Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2007 July 22

1607:- which is what I understand this is about. The article was NOT deleted for copyvio, it was NOT deleted because it was outside the scope of Knowledge (XXG). The consensus in the discussion was to keep or merge, yet the article was deleted anyway. I am bring it here because the admin who deleted it refused to discuss any of this, even though I tried. The specific process of HOW and WHY the article was deleted was wrong. I am asking for the article to be undeleted, a new AfD discussion opened - if necessary - and I (and other editors) be given a chance to repair the issues that are in question. I believe this to be relevant information about one of the most notable literary figures of the 20th century and one of the most oft asked questions about his work. If this information is outside the scope of Knowledge (XXG), then each and every LIST on Knowledge (XXG) should be deleted. If I am wrong about a stand-alone article, I will certainly accept that and, as I said to W.marsh, I will do the work to merge the legitimate (non copyvio) information into the appropriate articles on the individual books, but the temporary article has been re-deleted as he stated above, one again, prematurely in my opinion and without discussion. This is not a case of my not liking the deletion decision - it is a case of receiving no discussion about the deletion decision and the fact that the AfD discussion was misinterpreted. Consensus was not for delete. If the consensus here is for delete, I understand - but as the "rules" for this process clearly state, this review process is not a CONTENT review - it is a review of the deletion PROCESS. Again, the article was NOT deleted for copyvio, so I am asking the decision to be re-evaluated. It may be semantics, gentlemen, but that is exactly the definition of this review process, as I understand it. Very respectfully, 1687:

other editors had added to the article. It should be noted that this was not a stub and many editors contributed to what they felt was a significant contribution to Knowledge (XXG). The differentiation between what was "copyvio" and what was not is extremely simple as the article was completely modular. All that needs to be done is to eliminate the sections that were direct lifts from King's website and the rest of the article is in full compliance with Knowledge (XXG) official policy. There was no commingling of copyvio and non-copyvio material. I would argue that unencyclopedic is open for interpretation. As I mentioned before any and every list on Knowledge (XXG) is unencyclopedic, yet there are MANY (even, as the guidelines admit, lists of lists) of considerable merit (a few that I have contributed to) which makes Knowledge (XXG) a source of unique information unavailable anywhere else. I do not believe this article violates the scope of Knowledge (XXG) (it is certainly NOT an

1566:- the deletion reason was NOT for copyvio (which should have been corrected, of course. Please note that the three major sections of the article that were fully cited and referenced were NOT copyright violations in any way shape or form, the rest of the article was still very much a work in progress) nor was the deletion reason for "we don't do articles like this." Perhaps, W.marsh, if you would have engaged in a discussion with me and explained this concept when I tried to discuss this with you, I might have accepted that. I can see, perhaps, after researching further that this article is outside the scope of Knowledge (XXG). However, you refused to engage in any kind of discussion or explanation and recommended instead that I start this process. I feel the deletion discussion was misinterpreted and the article was deleted for the wrong reason. It is for that reason alone that I ask the Wiki editors and administrators to re-evaluate the AfD process for this article. 1550:

stand as a template for what the full article should be, well written, well cited information that provides a detailed examination into one man's work that does not fit into the scope of his biographical article and is less useful in uncollected form. However, as DRV is NOT a review of the content, but rather a review of the deletion "PROCESS not CONTENT" (as per official Wiki Policy), I will attempt to refrain from discussing the content of the article further. The PROCESS of the deletion is what is being called into question here. The consensus reached on the page was to

2530:: Is there a justification for a "list" (is the inclusion criterion itself significant)? I don't see it. Is there a sufficient population to break away from a master article? I don't think so. Is there an explicit include/exclude criterion? I don't quite see that ("featuring," above). Is there a benefit to side-by-side layout that cannot be achieved with a category? No, not that, either. Therefore, the arguments are strongest for deletion, without prejudice to the infamous "in pop culture" section on the theremin article. 1691:, which is the only semi-close argument against it), but I do understand that this is my opinion and I will - of course - agree with Wiki project consensus on this issue and happily do the merging work of non-copyvio material into the individual book articles if this review is to be decided to keep the article deleted (although the userfied article has been re-deleted by the original admin at this time, so that would need be restored for editing). All the best 973:, due to a majority presence of KEEP comments on the AFD discussion page it would have been assumed the article be kept. However the article was deleted on beliefs by the admin that many were sock puppets and his own opinion of insufficient citation. this makes sense to some extent but it does not make for good judgment. if the participants had known the article was likely to be deleted there would have been opportunity to request a merge into 3080:

creature," so those have all got to be exactly the same thing and simply can't be separate pages talking about separate things without any knowledge of one another! "TV fakery" is no doubt something that occurs in print, no doubt something that occurs on the web, something that no doubt has no singular meaning behind it nor consistent and coherent intellectual and cultural identity that can be discussed in an encyclopedia article.

695:: Alfred Jarry is cute, but this is the promotion of a neologism to create a "meme" for the purposes of promoting a single writer (probably). This is not an established trope, and the matter is covered well in WP:NOT. (Once locked into dualities of figurative/non-figurative, there can be no extension. The farthest thing from a metaphor is catechresis (the "dead metaphor") that becomes a 'literal' part of denotative speech.) 2816:"plagued bu all sorts of socks/SPAs, multiple votes from Bsregistration, and other misbehaviour." Again, none of this sort of junior-high name-calling is backed up by any evidence at all and it's clear that the original article hasn't even been read by the people here, nor have the sources or links been verified. If you're going to hold a Starblind Popularity Contest then there's no procedure here at all. 635:.I don't know what canvassing is, but from the context it seems to be clear. I was led here ("canvassed"?) by a comment on my talkpage by Jchristie7. I also was led to the original AfD through a user on my talk page. But that is because I link Pataphor on my Userpage, where I endorse it as one of the greatest pages in Knowledge (XXG). It seems just nice to notify me, doesn't it? Assume Good Faith? -- 403:

definition, I don't think it counts as a reliable source. I think you were basing your keep "vote" on google hits, which are not really a sign of notability either. ExpImp brought up a valid point, but the sources in use were from the originator himself, and not from independent sources, which leads us to the chilean newspaper that I cant read and cant judge.

2903:

pro-deletion crowd is little more than politically-motivated and there has not been a single refutation of any specific item on the page or any source used. The open admission that the page wasn't even read and that conspiracy theorists like Mongo were brought in to shut it down even though it is firm argument for reinstating the page.

597:

question, they created valid articles and made valid edits on many subjects, not just these. And I felt strongly that the articles were legitimate. However, it was wrong of me to try and "cook the books" and accidentally cast aspersion on the legit editors. I am imperfect and make mistakes. Thanks for your ear and I'm sorry.

1733:

We are talking about process here right? Not rehashing the AfD. I voted on the AfD and was a bit surprised to see a delete result - I thought it was too close to call and would be a 'no consensus' close. I make it 13 comments altogether, not including the nom, with a good spread of different opinions

1625:

A discussion of copyvio is possibly relevant,for if it is undeleted here, there's no point if it'll be immediately speedied as A11.I do not think it is copyvio. it contains a number of quotations. an article about a writer that contains a number of quotations from different places for the purpose of

1602:

portion of the article (much of which I supplied) that was NOT a copyright violation, it is well sourced, encyclopedic information. Why does the whole article have to be deleted? The entire article was NOT lifted from some other source - only portions of it that can be easily removed (as the article,

809:

my comments on the AfD? Because I don't see any indication in your comment just above that you did. I'm not a sock, I didn't say it was one of the greatest pages, I didn't say "weak keep" - I did say it needs better sourcing, but that is not a reason to delete it. Many pages need better sourcing -

789:

It was a valid delete, four or five of the keeps were socks of each others, there was one that only said weak keep but needs better sourcing and AFD isn't a vote, another one was per the sock, and that sock said that he heard of the term, which isn't a valid reason for keeping, and then there was the

332:

four legitimate editors. On the merits of the case: I think your closure should have taken into account the idea of merging the article, or giving it time to develop by putting a stub tag on it. And since you closed apparently before you became suspicious, I don't see how you judged your closure as

2856:

It's a serious subject for an encyclopedia, and it's not adequately covered elsewhere in Knowledge (XXG). The term is in use on both sides of the Atlantic, it's clear and descriptive. The article itself is about the phenomenon of TV Fakery, which does not properly belong to other pages of Knowledge

1686:

original research, but well-cited information. None of the article was supposition, all was from published sources. The potential copyright violation material were full paragraphs lifted from Stephen King's own website (which should have been utilized as a source, not copy-and-paste, of course) that

378:

Yes, I was directing my point at Jaranda who came on here and made a general statement about "most" "keep" voters being socks when a specific statement should have been made, naming exactly which ones he found to be socks. But I have to say, Giggy, your comments here don't make a lot of sense. The

2902:

Absolutely no rationale was provided for the deletion and the discussion page was flooded with multiple comments from Dennis the Tiger sockpuppets like Starblind who seem to be fascinated with conspiracy theories. The article was properly sourced with articles and papers. Again the content of the

1495:

I believe the AfD discussion was misinterpreted. Consensus in the discussion was to keep or merge, not for delete. When asked for clarification on reason for delete, Admin referred to deletion summary which stated "odd and not really needed," which I believe to be an improper rationale for deletion

596:

As the presumed "sock-puppeteer", I would like to apologize: a) If I was insulting to Jaranda, although I did feel the deletion process was sloppy, and b) mainly, for violating your terms of service. I do have a lot of respect for the work you do, and for Knowledge (XXG). If you see the accounts in

416:

Respectfully, just because you can't read it doesn't mean it isn't reliable - I think a notability tag on this article would have been the prudent way to go, since there were actually sources listed in the piece, although maybe not the strongest. Of course with the article gone we can't look at it

205:

A majority of editors favored keeping this article. It is verifiable, linking to at least one article "about" it, in a Chilean newspaper, which compared the term's signifcance to political language used by Chilean politicians. Omitting it from Knowledge (XXG) strikes me as a decrease in information

2455:

already mentions a representative (and rather extensive) set of bands who have used a theremin. I don't see what useful information would be added by merging references to these specific recordings. In addition, some of the comments in the AfD lead me to believe that a proposal to merge would meet

1944:

I'm sorry, but as the closing admin, where are these 4 references? There were 2 references in the article. One was an advertising-style filler article about the club, and the other was about about one of their rallies. What is it that makes this club notable, and just not another bike club that

1349:

Who (besides you) decides who a sockpuppet is? I don't care about the Avion article that much, but the same argument is used above in "Pataphor". Why do legitimate user have to defend themselves, why do they have to explain that they are not a fiction, but a real person? I don't see your "obvious"

2173:

1. The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic. 2. The image is of a low resolution. 3. Since one members of the band are now incarcerated, it is not possible to replace the image with a new free alternative. 4. Use of this promotional image does not

1588:

was not the entire deletion summary--the closing admin said (quite accurately) that the material was more appropriate for the articles on the books. If the material were not copyvio'd, the closing would have been completely appropriate. We can't restore it for copyright reasons, so I'm not sure

402:

First argument for keep, was "I've heard of it, so I think its notable". I don't think this holds much water unless the claim is sufficiently backed up. The next one linked to 3 sites, 2 of which just used the term, and were not "about the term" (wp:neo). Even though the 3rd site provided a

327:

Well, I'm not a sockpuppet of anyone and don't know anything about any other participant, but you might be a little bit clearer here about who exactly you mean and don't mean by "most", so that you're not painting all participants who were in favor of keep as socks. The way you're leaving it here

1549:

I do agree there is copyright violation material in the existing article that needs to be cleaned up, absolutely. There were a lot of people who added to the article since I was last there and added stolen quotes from Stephen King's official site. The three opening sections to the article should

1030:

now includes a section on the pataphor. i realized this was a reasonable action to take as it seems this argument is not making headway, and rather than keep mentioning the pataphysics merge several times i should just "be bold" and do it myself. as to whether pataphore deserves existence on the

814:

sources - and even those survive as stubs until more sources are found. Did you even look at the sources? Also, as I've said, "merge" was an option too. Apparently none of these options were considered by you in your rush to delete. Just wondering - did you miss my comments or did you just

3079:

Ah, and the usual arguments about neologisms and memes. Plus ca change... I found a usage of "butterscotch boot," so it's obviously a major meme and not the coincidental combination of words! On Myspace, I found "fascist strawberry," so that's got to be a meme now. Loads of pages use "moon

2891:

about it because of his long involvement in 9/11 conspiracy articles, and he deleted the 9/11 part. But there is still no proof that this is a widely-used term to describe a particular idea. I didn't go back to look at the page (bad on me), was the 9/11 conspiracy stuff re-added, as Guy is

938:

Including those in Spanish - which can be read, surely, by some here. No reply on merging option, though it has been repeatedly suggested, and was in the original AfD. It appears the need to delete was stronger than the need to conserve information and expand the encyclopedia, and this is a

2484:

Delete arguments were based on the rarity of the instrument and thus it warranted a list of songs that used it (or didn't use it). I personally think that's a weak argument because I dont want an encyclopedia to list all the songs that may or may not have been conceived by an instrument.

664:

And that's how I found out he was sockpuppering, I noticed that he was carvassing the keep voters, but didn't carvass Drhtl, who for some reason found out about the DRV right after Jchristie placed it in DRV, so I asked Raul654 for a checkuser in IRC, and he confirmed to me as socks.

2472:- while AFD is not a vote count, deletes outweigh keeps and the keeps do not overcome the arguments offered for deletion. The rarity or commonality of the use of the instrument is not the issue and arguments relying on how rarely or commonly it is used should have been discounted. 2387:, but the arguments in favor of deletion appear to have outweighed those in favor of keeping not just in number but in cogency and reference to guidelines. The close was certainly a possible reading of the discussion; nevertheless, it seems to me to have been a mistaken reading. 1579:

rather than AfD. But, since it has been deleted, I'm not sure what you're asking for here. Do you want the AfD deleted so that the article can be recreated without being subject to CSD G8? Even if that were possible, I find it hard to imagine that any article with the title

1008:- in case it wasn't clear, I agree with the previous two comments and DGG's as well - there was certainly no consensus to delete - if the closer couldn't bring himself to keep, then at least "no consensus" would have been reasonable. And merge was suggested and then ignored. 916:

requirements for info within an article are not as stringent as that for an entire article, isnt this true? a single citation, as i understand it, is enough to include an addition to an article. therefore the pataphore would be sufficiently cited if the info was merged into

707:- I opined delete in the AFD, and feel Jaranda's close was acceptable. As I said there, a look at the uses of the word on various pages seems to indicate many of them tracked right back to this article ("Knowledge (XXG) says a pataphor is...", etc.) As Geogre says above, 994:? No way. This is simply one admin imposing his view and not respecting consensus. In the absence of a strong policy argument that trumps consensus (and none is present here), the job of the closer is to determine consensus. This closer did not do that here. -- 2000:

Non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources satisfy the minimal notability requirements. There was no clear consensus in the discussion with only four contributions (five if you include the nominator), so a relist may have been more appropriate here.

939:

dangerous trend. And I would not be so sure about policy trumping consensus - that would depend on which policy we're talking about and how it is being applied, wouldn't it. And of course I'm sure everyone remembers IAR, which I seem to recall is policy.

1531:

As for the deletion, AFD isn't a vote... we don't do articles like this in general as it falls under an indescriminate collection of information. There's no reason why this can't just be covered on the book articles... we wouldn't have articles like

2924:

Amazing, I've been editing all the time and never even realised I was a sockpuppet at all, much less a sockpuppet of an editor who joined 2 years after me. Astounding. I need to sit back a bit and take this all in, I'm getting the vapours.

2761:

Clear AfD consensus, even though it was plagued bu all sorts of socks/SPAs, multiple votes from Bsregistration, and other misbehaviour. That sort of thing not only never works, but it's actually a detriment to an article getting kept.

450:

You can hit the Cache button up top and view the cache of the article. Maybe I'm being too skeptical, but I'm very vary about the notability of this term when the only reliable source is a Chilean newspaper (not in english). Also,

417:

to see - my point in this DRV is that there was no consensus to delete, and the closer didn't convince me that there was. The point about accusations of puppetry stands as well and I am hopeful that will be clarified soon.

1394:– Deletion with option to merge is endorsed. Copyvio is a different issue--outside the scope of this DRV--although it does render merging any noncopyvio material difficult. This should be worked out with the closing admin. – 2397:

Um. Seven members of the list, the theremin is pretty unusual so it's never going to be hugely more (incidentally, Bill Bailey's exceptional Kraftwerk spoof is missing), and 30% of the entries are in there because they

3022:

A similar but slightly different phenomenom from tv fakery - VNR - Video News Releases - videos made by corporations and given to news media and run as news without editing or censoring. Much is apparently propaganda:

2562:

I'd pretty close to never argue for overturning an admin's no consensus close to become a delete, but if the admin in question explicitly says the decision was a mistake that should be overturned that makes it an easy

2508:

I didn't see no good agruements between the keep and delete votes, so I closed it as no consensus, reading it closer, while the delete votes are rather weak, the keep votes were worse, and rather invalid. My mistake

2374: 977:

or other. the deletion came as a surprise since the article had citation and majority support. The admin should have given the discussion more opportunity by letting his opinions be known, for decency's sake IMO.

1734:

in roughly similar proportions. Good comments were made by all sides. I see 4 vanilla 'deletes', 3 vanilla 'keeps' and 6 mixed flavours of keep/delete/merge/redirect. Frankly, there was no consensus here. Thanks

1322:

The policy is still the same in that it requires one of the guidelines to be met for notability. It doesn't say if the requirements are met but a sockpuppet participates the article fails on notability grounds.

1668:

For those portions which were copyvio, the reasoning is obvious and indisputable. Any other material is better merged to King's article, or individual books. A compilation of this sort is likely to violate

2966:

Here's open admission that the page was deleted without even being read and that other editors were brought to the page for strictly political reasons. Is that how Knowledge (XXG) is supposed to be edited?

646:

The problem was that the user only alerted the users who voted "keep", which would be alerting only partisan audience. It wouldn't be canvasing if all the users who participated in the AFD were notified

770:

Keep would probably have been a reasonable evaluation of the afd; certainly no consensus would also have been. But not delete. Majority does not rule, but consensus of the policy based arguments does.

1705:, per copyvio, OR concerns. Significant info can be adequately mentioned elsewhere. LACameraman, please cease the lengthy responses and let others consider the issue as stated in the review rationale. 2424:

I don't get it: why not just merge it into the theremin article? That could be done as an editorial action, and I doubt it would upset anyone. This doesn't seem worth making a fuss over either way.

1486: 2717:

The article was properly sourced and contained valid content for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG). The administrator left no rationale for his deletion or ignoring the consensus to keep the page.

2161: 3056:

Too bad this article got deleted because of knee-jerk reactions of some who even admitted they didn't even read the sources that confirmed the validity of the subject of TV fakery.

2331: 2326: 1313:

And that would excuse your ignorance of WP:Music somehow? You didn't even know what it said, by your own admission, yet you decide these things? I hope other admins will take note.

2335: 2857:(XXG) yet is an important topic that deserves a page of its own. The Chicago Sun times article used the term TV Fakery properly 20 years ago proving that it's not a neologism. 2360: 2318: 1277:. The editors here who said: "No notability," "Fails WP:Music," "his albums are self-produced," do not know WP:Music, and what's worse, do not seem to have read the article. 2402:

feature a theremin. Add to that the vexed question of what constitutes "featuring" as opposed to simply including, and I think you have a compelling case to merge this to

2539:

I would have endorsed the closure as a no-consensus is within the closer's discretion here, but since they have since called for overturning their own decision, I suppose

1656:

Not sure if I missed weighing in my my official vote here - or if I'm supposed to do that? In any case, trying to keep this discussion alive. Many thanks. All the best

318:

I have a feeling other keep voters will have something to say about that, haha. Those are some pretty big sockpuppets with a lot of history! Thanks for the block. :)

1443: 1438: 1904: 1447: 846:, there was no other better sources other than trivial mentions, and Tony Fox mentioned that, I did check on google as well, all trivial mentions, nothing else 1171: 48: 34: 1472: 1430: 1513:. (Not endorsing the deletion as I feel it should have been speedied as copyvio.) We can't restore copyvios under any circumstances, so far as I'm aware. 2704: 1633:

the arguments being given at discussions on Afd about the plot of articles is that it needs to be accompanied by iriticism and comment. Well, here is some.

731:

was my original opinion and it is it now. Read the AFD. There was a majority for delete, but there was no consensus. That was and still is my impression.--

554:

Just because it was 2:1 in favour of keep doesn't mean the consensus was keep...especially in cases of sockpuppetry. Consensus is more then just numbers.

459:

template, with the hope that references will be added in the future. I think the consensus was to delete, when the "invalid" arguments are discounted.

166: 231:

after i caught a edit that crossed my mind and the two users above were confirmed as sockpuppets, along with most of the keep voters of the AFD. Thanks

43: 1978: 1974: 1750:. Per my commentary in the AfD, the content in this article does better in each novel's article - there is no need to catalog it in one article. -- 383:

consensus, and seemingly was based on something else, and I am questioning it. His decision was made apparently before he discovered any puppetry.

2228:

a promotional photo, and far less likely to raise copyright hackles. Yes, this image was listed at IFD once, but it didn't receive any comments.

1917:, but isn't linked to in the AFD page). Would also like to say that the cache doesn't reflect the article after I trimmed it down to be a stub 1603:

by nature, is modular). Why can't we omit the copyvio sections and retain the rest? My reason for bringing the article here is to evaluate the

456: 2147: 1496:

as per Knowledge (XXG) official policy. Attempted to resolve/discuss with admin, who would not engage in discussion and recommended WPDRV.

39: 2224:- the part about them being incarcerated is important. This isn't such an obvious case of replaceable fair use - not to mention that it 1522:

I should have made the copyvio thing more clear... I myself forgot it and userfied this. I will delete it now, pending clarification. --

742:"Also, it is one of the greatest pages in wikipedia, at least in my opinion." from the AFD isn't a valid reason for keeping an article. 265:

I voted keep as well. No sockpuppet here as well - Seems a shame I have to go to the database dump to get the content of the page...--

719: 921:, for instance. A newspaper citation has never in my experience been a questionable source for a particular info within an article. 711:

comes into play here. If there was sockpuppetry involved on the 'keep' side, then good job to Jaranda for sniffing it out as well.

2887:. I ran across this page in its infancy and was worried about the 9/11 conspiracy tone of the article at that time. I contacted 1533: 1039:. all are invited to join in. i personally will not be making any further actions for sake of pataphor preservation on wikipedia. 1861: 1856: 1763: 1537: 620: 1558:- not outright delete. Even the majority of those who voted for delete said that the information should be merged. When I asked 287:- I said keep, but consensus was to delete. "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly." ( 21: 2835:

The term "TV Fakery" generates over 34 thousand hits on Google, and it is the preferred term for the topic under discussion.

1865: 291:), Jaranda made no mistake in reading consensus...just because it went against you doesn't mean you need to complain about it. 1576: 2322: 1128: 1123: 842:

I'm not talking about yours, I never said that you were any of them, your is the only one with merit as far as I could see,

2661: 2656: 1961: 1890: 1848: 1132: 1562:

why the article was deleted, he succinctly referred me to his summary which noted the article was deleted because it was

2665: 2314: 2278: 123: 118: 3122: 2627: 2578: 2297: 2257: 2096: 2047: 1827: 1778: 1409: 1369: 1094: 1054: 89: 17: 1157: 1115: 127: 2208:

I checked and most of the images that were uploaded was the same one by you. I suggest to find another photo to use.

1434: 379:

consensus on the AfD actually was to keep - 2-1 the comments were for keeping the piece. So Jaranda's closure went

2690: 2648: 1913:

I believe that notability was established through the four sources provided (4th source was a print article from

152: 110: 3036:, to support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as 1581: 1426: 1390: 1350:

consensus, unless you _assume_ that everybody on the "keep" side is a sockpuppet, including JChristie and me.--

1274: 2915:

I don't think you should be making accusations of sockpuppetry when the evidence is exceedingly against you.

2122: 1981:

and the 2 instances of CNN India coverage (links on AFD page) puts them above the threshold of notability in

1203:: On his talk page, Jaranda defends his deletion of this page by saying that: "well, the article has to meet 182:

There are interwikis for this term in French, Spanish and Polish. Why shouldn't there be an English article?

1246: 1949: 990:. Although it looks like to me like the consensus was "keep", I could see a finding of no consensus. But 2839: 1351: 895: 732: 636: 266: 2957: 2904: 2858: 2817: 2718: 2113: 2068: 1296:

after i caught a edit that crossed my mind and the two users above were confirmed as sockpuppets. Thanks

1036: 3005: 2229: 598: 1559: 1541: 1523: 1314: 319: 3111: 3092: 3074: 3060: 3047: 2960: 2944: 2919: 2907: 2896: 2879: 2861: 2820: 2804: 2781: 2753: 2738: 2729:, sock/SPA-plagued AFD closed correctly. There was a consensus to delete among established editors. -- 2721: 2616: 2567: 2554: 2549: 2534: 2522: 2503: 2489: 2476: 2460: 2443: 2419: 2391: 2286: 2246: 2232: 2214: 2192: 2180: 2130: 2085: 2036: 2017: 2005: 1988: 1936: 1921: 1816: 1767: 1742: 1725: 1695: 1677: 1660: 1644: 1611: 1593: 1570: 1544: 1526: 1517: 1500: 1398: 1356: 1341: 1327: 1317: 1302: 1281: 1195: 1083: 1043: 1020: 1000: 982: 951: 925: 900: 889: 860: 827: 796: 782: 762: 748: 737: 723: 699: 687: 671: 651: 641: 627: 601: 589: 572: 546: 516: 495: 482: 463: 429: 407: 395: 371: 345: 322: 309: 271: 260: 237: 218: 196: 78: 1759: 1119: 614: 2652: 2612: 2202:

its been deleted without a real given reason,not only that but it was constantly being vandalized.--

2081: 1812: 1229:

Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable

1191:

I believe JChristie7 said this best on the discussion page, that this is 100% in line with WP:music.

242:

Hopefully that doesn't include me...I voted keep, and I hope I'm not being accused of anything now.

2981:

about it because of his long involvement in 9/11 conspiracy articles, and he deleted the 9/11 part.

2733: 850:

is a major policy, and none of the keep voters issued that concern and if the article doesn't meet

2517: 1931: 1297: 855: 791: 743: 666: 490: 232: 2893: 2170:

Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:

1242: 759: 716: 577:

There was no talk of sockpuppetry during the AfD, and I don't see any consensus there to delete.

3088:

to have an article on an innocent combination of words that fails to reflect a single concept.

3057: 2830:

Yes, Guy, if you read the page you would have seen it had nothing to do with conspiracy theories

1216: 1212: 1181: 1111: 1075: 2956:

There's no evidence of sockpuppetry against me and there never will be unless you make some up.

2791:. Was there ever any reason for this page other than pursuing ludicrous fantasies over 9/11 ? 2644: 2599: 2520: 2203: 2177: 1957: 1934: 1852: 1395: 1300: 1254: 1238: 858: 794: 746: 669: 493: 235: 75: 1982: 569: 452: 368: 306: 257: 2987: 1735: 1692: 1657: 1608: 1567: 1497: 998: 790:

one of the greatest pages in wikipedia vote and that obviously isn't a valid reason nither.

504:

And how many "keep"s were not? Also, would like a reply on my points about stub or merging.

3033: 1688: 843: 708: 288: 207: 1751: 1510: 1278: 1040: 979: 922: 877:

Well, I appreciate that, but you didn't say that in your comment immediately above mine.

610: 555: 354: 292: 243: 215: 2849: 2697: 2367: 2154: 1897: 1670: 1479: 1164: 159: 2993: 2999: 2926: 2875: 2763: 2730: 2608: 2425: 2209: 2077: 1808: 1721: 1016: 947: 885: 823: 585: 542:

I believe the consensus was to delete when the "invalid keep arguments" are discounted

512: 478: 455:

would be pointless if every article with questionable notability is just tagged with a

425: 391: 341: 851: 847: 211: 3107: 2799: 2793: 2473: 2414: 2408: 2032: 1640: 1234: 1032: 778: 712: 114: 2749:- SPAs providing examples of this term, but no source as to the meaning of the term 810:

they get a tag and a request that more sources be provided. This was not a case of

3070: 2564: 2499: 2242: 2014: 2002: 1953: 1844: 1799: 1590: 1514: 1324: 1293: 1270: 1258: 228: 2682: 2352: 1882: 1464: 1149: 758:, AfD is not a vote, majority does not always rule. No new arguments presented. 144: 3089: 2952:

You probably didn't notice that wikipedia isn't an advertising service, either.

2544: 2531: 1338: 1262: 1250: 1026: 995: 974: 918: 696: 684: 623:) had canvassed only the users who "voted" keep for the AFD about this review. 3011: 2844: 1575:

You're right, of course, that the article probably should have been deleted by

3044: 2978: 2916: 2888: 2750: 2486: 2283: 1985: 1918: 1739: 1674: 1266: 1192: 1080: 648: 624: 563: 543: 489:

My mistake, I should have said five of the users were blocked as sockpuppets.

460: 404: 362: 300: 251: 193: 183: 2845:

TV fakery revealed in show on opening of Titanic's safe -- Chicago Sun Times

3017: 2872: 2604: 2457: 2388: 2073: 1914: 1804: 1711: 1010: 941: 879: 817: 579: 506: 472: 419: 385: 335: 2282:– "No consensus" closure overturned to delete by original closing admin. – 3102: 2452: 2403: 2027: 1635: 773: 106: 70: 1682:

The significant portions of the article, for which I am lobbying, were

894:

So if Tvoz is the only valid Keep, I am a Sockpuppet? What the fuck?--

470:

Thanks - I never noticed the "cache" button before. Will take a look.

3006:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20000117/ai_n10578465

2456:

with resistance on the part of editors who have worked on the list.

1337:- obvious consensus to delete on AFD (notwithstanding sockpuppets). 815:

ignore them? Maybe you need to re-evaluate your incorrect close.

3024: 2025:

since there seem to be sources that were not adequately considered.

457:

Knowledge (XXG):Template_messages/Cleanup#Importance_and_notability

2852:"In an age of TV fakery, when even the real people are suspect..." 2972:

Endorse deletion I didn't go back to look at the page (bad on me)

1079:– Deletion endorsed; nomination made by disruptive sockpuppet. – 206:

from Knowledge (XXG) without a compelling cause, as it passes

214:. It can just as easily be flagged for cleanup/more sources. 1207:

guidelines from WP:MUSIC". Not so, Jaranda; it has to meet

2870:. Consensus was established, disregarding the socks/SPAs. 1233:; you can see the membership of this band is comprised of 1219:

says: "A musician or ensemble ... is notable if it meets

854:

than there is no reason to merge. Policy trumps concensus

2988:

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,2127536,00.html

3010:

Again - term tv fakery used here (2002) last paragraph:

2678: 2674: 2670: 2348: 2344: 2340: 2138: 2134: 2126: 2118: 1878: 1874: 1870: 1460: 1456: 1452: 1145: 1141: 1137: 189: 140: 136: 132: 1292:

Please note that I asked for a private checkuser from

227:

Please note that I asked for a private checkuser from

3100:

if it was too infested by socks to judge, do it over.

3032:

I dont think you're getting the reasoning here. Per

2994:

http://archive.thisisyork.co.uk/1999/2/12/324772.html

2986:

But same story here and they use the term tv fakery:

2892:

indicating above? If so, then it should be salted.

2840:

Ramsay Busted for More TV Fakery -- New York Magazine

3016:

And a special dedicated to tv fakery - BBC2 - 1998:

3000:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6433589.stm

2189:

it has been deleted nine times in less than a year.

353:: These are directed at Jaranda, not me (I hope). 1930:claimed notabilty, AFD should have been relisted 1584:would be acceptable under our guidelines. Also, 74:– Deletion endorsed per sockpuppetry concerns. – 2497:- even a rough headcount says to me "delete". 175:MENTIONED IN CHILEAN NEWSPAPER, AMONG OTHERS 8: 3012:http://www.dvdmg.com/annanicoleseason1.shtml 2174:detract from the financial viability of it. 1589:what else could be possible at this point. 1534:Reasons Each State ratified the constitution 2626:The following is an archived debate of the 2296:The following is an archived debate of the 2095:The following is an archived debate of the 1826:The following is an archived debate of the 1738:for letting me know about the DRV. Cheers, 1538:Opinions of Various Hollywood Actors on War 1408:The following is an archived debate of the 1093:The following is an archived debate of the 88:The following is an archived debate of the 2592: 2271: 2061: 1792: 1383: 1068: 63: 3018:http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/series/30448 3004:Again - term tv fakery used here (2000): 1626:criticism is reasonable and appropriate. 2998:More tv fakery but the term isn't used: 1689:indiscriminate collection of information 3121:The above is an archived debate of the 2577:The above is an archived debate of the 2256:The above is an archived debate of the 2046:The above is an archived debate of the 1777:The above is an archived debate of the 1368:The above is an archived debate of the 1053:The above is an archived debate of the 683:- no legitimate keep arguments in AFD. 1673:, and is unencyclopedic in any event. 1035:page, ive started a discussion on its 805:Excuse me, Jaranda, did you happen to 1709:you want the article to be restored. 7: 2992:TV Fakery used here (1999 article): 2315:List of songs featuring a theremin 2279:List of songs featuring a theremin 1577:Knowledge (XXG):Copyright Problems 28: 1269:' album, "Devil's Workshop," and 3025:http://www.prwatch.org/node/3518 3084:the deletion because it is not 3038:books and papers about the term 2715:Consensus was to keep the page. 18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review 2747:I "voted" to delete in the AFD 1257:. The albums were produced by 540:I "voted" to delete in the AFD 1: 2977:Endorse deletion I contacted 609:Just would like to note that 328:casts suspicion on at least 188:User has since been blocked 3040:—not books and papers that 2850:Double take -- Guardian UK 2543:is the best way to go now. 1564:"odd and not really needed" 1225:of the following criteria: 3148: 2072:– Overturn and relist – -- 1803:– Overturn and relist – -- 1582:Stephen King's inspiration 1427:Stephen King's inspiration 1391:Stephen King's inspiration 186:00:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 3112:20:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 3093:14:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 3075:11:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 3061:06:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 3048:20:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 2961:20:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 2945:21:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 2920:20:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 2908:20:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 2897:20:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 2880:17:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 2862:20:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 2821:21:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 2805:15:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 2782:14:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 2754:08:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 2739:08:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 2722:08:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 2617:12:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 2568:19:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 2555:18:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 2535:14:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 2523:20:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 2504:20:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 2490:20:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 2477:19:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 2461:19:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 2444:17:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 2420:14:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 2392:13:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 2287:20:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 2247:12:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 2233:15:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 2215:03:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 2193:20:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 2181:19:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 2086:12:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 2037:20:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 2018:15:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 2006:05:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1989:04:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1937:23:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 1922:22:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 1817:12:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 1768:16:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 1743:16:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 1726:16:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 1696:15:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 1678:14:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 1661:17:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 1645:20:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1612:22:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1594:12:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1586:odd and not really needed 1571:06:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1545:23:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 1527:23:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 1518:23:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 1501:22:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 1399:17:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 1357:23:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1342:06:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1328:22:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1318:01:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1303:01:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1282:00:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1196:00:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1084:14:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 1044:18:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 1021:00:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 1001:22:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 983:22:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 952:16:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 926:16:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 901:18:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 890:16:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 861:02:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 828:00:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 797:21:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 783:20:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 763:23:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 749:21:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 738:21:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 724:15:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 700:13:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 688:06:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 672:02:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 652:21:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 642:21:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 628:05:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 602:05:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 590:04:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 573:03:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 547:02:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 517:04:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 496:04:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 483:02:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 464:02:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 430:02:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 408:02:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 396:01:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 372:01:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 346:01:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 323:01:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 310:01:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 272:21:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 261:01:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 238:01:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 219:00:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 197:02:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 79:03:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 3128:Please do not modify it. 2633:Please do not modify it. 2584:Please do not modify it. 2303:Please do not modify it. 2263:Please do not modify it. 2222:Overturn and list at IFD 2102:Please do not modify it. 2053:Please do not modify it. 1833:Please do not modify it. 1784:Please do not modify it. 1415:Please do not modify it. 1375:Please do not modify it. 1275:Machines of Loving Grace 1211:. Jaranda does not know 1100:Please do not modify it. 1060:Please do not modify it. 333:representing consensus. 95:Please do not modify it. 40:Deletion review archives 3068:- AFD closed properly. 1247:Queens of the Stone Age 3125:of the article above. 2630:of the article above. 2581:of the article above. 2300:of the article above. 2260:of the article above. 2240:per The Evil Spartan. 2099:of the article above. 2050:of the article above. 1830:of the article above. 1781:of the article above. 1412:of the article above. 1372:of the article above. 1097:of the article above. 1057:of the article above. 92:of the article above. 2069:Image:Bone Thugs.jpg 1237:, current member of 971:Overturn & Merge 2814:ludicrous fantasies 2560:overturn and delete 2541:overturn and delete 2528:Overturn and delete 2495:Overturn and delete 2482:Overturn and delete 2470:Overturn and delete 2114:File:Bone Thugs.jpg 2383:AfD was closed as 1253:, formerly of the 1013: 944: 882: 820: 582: 509: 475: 422: 388: 338: 3135: 3134: 2803: 2748: 2615: 2591: 2590: 2511:Overturm my close 2418: 2270: 2269: 2238:Overturn and list 2213: 2191: 2084: 2060: 2059: 1966: 1952:comment added by 1815: 1791: 1790: 1724: 1382: 1381: 1255:Silversun Pickups 1239:The Goo Goo Dolls 1189:Overturn/Undelete 1067: 1066: 1019: 1009: 950: 940: 888: 878: 844:Assume Good Faith 826: 816: 722: 588: 578: 541: 515: 505: 481: 471: 428: 418: 394: 384: 344: 334: 199: 192:for sockpuppetry 180:Overturn/Undelete 3139: 3130: 2942: 2939: 2936: 2933: 2885:Endorse deletion 2797: 2789:Endorse deletion 2779: 2776: 2773: 2770: 2759:Endorse deletion 2746: 2744:Endorse deletion 2736: 2727:Endorse deletion 2700: 2686: 2668: 2635: 2607: 2593: 2586: 2441: 2438: 2435: 2432: 2412: 2370: 2356: 2338: 2305: 2272: 2265: 2230:The Evil Spartan 2212: 2190: 2157: 2143: 2142: 2104: 2076: 2062: 2055: 1965: 1946: 1900: 1886: 1868: 1835: 1807: 1793: 1786: 1755: 1754:Dennis The Tiger 1748:Endorse deletion 1720: 1717: 1714: 1666:Endorse deletion 1605:deletion process 1482: 1468: 1450: 1417: 1384: 1377: 1354: 1335:Endorse deletion 1167: 1153: 1135: 1102: 1069: 1062: 1015: 1006:Overturn closure 946: 898: 884: 822: 756:Endorse deletion 735: 715: 705:Endorse deletion 681:Endorse deletion 639: 584: 566: 560: 539: 536:Endorse Deletion 511: 477: 424: 390: 365: 359: 340: 303: 297: 269: 254: 248: 187: 162: 148: 130: 97: 64: 53: 33: 3147: 3146: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3126: 3123:deletion review 2940: 2937: 2934: 2931: 2777: 2774: 2771: 2768: 2734: 2709: 2703: 2696: 2695: 2689: 2659: 2643: 2631: 2628:deletion review 2582: 2579:deletion review 2439: 2436: 2433: 2430: 2379: 2373: 2366: 2365: 2359: 2329: 2313: 2301: 2298:deletion review 2261: 2258:deletion review 2175: 2166: 2160: 2153: 2152: 2146: 2116: 2112: 2100: 2097:deletion review 2051: 2048:deletion review 1947: 1909: 1903: 1896: 1895: 1889: 1859: 1843: 1831: 1828:deletion review 1782: 1779:deletion review 1753: 1715: 1712: 1491: 1485: 1478: 1477: 1471: 1441: 1425: 1413: 1410:deletion review 1373: 1370:deletion review 1352: 1176: 1170: 1163: 1162: 1156: 1126: 1110: 1098: 1095:deletion review 1058: 1055:deletion review 896: 733: 637: 568: 564: 556: 367: 363: 355: 305: 301: 293: 267: 256: 252: 244: 171: 165: 158: 157: 151: 121: 105: 93: 90:deletion review 62: 55: 54: 51: 46: 37: 31: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 3145: 3143: 3133: 3132: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3095: 3077: 3063: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3050: 2984: 2983: 2974: 2964: 2963: 2958:Bsregistration 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2927:Andrew Lenahan 2922: 2905:Bsregistration 2900: 2899: 2882: 2859:Bsregistration 2854: 2853: 2847: 2842: 2833: 2832: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2818:Bsregistration 2808: 2807: 2785: 2784: 2764:Andrew Lenahan 2756: 2741: 2724: 2719:Bsregistration 2711: 2710: 2707: 2701: 2693: 2687: 2638: 2637: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2603:– Endorse – -- 2589: 2588: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2557: 2537: 2525: 2506: 2492: 2479: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2447: 2446: 2426:Andrew Lenahan 2422: 2381: 2380: 2377: 2371: 2363: 2357: 2308: 2307: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2268: 2267: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2235: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2210:User:Zscout370 2196: 2195: 2172: 2168: 2167: 2164: 2158: 2150: 2144: 2107: 2106: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2058: 2057: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2020: 2008: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1968: 1967: 1939: 1911: 1910: 1907: 1901: 1893: 1887: 1838: 1837: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1789: 1788: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1745: 1728: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1663: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1628: 1627: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1529: 1520: 1493: 1492: 1489: 1483: 1475: 1469: 1420: 1419: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1380: 1379: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1320: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1261:, producer of 1245:, a member of 1178: 1177: 1174: 1168: 1160: 1154: 1105: 1104: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1065: 1064: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1023: 1003: 985: 967: 966: 965: 964: 963: 962: 961: 960: 959: 958: 957: 956: 955: 954: 911: 910: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 903: 866: 865: 864: 863: 837: 836: 835: 834: 833: 832: 831: 830: 786: 785: 765: 753: 752: 751: 726: 702: 690: 677: 676: 675: 674: 659: 658: 657: 656: 655: 654: 604: 594: 593: 592: 562: 549: 532: 531: 530: 529: 528: 527: 526: 525: 524: 523: 522: 521: 520: 519: 467: 466: 447: 446: 445: 444: 443: 442: 441: 440: 439: 438: 437: 436: 435: 434: 433: 432: 411: 410: 361: 313: 312: 299: 281: 280: 279: 278: 277: 276: 275: 274: 250: 222: 221: 200: 173: 172: 169: 163: 155: 149: 100: 99: 84: 83: 82: 81: 61: 56: 47: 38: 30: 29: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3144: 3131: 3129: 3124: 3119: 3118: 3113: 3109: 3105: 3104: 3099: 3096: 3094: 3091: 3087: 3083: 3078: 3076: 3073: 3072: 3067: 3064: 3062: 3059: 3055: 3054: 3049: 3046: 3043: 3042:use the term. 3039: 3035: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3020: 3019: 3014: 3013: 3008: 3007: 3002: 3001: 2996: 2995: 2990: 2989: 2982: 2980: 2975: 2973: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2962: 2959: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2946: 2943: 2928: 2923: 2921: 2918: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2906: 2898: 2895: 2894:Corvus cornix 2890: 2886: 2883: 2881: 2878: 2877: 2874: 2869: 2868:Closer's note 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2860: 2851: 2848: 2846: 2843: 2841: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2831: 2828: 2827: 2822: 2819: 2815: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2806: 2801: 2796: 2795: 2790: 2787: 2786: 2783: 2780: 2765: 2760: 2757: 2755: 2752: 2745: 2742: 2740: 2737: 2732: 2728: 2725: 2723: 2720: 2716: 2713: 2712: 2706: 2699: 2692: 2684: 2680: 2676: 2672: 2667: 2663: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2636: 2634: 2629: 2624: 2623: 2618: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2601: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2587: 2585: 2580: 2575: 2574: 2569: 2566: 2561: 2558: 2556: 2553: 2552: 2548: 2547: 2542: 2538: 2536: 2533: 2529: 2526: 2524: 2521: 2519: 2516: 2512: 2507: 2505: 2502: 2501: 2496: 2493: 2491: 2488: 2483: 2480: 2478: 2475: 2471: 2468: 2467: 2462: 2459: 2454: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2445: 2442: 2427: 2423: 2421: 2416: 2411: 2410: 2405: 2401: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2390: 2386: 2376: 2369: 2362: 2354: 2350: 2346: 2342: 2337: 2333: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2306: 2304: 2299: 2294: 2293: 2288: 2285: 2281: 2280: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2266: 2264: 2259: 2254: 2253: 2248: 2245: 2244: 2239: 2236: 2234: 2231: 2227: 2223: 2220: 2216: 2211: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2201: 2198: 2197: 2194: 2188: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2179: 2171: 2163: 2156: 2149: 2140: 2136: 2132: 2128: 2124: 2120: 2115: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2105: 2103: 2098: 2093: 2092: 2087: 2083: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2070: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2056: 2054: 2049: 2044: 2043: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2029: 2024: 2021: 2019: 2016: 2013:per Caknuck. 2012: 2009: 2007: 2004: 1999: 1996: 1995: 1990: 1987: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1963: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1945:has rallies? 1943: 1940: 1938: 1935: 1933: 1929: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1920: 1916: 1906: 1899: 1892: 1884: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1867: 1863: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1846: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1836: 1834: 1829: 1824: 1823: 1818: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1801: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1787: 1785: 1780: 1775: 1774: 1769: 1765: 1761: 1757: 1756: 1749: 1746: 1744: 1741: 1737: 1732: 1729: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1718: 1708: 1704: 1701: 1697: 1694: 1690: 1685: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1676: 1672: 1667: 1664: 1662: 1659: 1655: 1652: 1651: 1646: 1642: 1638: 1637: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1624: 1621: 1613: 1610: 1606: 1601: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1592: 1587: 1583: 1578: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1553: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1543: 1539: 1535: 1530: 1528: 1525: 1521: 1519: 1516: 1512: 1509:; copyvio of 1508: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1499: 1488: 1481: 1474: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1449: 1445: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1418: 1416: 1411: 1406: 1405: 1400: 1397: 1393: 1392: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1378: 1376: 1371: 1366: 1365: 1358: 1355: 1348: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1340: 1336: 1333: 1329: 1326: 1321: 1319: 1316: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1304: 1301: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1283: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1236: 1235:Korel Tunador 1232: 1230: 1224: 1223: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1202: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1194: 1190: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1183: 1173: 1166: 1159: 1151: 1147: 1143: 1139: 1134: 1130: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1103: 1101: 1096: 1091: 1090: 1085: 1082: 1078: 1077: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1063: 1061: 1056: 1051: 1050: 1045: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1029: 1028: 1024: 1022: 1018: 1012: 1007: 1004: 1002: 999: 997: 993: 989: 986: 984: 981: 976: 972: 969: 968: 953: 949: 943: 937: 936: 935: 934: 933: 932: 931: 930: 929: 928: 927: 924: 920: 915: 912: 902: 899: 893: 892: 891: 887: 881: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 870: 869: 868: 867: 862: 859: 857: 853: 849: 845: 841: 840: 839: 838: 829: 825: 819: 813: 808: 804: 803: 802: 801: 800: 799: 798: 795: 793: 788: 787: 784: 780: 776: 775: 769: 766: 764: 761: 760:Corvus cornix 757: 754: 750: 747: 745: 741: 740: 739: 736: 730: 727: 725: 721: 718: 714: 710: 706: 703: 701: 698: 694: 691: 689: 686: 682: 679: 678: 673: 670: 668: 663: 662: 661: 660: 653: 650: 645: 644: 643: 640: 634: 631: 630: 629: 626: 622: 619: 616: 612: 608: 605: 603: 600: 599:75.50.148.229 595: 591: 587: 581: 576: 575: 574: 571: 567: 561: 559: 553: 550: 548: 545: 537: 534: 533: 518: 514: 508: 503: 502: 501: 500: 499: 498: 497: 494: 492: 488: 487: 486: 485: 484: 480: 474: 469: 468: 465: 462: 458: 454: 449: 448: 431: 427: 421: 415: 414: 413: 412: 409: 406: 401: 400: 399: 398: 397: 393: 387: 382: 377: 376: 375: 374: 373: 370: 366: 360: 358: 352: 349: 348: 347: 343: 337: 331: 326: 325: 324: 321: 317: 316: 315: 314: 311: 308: 304: 298: 296: 290: 286: 283: 282: 273: 270: 264: 263: 262: 259: 255: 249: 247: 241: 240: 239: 236: 234: 230: 226: 225: 224: 223: 220: 217: 213: 209: 204: 201: 198: 195: 191: 185: 181: 178: 177: 176: 168: 161: 154: 146: 142: 138: 134: 129: 125: 120: 116: 112: 108: 104: 103: 102: 101: 98: 96: 91: 86: 85: 80: 77: 73: 72: 68: 67: 66: 65: 60: 57: 50: 45: 41: 36: 23: 19: 3127: 3120: 3101: 3097: 3085: 3081: 3069: 3065: 3041: 3037: 3021: 3015: 3009: 3003: 2997: 2991: 2985: 2976: 2971: 2965: 2951: 2930: 2901: 2884: 2871: 2867: 2855: 2834: 2829: 2813: 2792: 2788: 2767: 2758: 2743: 2726: 2714: 2632: 2625: 2598: 2583: 2576: 2559: 2550: 2545: 2540: 2527: 2514: 2510: 2498: 2494: 2481: 2469: 2429: 2407: 2399: 2385:no consensus 2384: 2382: 2302: 2295: 2277: 2262: 2255: 2241: 2237: 2225: 2221: 2204:Blackdragon6 2199: 2186: 2178:Blackdragon6 2176: 2169: 2101: 2094: 2067: 2052: 2045: 2026: 2022: 2010: 1997: 1948:— Preceding 1941: 1927: 1912: 1845:Madras Bulls 1832: 1825: 1800:Madras Bulls 1798: 1783: 1776: 1752: 1747: 1730: 1710: 1706: 1703:Keep deleted 1702: 1683: 1665: 1653: 1634: 1622: 1604: 1600:considerable 1599: 1598:There was a 1585: 1563: 1555: 1551: 1507:Keep deleted 1506: 1494: 1414: 1407: 1396:IronGargoyle 1389: 1374: 1367: 1346: 1334: 1315:75.50.173.75 1294:User:Raul654 1271:Scott Benzel 1259:Ben Mumphrey 1228: 1226: 1221: 1220: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1188: 1179: 1099: 1092: 1074: 1059: 1052: 1033:'pataphysics 1025: 1005: 991: 987: 970: 913: 811: 806: 772: 767: 755: 728: 704: 692: 680: 632: 617: 606: 557: 551: 535: 380: 356: 350: 329: 320:75.50.173.75 294: 285:Keep deleted 284: 245: 229:User:Raul654 202: 190:indefinitely 179: 174: 94: 87: 76:IronGargoyle 69: 59:22 July 2007 58: 49:2007 July 23 35:2007 July 21 1736:LACameraman 1693:LACameraman 1658:LACameraman 1609:LACameraman 1568:LACameraman 1498:LACameraman 1263:Frank Black 1251:Tanya Haden 1243:Nick Lucero 1027:Pataphysics 975:pataphysics 919:pataphysics 2979:User:MONGO 2889:User:MONGO 1279:Jchristie7 1267:The Pixies 1112:Paul Avion 1076:Paul Avion 1041:Some thing 980:Some thing 923:Some thing 611:Jchristie7 607:Canvassing 216:Jchristie7 2645:TV_Fakery 2600:TV_Fakery 2563:decision. 1973:Yes, but 1915:The Hindu 1037:talk page 44:2007 July 3086:possible 2474:Otto4711 2453:Theremin 2404:theremin 2200:Overturn 1979:Article2 1975:Article1 1962:contribs 1950:unsigned 1928:Overturn 1217:WP:Music 1213:WP:Music 1182:WP:MUSIC 988:Overturn 768:Overturn 713:Tony Fox 621:contribs 203:Undelete 107:Pataphor 71:Pataphor 20:‎ | 3082:Endorse 3066:Endorse 2691:restore 2662:protect 2657:history 2565:JoshuaZ 2518:Jaranda 2361:restore 2332:protect 2327:history 2187:Endorse 2148:restore 2127:history 2015:JoshuaZ 2003:Caknuck 1983:WP:NOTE 1954:Stephen 1942:Comment 1932:Jaranda 1891:restore 1862:protect 1857:history 1731:Restore 1707:We know 1654:Restore 1623:Restore 1591:Heather 1560:W.marsh 1542:W.marsh 1524:W.marsh 1515:Heather 1473:restore 1444:protect 1439:history 1347:Comment 1325:Terrymr 1298:Jaranda 1222:ANY ONE 1201:Comment 1158:restore 1129:protect 1124:history 914:comment 856:Jaranda 792:Jaranda 744:Jaranda 720:review? 693:Endorse 667:Jaranda 633:Comment 552:Comment 491:Jaranda 453:WP:NOTE 381:against 351:Comment 233:Jaranda 153:restore 124:protect 119:history 3098:Relist 3090:Geogre 3034:WP:NEO 2666:delete 2532:Geogre 2515:Delete 2336:delete 2023:relist 2011:relist 1998:Relist 1866:delete 1448:delete 1353:ExpImp 1339:ugen64 1249:, and 1133:delete 996:DS1953 992:delete 897:ExpImp 734:ExpImp 717:(arf!) 709:WP:NOT 697:Geogre 685:ugen64 638:ExpImp 289:WP:DRV 268:ExpImp 208:WP:NEO 128:delete 3058:Babya 3045:Corpx 2917:Corpx 2800:Help! 2751:Corpx 2735:desat 2698:cache 2683:views 2675:watch 2671:links 2487:Corpx 2415:Help! 2400:don't 2368:cache 2353:views 2345:watch 2341:links 2284:Xoloz 2155:cache 2135:watch 2131:links 1986:Corpx 1919:Corpx 1898:cache 1883:views 1875:watch 1871:links 1764:stuff 1740:Paxse 1675:Xoloz 1671:WP:OR 1556:merge 1480:cache 1465:views 1457:watch 1453:links 1193:Drhtl 1165:cache 1150:views 1142:watch 1138:links 1081:Xoloz 649:Corpx 625:Corpx 558:Giggy 544:Corpx 461:Corpx 405:Corpx 357:Giggy 295:Giggy 246:Giggy 194:Corpx 184:Drhtl 160:cache 145:views 137:watch 133:links 52:: --> 16:< 3108:talk 3071:Will 2731:Core 2679:logs 2653:talk 2649:edit 2613:Desk 2609:Talk 2605:ST47 2513:and 2500:Will 2458:Deor 2389:Deor 2349:logs 2323:talk 2319:edit 2243:Will 2139:logs 2123:talk 2119:edit 2082:Desk 2078:Talk 2074:ST47 2033:talk 1958:talk 1879:logs 1853:talk 1849:edit 1813:Desk 1809:Talk 1805:ST47 1762:and 1760:Rawr 1722:talk 1641:talk 1552:keep 1540:. -- 1511:this 1461:logs 1435:talk 1431:edit 1180:SEE 1146:logs 1120:talk 1116:edit 1017:talk 1011:Tvoz 948:talk 942:Tvoz 886:talk 880:Tvoz 852:WP:V 848:WP:V 824:talk 818:Tvoz 807:read 779:talk 729:Keep 615:talk 586:talk 580:Tvoz 513:talk 507:Tvoz 479:talk 473:Tvoz 426:talk 420:Tvoz 392:talk 386:Tvoz 342:talk 336:Tvoz 212:WP:V 210:and 141:logs 115:talk 111:edit 32:< 3103:DGG 2938:bli 2794:Guy 2775:bli 2705:AfD 2551:ʏɑɴ 2546:ɑʀк 2437:bli 2409:Guy 2375:AfD 2162:IfD 2028:DGG 1905:AfD 1713:Dei 1684:NOT 1636:DGG 1554:or 1536:or 1487:AfD 1273:of 1265:of 1227:#6 1209:one 1205:two 1184:#6 1172:AfD 774:DGG 330:one 167:AfD 22:Log 3110:) 2941:nd 2935:ar 2932:St 2929:- 2876:13 2873:Sr 2778:nd 2772:ar 2769:St 2766:- 2681:| 2677:| 2673:| 2669:| 2664:| 2660:| 2655:| 2651:| 2440:nd 2434:ar 2431:St 2428:- 2406:. 2351:| 2347:| 2343:| 2339:| 2334:| 2330:| 2325:| 2321:| 2226:is 2137:| 2133:| 2129:| 2125:| 2121:| 2035:) 1977:, 1964:) 1960:• 1881:| 1877:| 1873:| 1869:| 1864:| 1860:| 1855:| 1851:| 1766:) 1643:) 1463:| 1459:| 1455:| 1451:| 1446:| 1442:| 1437:| 1433:| 1241:, 1215:! 1148:| 1144:| 1140:| 1136:| 1131:| 1127:| 1122:| 1118:| 812:no 781:) 538:- 143:| 139:| 135:| 131:| 126:| 122:| 117:| 113:| 42:: 3106:( 2802:) 2798:( 2708:) 2702:| 2694:| 2688:( 2685:) 2647:( 2611:· 2417:) 2413:( 2378:) 2372:| 2364:| 2358:( 2355:) 2317:( 2165:) 2159:| 2151:| 2145:( 2141:) 2117:( 2080:· 2031:( 1956:( 1908:) 1902:| 1894:| 1888:( 1885:) 1847:( 1811:· 1758:( 1716:z 1639:( 1490:) 1484:| 1476:| 1470:( 1467:) 1429:( 1231:" 1175:) 1169:| 1161:| 1155:( 1152:) 1114:( 1014:| 945:| 883:| 821:| 777:( 618:· 613:( 583:| 570:P 565:U 510:| 476:| 423:| 389:| 369:P 364:U 339:| 307:P 302:U 258:P 253:U 170:) 164:| 156:| 150:( 147:) 109:(

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 22 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index