take from there. It is perfectly possible that this is a notable institution.

642: 445: 151: 2676:

Knowledge (XXG):Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_June_26#Image:Brunokirby2.jpg

2448: 1954: 1536:

with some more-specific guideline and project links and better date handling. -

684: 457: 299: 291:("Independent Publisher Is Diversifying" by David D. Kirkpatrick, 14 March 2002) 3168: 2377:. Furthermore, two of the keep arguments were refuted, such as by stating that 1215:"The subject of this article may not satisfy the episode notability guideline." 2561: 2411:

the Wikiproject. Plus every "delete" was "per nom" with one "pointless". Yes,

2285: 2096: 1687: 1605:, which currently shows what the template looks like with a month-old date. - 966:, despite that it is common to have individual cleanup tags such as this (see 573: 376: 2988:

for using non-free content. Being irreplaceable is just the first of them.)--

453:

Conspicuous by its absence; this is a legitimate visual effects company (see

3421: 3247: 2241: 2209: 1733:(of course, this DRV is just going to become a rehash of the original TFD). 1918:

There was no clear consensus for deletion; opinions and rationales varied.

783: 770: 766: 517: 3379: 2517: 2461: 2227: 1863: 1673:: If you are joining this discussion after reading about it in a message 970:). The template was also being used to date and track articles for a new 705:

Actually, hmm, school's principal is listed as "James W. Roland", and on

503: 407: 371: 193: 769:. It was then created a second time, again with material directly from 1937:

then the template could have been MODIFIED, to a standard date format.

1781:. Despite this similarity, its intent was almost identical to that of 479:

Uh, the page is salted, so I'll write the draft here with nowiki tags:

1480: 1054: 1028: 2699:

could be an exclusive image these media outlets pay to get rights to

2657:

Complete misinterpretation of Knowledge (XXG) standards, policies

3167:

What was the source of the image (I ask this after examining the

2424:

Which were mostly refuted. None of them addressed the fact that

3639:"Santa Cruz named one of the 1000 places to see before you die" 1601:

Anyone who would like to see the template in use can see it in

1220:

It could be called with something like {{Notability|episode}}.

2703: 1448:, and I encourage any help from the participants in this DRV. 2896:

is invalid and shows the uploader didn't do their homework.)

454: 3352:

acquaintences of mine who are interested in the invention.

72:– Speedy restore, clear evidence of notability provided – 2485:. There was indeed a stronger argument for deletion. -- 800:

The article has been recreated with a copyright notice.

3490: 3486: 3482: 3316: 3312: 3308: 2622: 2618: 2614: 2341: 2337: 2329: 2321: 2161: 2157: 2153: 1878:

this has not, nor has it ever been, a deletion template

926: 922: 918: 638: 634: 630: 441: 437: 433: 147: 143: 139: 2851:, copyright is copyright. Get a release. And please 2407:. Nowhere does it say we can't have both the category 3014:

historically significant photo of a famous individual

2779:

was the only voice in support of keeping the image...

1889:

And there was absolutely no conflict with policy. --

1861:

before arguments convinced me they were impractical.

1179:

You don't delete a template that is to be merged. --

2207:, and I think this marginally meets guidelines now. 3685:"Publishers Try to Sell Words With Moving Pictures" 2317:

Category:Wikipedians who listen to video game music

2281:

Category:Wikipedians who listen to video game music

1905:

The original template should not have been deleted.

375:– New draft accepted, now in place in mainspace. – 3199:on some matter here. We ignore all credentials. -- 1291:for however long it takes to update the protected- 683:This isn't the correct page for copyright issues. 1053:for the discussion as to what should happen now. 1685:which can proceed regardless of its presence. -- 1421:instead make a new template, along the lines of 1354:It's not one WikiProject, it's the consensus of 572:– Copyvio concerns addressed through rewrite. – 281:story on a different subject mentions in passing 249:they publish? Is that relevant to notability? -- 516:IMDB.com has a list of films they've worked on 231:, this has been a notable company for 25 years 320:pretty clear case, should have been a speedy. 234:; I found four NYT articles (on the publisher 3063:be exclusively sold to someone, somewhere? 8: 1846:on. Deleting was completely unnecessary. -- 1771:, which happens to look almost exactly like 1644:, and fix up the category infrastructure. - 968:Category:Notability and importance templates 3438:The following is an archived debate of the 3264:The following is an archived debate of the 2574:The following is an archived debate of the 2298:The following is an archived debate of the 2109:The following is an archived debate of the 878:The following is an archived debate of the 586:The following is an archived debate of the 389:The following is an archived debate of the 95:The following is an archived debate of the 3408: 3234: 2549: 2273: 2084: 833: 561: 364: 238:, not on its products) in 1981-1982 alone. 63: 1933:and categorised it to make review easier. 3092:If the fair use claim is valid, that is 2379:Category:WikiProject Video games members 206:Where Are They Buried? How Did They Die? 3629: 3613:The above is an archived debate of the 3393:The above is an archived debate of the 3219:The above is an archived debate of the 2534:The above is an archived debate of the 2258:The above is an archived debate of the 2069:The above is an archived debate of the 818:The above is an archived debate of the 771:http://www.pacekenya.org/past/index.htm 767:http://www.pacekenya.org/past/index.htm 546:The above is an archived debate of the 349:The above is an archived debate of the 191:I obviously didn't look widely enough . 3711: 3700: 3665: 3654: 2767:However, if you review the discussion 1526:How is this template misleading? It's 1444:I've started work on this template at 1123:Endorse deletion and do something else 7: 1872:A consenous building discussion on 3710:Cite has empty unknown parameter: 3664:Cite has empty unknown parameter: 1135:or make a new cleanup template? - 161:1,000 places to see before you die 28: 897:Template:Dated episode notability 841:Template:Dated episode notability 3637:ROUGHOL, ISABELLE (2007-06-22). 1572:I'm still working on wording. - 3683:DEUTSCH, CLAUDIA (2006-08-03). 3457:Murakumo: Renegade Mech Pursuit 3416:Murakumo: Renegade Mech Pursuit 2223:Permit creation and list at AfD 1210:being changed to something like 18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review 1761:The old template was based on 605:Pan_African_School_of_Theology 569:Pan_African_School_of_Theology 1: 1376:Cut the bullshit matthew. -- 1231:Considering the template was 1020:Comment, and Endorse Deletion 846:Template:Unreferenced episode 1977:Endorse deletion AND closure 2284:– Keep closure endorsed. – 3736: 2784:to why it should be kept. 2678:, closing admin argues: 2403:your argument presents a 1632:User:A Man In Black/epref 1446:User:A Man In Black/epref 3620:Please do not modify it. 3604:13:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3591:03:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3566:03:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3534:03:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3445:Please do not modify it. 3429:07:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 3400:Please do not modify it. 3384:20:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3370:06:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3357:03:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3271:Please do not modify it. 3255:00:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 3226:Please do not modify it. 3206:12:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 3194:08:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 3176:20:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 3163:01:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC) 3144:16:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC) 3121:15:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC) 3110:00:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC) 3088:19:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC) 3076:18:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC) 3041:20:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3023:16:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3008:16:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2995:15:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2979:15:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2954:19:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC) 2942:18:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC) 2904:07:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2883:07:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2868:06:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2838:14:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2817:06:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2759:04:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2719:04:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2670:04:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2581:Please do not modify it. 2565:15:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2541:Please do not modify it. 2525:06:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC) 2502:16:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC) 2490:20:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 2478:20:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 2466:20:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2452:13:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2438:19:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2420:07:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2395:05:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2305:Please do not modify it. 2289:15:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2265:Please do not modify it. 2249:21:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2232:20:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2217:07:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2116:Please do not modify it. 2100:15:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2076:Please do not modify it. 2058:06:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC) 2029:21:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 2004:12:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 1984:12:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 1970:21:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 1958:08:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 1894:23:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1885:23:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1868:20:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1851:23:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1841:13:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1821:23:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1812:11:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1753:11:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1725:11:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1703:08:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1665:09:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1626:08:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1603:User:A Man In Black/Yeah 1593:09:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1568:08:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1557:08:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1522:08:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1513:08:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1488:08:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1473:08:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1409:08:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1381:08:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1372:08:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1363:07:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1350:07:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1336:07:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1306:08:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1269:08:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1259:08:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1249:08:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1225:08:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1184:08:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1175:07:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1156:07:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1110:07:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1085:07:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1062:07:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1045:07:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1036:07:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1013:07:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1003:07:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 982:07:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 885:Please do not modify it. 869:09:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC) 825:Please do not modify it. 809:12:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 791:17:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 778:17:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 758:16:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 738:16:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 718:14:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 701:14:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 688:13:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 678:10:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 593:Please do not modify it. 577:15:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 553:Please do not modify it. 535:09:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC) 508:20:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 491:==External links== ] ] 475:17:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 461:17:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 396:Please do not modify it. 380:15:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 356:Please do not modify it. 340:16:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 307:10:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 270:06:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 258:22:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 222:20:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 198:20:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 177:19:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 102:Please do not modify it. 86:02:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC) 40:Deletion review archives 3169:Answers.com Answers.com 3617:of the article above. 3442:of the article above. 3397:of the article above. 3268:of the article above. 3223:of the article above. 2578:of the article above. 2538:of the article above. 2302:of the article above. 2262:of the article above. 2113:of the article above. 2073:of the article above. 1217: 1207: 882:of the article above. 822:of the article above. 590:of the article above. 550:of the article above. 393:of the article above. 353:of the article above. 99:of the article above. 2855:, and stop violating 2593:Image:Brunokirby2.jpg 2557:Image:Brunokirby2.jpg 1213: 1203: 3643:Santa Cruz Sentinel 2787:Also: A consensus 2751:images over time. - 2483:Overturn and delete 2383:overturn and delete 1924:review not deletion 1233:made directly from 263:Support restoration 2375:cannot be the case 2019:episode-notability 1639:Episode-notability 229:Permit restoration 183:Permit restoration 114:Workman Publishing 70:Workman Publishing 3627: 3626: 3589: 3407: 3406: 3233: 3232: 2548: 2547: 2272: 2271: 2083: 2082: 2001: 1996: 1810: 1723: 1700: 1663: 1624: 1591: 1555: 1511: 1471: 1407: 1154: 867: 832: 831: 735: 560: 559: 363: 362: 3727: 3720: 3719: 3713: 3708: 3706: 3698: 3696: 3695: 3680: 3674: 3673: 3667: 3662: 3660: 3652: 3650: 3649: 3634: 3622: 3579: 3577: 3563: 3560: 3557: 3554: 3512: 3498: 3480: 3447: 3409: 3402: 3375:Endorse deletion 3363:Endorse deletion 3338: 3324: 3306: 3273: 3235: 3228: 3191: 3185: 3073: 3067: 3034:Endorse deletion 2939: 2933: 2849:Endorse deletion 2814: 2808: 2777: 2771: 2748: 2742: 2736: 2730: 2716: 2710: 2692:. The argument 2667: 2661: 2644: 2630: 2612: 2583: 2550: 2543: 2523: 2435: 2392: 2360: 2346: 2345: 2307: 2274: 2267: 2183: 2169: 2151: 2118: 2085: 2078: 2052: 2046: 2042: 2036: 2023: 2017: 1999: 1994: 1990: 1858:Endorse closure' 1800: 1798: 1790: 1784: 1780: 1774: 1770: 1764: 1746: 1731:Endorse deletion 1719: 1692: 1653: 1651: 1643: 1637: 1614: 1612: 1581: 1579: 1545: 1543: 1535: 1529: 1501: 1499: 1485: 1461: 1459: 1440: 1434: 1430: 1424: 1397: 1395: 1343:Endorse strongly 1300: 1294: 1282: 1276: 1242: 1236: 1169: 1163: 1144: 1142: 1134: 1128: 1059: 1033: 948: 934: 916: 887: 857: 855: 834: 827: 733: 730: 727: 660: 646: 628: 595: 562: 555: 532: 527: 449: 431: 398: 365: 358: 337: 334: 331: 328: 245:Who cares about 155: 137: 104: 64: 53: 33: 3735: 3734: 3730: 3729: 3728: 3726: 3725: 3724: 3723: 3709: 3699: 3693: 3691: 3682: 3681: 3677: 3663: 3653: 3647: 3645: 3636: 3635: 3631: 3618: 3615:deletion review 3573: 3561: 3558: 3555: 3552: 3521: 3515: 3508: 3507: 3501: 3471: 3455: 3443: 3440:deletion review 3398: 3395:deletion review 3347: 3341: 3334: 3333: 3327: 3297: 3281: 3269: 3266:deletion review 3224: 3221:deletion review 3188: 3183: 3070: 3065: 2936: 2931: 2811: 2806: 2774: 2769: 2745: 2740: 2733: 2728: 2713: 2708: 2664: 2659: 2653: 2647: 2640: 2639: 2633: 2603: 2591: 2579: 2576:deletion review 2539: 2536:deletion review 2521: 2433: 2390: 2369: 2363: 2356: 2355: 2349: 2319: 2315: 2303: 2300:deletion review 2263: 2260:deletion review 2192: 2186: 2179: 2178: 2172: 2142: 2126: 2114: 2111:deletion review 2074: 2071:deletion review 2050: 2044: 2040: 2034: 2033:For an update, 2021: 2015: 1992: 1794: 1788: 1782: 1778: 1772: 1768: 1762: 1740: 1698: 1647: 1641: 1635: 1608: 1575: 1539: 1533: 1527: 1495: 1484: 1481: 1455: 1438: 1432: 1428: 1422: 1391: 1298: 1292: 1280: 1274: 1240: 1234: 1167: 1161: 1138: 1132: 1126: 1058: 1055: 1032: 1029: 996:Endorse closure 957: 951: 944: 943: 937: 907: 895: 883: 880:deletion review 851: 823: 820:deletion review 728: 725: 669: 663: 656: 655: 649: 619: 603: 591: 588:deletion review 551: 548:deletion review 530: 525: 522: 422: 406: 394: 391:deletion review 354: 351:deletion review 335: 332: 329: 326: 215:Lance Armstrong 128: 112: 100: 97:deletion review 62: 55: 54: 51: 46: 37: 31: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 3733: 3731: 3722: 3721: 3689:New York Times 3675: 3628: 3625: 3624: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3596:Closer's notes 3593: 3568: 3548:Andrew Lenahan 3523: 3522: 3519: 3513: 3505: 3499: 3450: 3449: 3434: 3433: 3432: 3431: 3405: 3404: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3372: 3349: 3348: 3345: 3339: 3331: 3325: 3276: 3275: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3231: 3230: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3165: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3146: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3025: 2997: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2886: 2885: 2871: 2870: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2655: 2654: 2651: 2645: 2637: 2631: 2586: 2585: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2546: 2545: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2504: 2492: 2480: 2468: 2454: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2426:WP:NOT#MYSPACE 2371: 2370: 2367: 2361: 2353: 2347: 2310: 2309: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2270: 2269: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2234: 2194: 2193: 2190: 2184: 2176: 2170: 2121: 2120: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2081: 2080: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2008: 2007: 2006: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1939: 1938: 1934: 1927: 1919: 1916: 1907: 1906: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1759: 1696: 1683:review process 1668: 1667: 1628: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1515: 1482: 1479:indefinently. 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1383: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1218: 1211: 1208: 1201: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1088: 1087: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1056: 1030: 1017: 1016: 1015: 992: 991: 972:review process 959: 958: 955: 949: 941: 935: 890: 889: 874: 873: 872: 871: 830: 829: 814: 813: 812: 811: 795: 794: 793: 760: 747: 746: 745: 744: 743: 742: 741: 740: 671: 670: 667: 661: 653: 647: 598: 597: 582: 581: 580: 579: 558: 557: 542: 541: 540: 539: 538: 537: 523: 511: 510: 495: 494: 493: 492: 489: 483: 482: 481: 480: 451: 450: 401: 400: 385: 384: 383: 382: 361: 360: 345: 344: 343: 342: 322:Andrew Lenahan 310: 309: 295: 294: 293: 292: 283: 282: 279:New York Times 272: 260: 225: 224: 201: 200: 157: 156: 107: 106: 91: 90: 89: 88: 61: 56: 47: 38: 30: 29: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3732: 3717: 3704: 3690: 3686: 3679: 3676: 3671: 3658: 3644: 3640: 3633: 3630: 3623: 3621: 3616: 3611: 3610: 3605: 3602: 3597: 3594: 3592: 3587: 3583: 3578: 3576: 3569: 3567: 3564: 3549: 3545: 3541: 3538: 3537: 3536: 3535: 3532: 3528: 3518: 3511: 3504: 3496: 3492: 3488: 3484: 3479: 3475: 3470: 3466: 3462: 3458: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3448: 3446: 3441: 3436: 3435: 3430: 3427: 3426: 3423: 3418: 3417: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3403: 3401: 3396: 3391: 3390: 3385: 3382: 3381: 3376: 3373: 3371: 3368: 3367:Corvus cornix 3364: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3355: 3344: 3337: 3330: 3322: 3318: 3314: 3310: 3305: 3301: 3296: 3292: 3288: 3284: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3274: 3272: 3267: 3262: 3261: 3256: 3253: 3252: 3249: 3244: 3243: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3229: 3227: 3222: 3217: 3216: 3207: 3204: 3203: 3197: 3196: 3195: 3192: 3190: 3186: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3174: 3170: 3166: 3164: 3161: 3157: 3145: 3141: 3137: 3133: 3128: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3119: 3118: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3107: 3103: 3099: 3095: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3086: 3085: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3074: 3072: 3068: 3062: 3058: 3053: 3048: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3039: 3035: 3030: 3024: 3021: 3020: 3015: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3006: 3003: 2998: 2996: 2993: 2992: 2987: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2976: 2972: 2968: 2964: 2961: 2955: 2952: 2951: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2940: 2938: 2934: 2928: 2925:promotional - 2924: 2920: 2917: 2913: 2910: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2902: 2899: 2895: 2891: 2888: 2887: 2884: 2881: 2876: 2873: 2872: 2869: 2866: 2865:Corvus cornix 2862: 2858: 2854: 2850: 2847: 2846: 2839: 2836: 2833: 2829: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2815: 2813: 2809: 2801: 2799: 2798:zero evidence 2793: 2790: 2785: 2781: 2780: 2778: 2776: 2772: 2760: 2757: 2754: 2749: 2747: 2743: 2737: 2735: 2731: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2717: 2715: 2711: 2705: 2700: 2695: 2691: 2685: 2684: 2679: 2677: 2672: 2671: 2668: 2666: 2662: 2650: 2643: 2636: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2616: 2611: 2607: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2584: 2582: 2577: 2572: 2571: 2566: 2563: 2559: 2558: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2544: 2542: 2537: 2532: 2531: 2526: 2520: 2519: 2515: 2511: 2508: 2507:endorse close 2505: 2503: 2500: 2496: 2495:endorse close 2493: 2491: 2488: 2484: 2481: 2479: 2476: 2472: 2469: 2467: 2464: 2463: 2458: 2455: 2453: 2450: 2446: 2443: 2439: 2436: 2431: 2427: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2418: 2414: 2410: 2406: 2405:false dilemma 2402: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2393: 2388: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2366: 2359: 2352: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2327: 2323: 2318: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2308: 2306: 2301: 2296: 2295: 2290: 2287: 2283: 2282: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2268: 2266: 2261: 2256: 2255: 2250: 2247: 2246: 2243: 2238: 2235: 2233: 2230: 2229: 2224: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2215: 2214: 2211: 2206: 2202: 2199: 2189: 2182: 2175: 2167: 2163: 2159: 2155: 2150: 2146: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2119: 2117: 2112: 2107: 2106: 2101: 2098: 2094: 2093: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2079: 2077: 2072: 2067: 2066: 2059: 2056: 2049: 2039: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2027: 2020: 2012: 2009: 2005: 2002: 1997: 1995: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1982: 1978: 1975: 1971: 1968: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1956: 1952: 1947: 1943: 1935: 1932: 1928: 1925: 1920: 1917: 1914: 1909: 1908: 1904: 1901: 1895: 1892: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1866: 1865: 1859: 1856: 1852: 1849: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1839: 1838: 1833: 1830: 1829: 1822: 1819: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1808: 1804: 1799: 1797: 1787: 1777: 1767: 1760: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1751: 1750: 1747: 1744: 1736: 1732: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1722: 1718: 1713: 1709: 1705: 1704: 1701: 1699: 1694: 1690: 1689: 1684: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1666: 1661: 1657: 1652: 1650: 1640: 1633: 1629: 1627: 1622: 1618: 1613: 1611: 1604: 1600: 1594: 1589: 1585: 1580: 1578: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1566: 1562: 1558: 1553: 1549: 1544: 1542: 1532: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1520: 1516: 1514: 1509: 1505: 1500: 1498: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1486: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1469: 1465: 1460: 1458: 1449: 1447: 1442: 1437: 1427: 1410: 1405: 1401: 1396: 1394: 1387: 1384: 1382: 1379: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1370: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1361: 1357: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1348: 1344: 1341: 1337: 1334: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1307: 1304: 1297: 1290: 1286: 1279: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1267: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1257: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1223: 1219: 1216: 1212: 1209: 1206: 1202: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1185: 1182: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1173: 1166: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1152: 1148: 1143: 1141: 1131: 1124: 1121: 1120: 1111: 1108: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1100: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1086: 1083: 1080:directly. -- 1079: 1074: 1071: 1070: 1063: 1060: 1052: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1043: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1034: 1025: 1021: 1018: 1014: 1011: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1001: 997: 994: 993: 990: 986: 985: 984: 983: 980: 975: 973: 969: 965: 954: 947: 940: 932: 928: 924: 920: 915: 911: 906: 902: 898: 894: 893: 892: 891: 888: 886: 881: 876: 875: 870: 865: 861: 856: 854: 847: 843: 842: 838: 837: 836: 835: 828: 826: 821: 816: 815: 810: 807: 804: 799: 796: 792: 789: 785: 781: 780: 779: 776: 772: 768: 764: 761: 759: 756: 752: 749: 748: 739: 736: 731: 721: 720: 719: 716: 712: 708: 707:the talk page 704: 703: 702: 699: 695: 691: 690: 689: 686: 682: 681: 680: 679: 676: 666: 659: 652: 644: 640: 636: 632: 627: 623: 618: 614: 610: 606: 602: 601: 600: 599: 596: 594: 589: 584: 583: 578: 575: 571: 570: 566: 565: 564: 563: 556: 554: 549: 544: 543: 536: 533: 528: 519: 515: 514: 513: 512: 509: 506: 505: 500: 497: 496: 490: 487: 486: 485: 484: 478: 477: 476: 473: 468: 465: 464: 463: 462: 459: 455: 447: 443: 439: 435: 430: 426: 421: 417: 413: 409: 405: 404: 403: 402: 399: 397: 392: 387: 386: 381: 378: 374: 373: 369: 368: 367: 366: 359: 357: 352: 347: 346: 341: 338: 323: 319: 315: 312: 311: 308: 305: 301: 297: 296: 290: 287: 286: 285: 284: 280: 276: 273: 271: 268: 264: 261: 259: 256: 252: 248: 244: 242: 240: 237: 233: 230: 227: 226: 223: 220: 216: 212: 207: 203: 202: 199: 196: 195: 190: 188: 184: 181: 180: 179: 178: 175: 171: 168: 164: 162: 153: 149: 145: 141: 136: 132: 127: 123: 119: 115: 111: 110: 109: 108: 105: 103: 98: 93: 92: 87: 83: 79: 75: 71: 68: 67: 66: 65: 60: 57: 50: 45: 41: 36: 23: 19: 3692:. Retrieved 3688: 3678: 3646:. Retrieved 3642: 3632: 3619: 3612: 3595: 3574: 3551: 3540:Endorse keep 3539: 3531:Bridgeplayer 3524: 3444: 3437: 3420: 3414: 3399: 3392: 3378: 3374: 3362: 3354:Bronco allan 3350: 3270: 3263: 3246: 3240: 3225: 3218: 3200: 3189: 3160:Tony Sidaway 3126: 3115: 3093: 3082: 3071: 3060: 3056: 3051: 3046: 3033: 3017: 3013: 2989: 2962: 2948: 2937: 2926: 2922: 2893: 2889: 2874: 2848: 2812: 2802: 2797: 2794: 2788: 2786: 2782: 2775: 2766: 2765: 2746: 2734: 2714: 2698: 2693: 2686: 2681: 2680: 2673: 2665: 2656: 2580: 2573: 2555: 2540: 2533: 2516: 2506: 2494: 2482: 2470: 2460: 2456: 2444: 2412: 2408: 2400: 2382: 2372: 2304: 2297: 2279: 2264: 2257: 2240: 2236: 2226: 2222: 2208: 2195: 2115: 2108: 2090: 2075: 2068: 2010: 2000:(Contact me) 1991: 1976: 1945: 1941: 1940: 1923: 1913:WP:TV-REVIEW 1902: 1877: 1862: 1857: 1835: 1831: 1795: 1749: 1742: 1730: 1711: 1707: 1706: 1691: 1686: 1670: 1669: 1648: 1609: 1576: 1540: 1531:unreferenced 1496: 1456: 1450: 1443: 1426:unreferenced 1419: 1392: 1342: 1284: 1232: 1214: 1204: 1139: 1122: 1097: 1096: 1072: 1023: 1019: 995: 976: 960: 884: 877: 852: 839: 824: 817: 801: 797: 762: 750: 692:Marked with 672: 592: 585: 567: 552: 545: 524:tiny plastic 502: 498: 466: 452: 395: 388: 370: 355: 348: 325: 317: 313: 288: 278: 274: 262: 246: 235: 228: 211:Steve Kaplan 192: 185: 182: 172: 169: 165: 158: 101: 94: 69: 58: 3712:|coauthors= 3666:|coauthors= 2986:10 criteria 2916:promotional 2878:positions. 1076:says so on 713:and such. - 526:Grey Knight 59:4 July 2007 49:2007 July 5 35:2007 July 3 3694:2007-07-04 3648:2007-07-04 3542:Extremely 3202:Abu badali 3173:Iamunknown 3117:Abu badali 3084:Abu badali 3019:Abu badali 2991:Abu badali 2950:Abu badali 2828:Abu badali 2522:uelWantman 2510:WP:ILIKEIT 2048:notability 2038:notability 1931:guidelines 1874:WP:EPISODE 1786:notability 1766:notability 1717:Ursasapien 1679:WP:EPISODE 1436:notability 1386:WP:EPISODE 1356:WP:EPISODE 1296:notability 1289:WP:EPISODE 1278:notability 1238:notability 1165:Notability 1160:Enhancing 1130:notability 989:WP:EPISODE 763:No restore 755:Piccadilly 696:and G12. - 694:WP:CSD#G11 673:copyright 467:Start over 3703:cite news 3657:cite news 3572:A Man In 3283:Pro-Joint 3242:Pro-Joint 3132:Night Gyr 3098:Night Gyr 3002:Fut.Perf. 2967:Night Gyr 2898:Fut.Perf. 2880:Badagnani 2201:dicussion 2196:After an 2128:VíaVienté 2092:VíaVienté 2055:Ned Scott 2026:Ned Scott 1967:Ned Scott 1951:WP:TRIVIA 1946:That said 1891:Ned Scott 1882:Ned Scott 1848:Ned Scott 1818:Ned Scott 1793:A Man In 1646:A Man In 1607:A Man In 1574:A Man In 1565:Ned Scott 1538:A Man In 1494:A Man In 1454:A Man In 1390:A Man In 1378:Ned Scott 1360:Ned Scott 1333:Ned Scott 1303:Ned Scott 1256:Ned Scott 1246:Ned Scott 1181:Ned Scott 1137:A Man In 1082:Ned Scott 1042:Ned Scott 1010:Ned Scott 987:See also 979:Ned Scott 850:A Man In 806:DrKiernan 163:series. 74:Night Gyr 44:2007 July 3586:past ops 3582:conspire 3544:unlikely 2963:Overturn 2912:evidence 2875:Overturn 2861:WP:CIVIL 2487:Kbdank71 1993:BIGNOLE 1981:Angie Y. 1807:past ops 1803:conspire 1710:: There 1660:past ops 1656:conspire 1621:past ops 1617:conspire 1588:past ops 1584:conspire 1552:past ops 1548:conspire 1508:past ops 1504:conspire 1468:past ops 1464:conspire 1404:past ops 1400:conspire 1151:past ops 1147:conspire 964:WP:CREEP 864:past ops 860:conspire 803:article. 675:Jwroland 408:Cinesite 372:Cinesite 314:Undelete 275:Undelete 251:Dhartung 219:Rtphokie 174:Rtphokie 20:‎ | 3503:restore 3474:protect 3469:history 3329:restore 3300:protect 3295:history 3184:Jenolen 3066:Jenolen 3038:Quadell 2932:Jenolen 2890:Endorse 2832:Nv8200p 2807:Jenolen 2770:Jenolen 2753:Nv8200p 2741:Jenolen 2729:Jenolen 2709:Jenolen 2690:WP:NFCC 2660:Jenolen 2635:restore 2606:protect 2601:history 2499:JoshuaZ 2475:RockMFR 2471:Endorse 2457:Endorse 2445:Endorse 2401:Endorse 2351:restore 2330:history 2237:Comment 2174:restore 2145:protect 2140:history 2011:Comment 1903:Comment 1832:Endorse 1735:WP:PROD 1708:Comment 1675:Matthew 1671:Comment 1519:Matthew 1369:Matthew 1266:Matthew 1222:Matthew 1172:Matthew 1107:Matthew 1073:Comment 1000:Matthew 939:restore 910:protect 905:history 798:Comment 784:webpage 751:Restore 651:restore 622:protect 617:history 499:Restore 425:protect 420:history 131:protect 126:history 3601:Shalom 3527:WP:IAR 3478:delete 3304:delete 2919:nature 2857:WP:NPA 2853:WP:AGF 2610:delete 2599:| ] | 2449:Osomec 2149:delete 1955:Gwinva 1758:close. 1721:(talk) 1099:place. 1078:WP:TFD 914:delete 903:| ] | 848:. – - 788:Sancho 775:Sancho 726:auburn 711:WP:COI 685:Osomec 626:delete 472:Shalom 458:Paul G 429:delete 300:Calton 267:Wryspy 236:per se 135:delete 3575:Bl♟ck 3510:cache 3495:views 3487:watch 3483:links 3336:cache 3321:views 3313:watch 3309:links 3061:could 3057:could 2789:isn't 2642:cache 2627:views 2619:watch 2615:links 2562:Xoloz 2434:desat 2391:desat 2358:cache 2338:watch 2334:links 2286:Xoloz 2181:cache 2166:views 2158:watch 2154:links 2097:Xoloz 1880:. -- 1796:Bl♟ck 1688:Ckatz 1649:Bl♟ck 1610:Bl♟ck 1577:Bl♟ck 1541:Bl♟ck 1497:Bl♟ck 1457:Bl♟ck 1393:Bl♟ck 1358:. -- 1285:other 1140:Bl♟ck 946:cache 931:views 923:watch 919:links 853:Bl♟ck 729:pilot 658:cache 643:views 635:watch 631:links 574:Xoloz 446:views 438:watch 434:links 377:Xoloz 152:views 144:watch 140:links 52:: --> 16:< 3716:help 3670:help 3491:logs 3465:talk 3461:edit 3317:logs 3291:talk 3287:edit 3136:talk 3125:The 3102:talk 3036:. – 2971:talk 2859:and 2835:talk 2756:talk 2623:logs 2597:edit 2430:Core 2428:. -- 2387:Core 2342:logs 2326:talk 2322:edit 2205:here 2162:logs 2136:talk 2132:edit 1942:Thus 1837:Will 1791:. - 1776:prod 1741:The 1051:here 927:logs 901:edit 734:talk 639:logs 613:talk 609:edit 520:. -- 518:here 442:logs 416:talk 412:edit 318:keep 316:and 304:Talk 255:Talk 247:what 213:and 148:logs 122:talk 118:edit 78:talk 32:< 3559:bli 3517:AfD 3380:DGG 3343:AfD 3127:tag 3094:not 2914:of 2863:. 2704:NPR 2674:At 2649:AfD 2518:Sam 2462:DGG 2413:all 2409:and 2365:CfD 2228:DGG 2198:AfD 2188:AfD 1953:). 1864:DGG 1712:was 1697:spy 953:TfD 665:AfD 504:DGG 333:bli 194:DGG 22:Log 3707:: 3705:}} 3701:{{ 3687:. 3661:: 3659:}} 3655:{{ 3641:. 3584:| 3562:nd 3556:ar 3553:St 3550:- 3493:| 3489:| 3485:| 3481:| 3476:| 3472:| 3467:| 3463:| 3425:13 3422:Sr 3319:| 3315:| 3311:| 3307:| 3302:| 3298:| 3293:| 3289:| 3251:13 3248:Sr 3142:) 3140:Oy 3108:) 3106:Oy 3052:is 2977:) 2975:Oy 2947:-- 2923:is 2909:No 2625:| 2621:| 2617:| 2613:| 2608:| 2604:| 2514:☑ 2385:. 2340:| 2336:| 2332:| 2328:| 2324:| 2245:13 2242:Sr 2213:13 2210:Sr 2164:| 2160:| 2156:| 2152:| 2147:| 2143:| 2138:| 2134:| 2051:}} 2045:{{ 2041:}} 2035:{{ 2022:}} 2016:{{ 1805:| 1789:}} 1783:{{ 1779:}} 1773:{{ 1769:}} 1763:{{ 1743:JP 1658:| 1642:}} 1636:{{ 1619:| 1586:| 1550:| 1534:}} 1528:{{ 1506:| 1466:| 1439:}} 1433:{{ 1429:}} 1423:{{ 1402:| 1299:}} 1293:{{ 1281:}} 1275:{{ 1241:}} 1235:{{ 1168:}} 1162:{{ 1149:| 1133:}} 1127:{{ 1024:he 929:| 925:| 921:| 917:| 912:| 908:| 862:| 641:| 637:| 633:| 629:| 624:| 620:| 615:| 611:| 444:| 440:| 436:| 432:| 427:| 423:| 418:| 414:| 336:nd 330:ar 327:St 324:- 302:| 253:| 150:| 146:| 142:| 138:| 133:| 129:| 124:| 120:| 84:) 82:Oy 42:: 3718:) 3714:( 3697:. 3672:) 3668:( 3651:. 3588:) 3580:( 3520:) 3514:| 3506:| 3500:( 3497:) 3459:( 3346:) 3340:| 3332:| 3326:( 3323:) 3285:( 3138:/ 3134:( 3104:/ 3100:( 3005:☼ 2973:/ 2969:( 2901:☼ 2652:) 2646:| 2638:| 2632:( 2629:) 2595:( 2417:N 2368:) 2362:| 2354:| 2348:( 2344:) 2320:( 2191:) 2185:| 2177:| 2171:( 2168:) 2130:( 1915:. 1809:) 1801:( 1745:S 1662:) 1654:( 1623:) 1615:( 1590:) 1582:( 1554:) 1546:( 1510:) 1502:( 1483:I 1470:) 1462:( 1406:) 1398:( 1347:N 1153:) 1145:( 1101:" 1095:" 1057:I 1031:I 956:) 950:| 942:| 936:( 933:) 899:( 866:) 858:( 715:N 698:N 668:) 662:| 654:| 648:( 645:) 607:( 531:⊖ 448:) 410:( 154:) 116:( 80:/ 76:(

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 4 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index