Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2007 July 23

180:

sockpuppet, because I do try and write articles on various subjects. I wrote many Israeli atricles and I put time and effort into this one, and I want the deletion to be recosidered because if I referenced to articles about this subject it is notable according to the Knowledge (XXG) rules. According to WP:CORP, bwitty has been the subject of secondary sources. And those sources are the biggest newspapers in Israel, you can't get more reliable, and independent of the subject. It's not Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject. I saw a few more in-print articles, and I'm quite sure I saw something on the TV at the time. But, I can only reference to what I have online.

1559:

the articles, as the content can be userfied rather than left in article space until such time as the editors have time to bring it into compliance. The only other argument for keeping the articles, that the articles are part of an overall approach to the series and that having the massive plot articles is better than having individual articles on every episode of the soap opera, not only puts forth a dilemma that doesn't exist (there does not appear to be any interest in writing individual articles for each episode) and ignores the black and white statement of

74:– Closed early so that this page can be protected to eliminate a chronic vandalism problem that will plague it all week. In this case, I've moved the page to the nominator's userspace. It is not necessarily the case that no good article can be written on this topic, but it is clearly the case that the existing article was too much of an advertisement. The nominator should be free to make an attempt to create a better version of the article, and has volunteered to do so, making this an uncontentious issue that can safely be closed. 463:. The latter, it the best important example, every Israeli that had a computer before the Pentium age knows what QText is, but no English speaking person will have any clue. And it QText is not notable, nothing is. Still, I can't find you articles about QText in English. Give me some credit, that I won't refer you to an article in a language you don't speak and tell you it's about something it's not. Look at the pictures in the article, they are from the bWitty wesbite. 227:"Corporate promotion", was the reason given in the deletion log for the final deletion (the only deletion under this exact spelling) which occurred after your edits. The deleting admin apparently thought it applied to the version resulting from your edits, and looking at that version, I can't say this was grossly wrong. Note that there is currently no prohibition on recreation, and as far as I can see, no DRV is required for such a recreation. 1438:, and come to the defensible conclusion that it is not useful to apply that standard to such a long-running show that does not currently (and probably shouldn't) have articles on every episode. I remain agnostic on whether this was the appropriate conclusion, but it is not an indefensible conclusion, and it is outside the remit of this page to wield a single line of 1187:, of which about 115 or so seem to be related to the show or its movies (GK apparently means "special forces" in Malay, so there's an army unit and some other entities). These hits describe GK as popular, a hit, a blockbuster, etc. If these claims of popularity can be debunked, it should be at an AfD; the subject passes the A7 threshold. So, 3503:

about this site can succeed. I don't want to descend to personalities, but you do need to distinguish between opponents and principled supporters. I now plan wait in making any further comments until I see a plausible draft article, or at least new any plausible source citations. Do whatever you please about the matter.

3321:

an article is not possible at this time. I'd also want ArbCom to clarify whether the Mongo ruling implies that such an article shouldn't exist or not. I think it does. In any case, definitely endorse deletion, no article possible at this time due to lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources.

2629:

You undelete this, and there will be an edit war like you would not believe. There should NOT be an article about these slugs until they remove all of the nasty pages about Knowledge (XXG) editors. Nathandotcom, MONGO, Zoe, I don't know how many editors, have attack pages there. We should not even

2036:

no where mentioned or implied in the deletion log. But in the first place, A7 doesn't apply to albums; in the second, "Tiga has been praised by critics by using his mixing skills in this compilation" would be an assertion of significance if A7 did apply; in the third place, the link to the apparently

1273:

wikipedia, you will get around 400 hits. In theory, then, "gerak khas" movie should give around 1400 hits. In fact, you get around 10,000. If you search for "gerak khas" movie OR television, you should be guaranteed more hits than searching for movie alone, but in fact the number shrinks to 900 hits.

388:

if you feel it may have been unjustly neglected. I can't tell if the first and second articles were the same (BW versus Bw) because I can't see the first one; however the version now at answers.com does not seem to have third-party references that establish notability. The logs show that one spelling

322:

I think it was fixable, so deleting it by speedy to abort an afd was out of order. Deletion was requested as A7, tho it clearly did claim notability. However, it was deleted using A11 , saying "corporate promotion," but g11 is for corporate promotion that can not be reasonably turned into an article.

3476:

is highly notable, but that does not make the many introductory physics sites that discuss it notable. In this case, given the history, you are going to need an iron-clad case to have a chance. Sources need not "focus entirely" on ED, but they will, IMO, need to devote significant attention directly

3320:

I had this closed almost immediately, but it looks like it's been re-opened. Given the extremely bad history here, i think we'd need to see a working draft of what a well-referenced article on this topic would look like before further discussion is appropriate. Per analysis of the "sources", such

2831:

That's an argument to mention or note it in the Fortuny article, not to write an article about ED. (I would incidentally support a mention in the Fortuny article). Also a bit of advice: accusing people of bias is not going to make anyone more inclined to agree with you. If anything it will cause the

2027:

as spam. It is basically a factual (or allegedly factual I haven't verified) description of an album, with the only possible puffery being a mention that critics have praised aspects of it. But that is just the kind of "reaction" info we often ask for in articles about creative works such as albums,

3462:

CNN mentioned "Jews did WTC", that's an internet meme very commonly referred to on ED. I can write a reliable, well-sourced article even using the above references. The Uncyclopedia article isn't completely sourced from places focusing entirely on it. Basically, the above sources all seem reliable.

2667:

to be there to make constructive criticism of Knowledge (XXG). ED is strictly there to hurt people's feelings, to cause trouble, and to get reactions out of people. There is no redeeming social value for ED whatsoever. And if it quacks like a slug, smells like a slug, and leaves a trail of slime

217:

It's possible it needs to be modified, but I can fix it instead of deleting the article. The "Corporate promotion" claim was made before I created the article, it was once deleted (I didn't create the original one) and I re-create it with new information because I think it is notable, it was one of

3502:

blanket or automatic bans on links to sites, much less article about sites, But for any web site there ought to be more than sources that "mention" it, and in this specific case, given the attack-page issue, if notability is not incontestably established, there is no way an argument for an article

3450:

coverage, sources that actually discuss the ED site, not merely mention it in passing, or mention online events that were referred to on the site, or online acts by people who also edit the site. If a draft citing in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources is really created, I'll argue for its

2912:

per JoshuaZ, most media coverage consists of the media having been trolled, or passing mentions (it has been established that the MSNBC segment was not about ED itself). Nothing has changed since the last several times this was put on DRV; it's yet another user claiming that sources exist, but not

2854:

Ratherduarm just sent me an e-mail saying this was put on DRV by someone else with "duarm" in their name...anyway, I know many sources for this, all the newspapers and notable blogs (such as Wired or MSNBC news) would count. The Fortuny thing can be sourced, and the site seems overall notable. I'm

2485:

Google News has no hits. I just browsed through the first 100 hist (of about 850) on a basic google search for "Encyclopædia Dramatica -Knowledge (XXG)" and found lots of blogs, lots of Digg entries, lots of Wordpress and livejournal entries, one Conservopedia, a few other open wikis. Nothing that

1602:

as closing admin. I agree on the merits with Otto, but do not think a "delete" close would have been acceptable here. AfD closers generally only override consensus when the core policies V, NPOV and NOR are violated, because these policies are not subject to amendment by consensus. This is not the

1558:

with the only argument saving it being that the article would be brought into compliance with policy. This editing didn't happen and in fact no editing happened on the article at all. The "we didn't have enough time" and the "we need the articles to write better articles" arguments should not save

418:

the biggest Israeli news website. What's more notable than that? Regarding Alexa, their way of measuring popularity is disputed, just lately Nilsen NetRatings changed their system of measuring websites popularity to time spent in page instead of views. Alexa measures US traffic mostly, I think the

257:

Up to you, but you may not get support for overturning the deletion. (Indeed so far no one has supported doing so.) Note that I have offered to userfy -- that is, to place a copy of the article as it was just prior to deletion (with all its history) in your userspace, for you to use as a basis for

2942:

I think I could write a good article about this with sixteen reliable sources. If we wrote an article about it, it would include something about Jason Fortuny, and that part could be easily sourced. For now, we should allow a new article, an over time, we'll try to develp an article from the many

1720:

This is not the place to make policy. There's obvious disagreement on the matter, and the place to debate it is at Afd, and that was done. If someone thinks that all plot articles should be deleted, this is not the place to show it. If someone thinks it is not being improved, the place to discuss

1634:

The matter is not quite as well settled as Otto says, as the opinion in disagreement on the AfD make evident. Nor has the "overall content argument" been decisively rejected -- there were other arguments in each case, and, in each case, the final decision was not overwhelming. But he does say ,

2399:

Note that this was closed by Starblind and then reopened by Duarm. I recommend speedy reclosing since the NYT article was a Knowledge (XXG) article that mentioned ED in passing as an example of a Knowledge (XXG)-attack site. Duarm is a self-described "ED troll" who is very close to being banned.

1666:

As an aside, assuming that the closure is endorsed, is there some sort of timeframe where, if and when these articles are not improved, the "we need more time" arguments will be discounted? I, obviously, would have thought that a month with no activity would have been enough but apparently not.

303:

are often raised. if you accept userfication I'll be glad to assit you. on the other hand, if this discussion procedes and the article is undelted, it is likely to be listed on Afd fairly propmptly, and it will then be important to fix any problems durign the 5-day course of the Afd discussion.

194:

spam. And the article in the last version before deletion does have rather an advertising flyer tone. Phrases such as "bWitty Notes, allow users to create...", "Notes are saved online, thus allowing users to access them everywhere with Internet access.", "bWitty is compatible with all major web

1992:

Corvus cornix, read the discussion on Phillippe's talk page where he states that he deleted it because of notability concerns. My initial assumption was that he deleted it because of spam, but apparently that wasn't the case. You can call that tag a "reason" if you want, but it's not why the

179:

As explained in the discussion in my talk page, the article is notable and I did referenced more than just websites, I referenced two leading newspapers and media sites that wrote articles ABOUT BWITTY and not just mentioned bwitty. I think it should be recosidered. I don't like being called a

3421:

Speaking only for myself, that certainly would help. However, please note that the sources already presented have been shown to be unacceptable for various reasons (see above): unless you have others that actually support an article, don't bother. If you get stuck or need help, I'm open to

3303:

prohibit an article on this topic. It prohibits links to the site. If the topic is truly notable, then we can have an article on it without using it as a reference or linking to it at all. The best evidence for that would be a well sourced draft in userspace - none of those is presented.

1538: 1070:– Closed early so that page can be fully protected to deal with vandalism. Closed as an undelete - article, whatever its failures may have been, clearly had both context and an assertion of notability. It's a stub, and needs expansion and sources, but it's not an A7 by any definition of A7. 2461:, I made it weak because I'd be called a troll/sock if I didn't. Anyway, The Guardian, The Washington Post, Toronto Sun, Ottawa Sun, MSNBC, Spiegal, La Press Affairs and the New York Times are enough sources to make something notable, even if they are just mentions: that is as many as 393:'s name appears in the log because he deleted a redirect. I filled in the AfD pointer in the DRV header above to point to the 'BWitty' AfD since I don't perceive the criticisms raised there have been answered. If you think the articles are substantively different, you can undo this. 1659:(which actually had work done on it unlike this one), that has survived AFD? Every instance has resulted in either deletion or merger; none but these have survived. Has the overall context argument ever been accepted, or any other AFD in which it has been advanced, closed with a 3222:

The linking matter is irrelevant. whether or not something is an attack site which we cannot link to should not be relevant to whether we can write an article about it. Indeed, if something is notable we should be able to write an article about it without linking to it at all.

3136:

the sources brought forth are sufficient to justify a discussion. this is not the place to argue about the sufficiency of sources, let alone accuracy of translation. AfD is. all we need do is eee if there s enough of a case to warrant sending it there, and there clearly is.

2889:

while their slimey tactics writing about admins here are deplorable (they skewered me too), they have received significant media coverage since the last time this was broached at DRV. As much as I hate to say it, I think they have some merit basis for an article now.

2376:

I admit this wasn't notable a year ago, but it is now, and it is easy to cite sources for it as well. It's been a year, and now it's been on MSNBC News. Infact, everyone I know on the internet has heard of it. It's even been in a New York Times article recently.

1495: 1490: 441:

at answers.com which indicates that the subject is notable. Simply being an ISP isn't notable by itself. Offering a sticky note application isn't notable if no third party has commented on its signficance, especially if its user base is completely unknown.

2690:. Mind you, i don't expect to see the kind of clear-cut evidence of notability that wotuld warrent an articel, based on what I have found so far. But if it is out there, adn is cited, then i think we ought to have an article, attack pages or not. But only 1499: 2954:

Lets examine the suggested sources for ED (I include all the non-blog sources that I have been pointed to in the debate above, unless I have missed one when the link was to an entire archive page. If there are others, lets see the exact cites, please):

1663:? Because I'm not seeing it. I'm not sure how you can suggest that the argument against plot summary articles hasn't been settled when every other unimproved plot summary article has ended with a deletion (or in a single instance, a questionable merge). 3640:

without clear-cut evidence of solid notability, significantly better than what has been presented to date. But do not prevent the creation of a draft in userspace, if anyone wishes to try to create a well-sourced article, and do not prevent discussion

1524: 1482: 3091:-DESiegel must not have looked carefully. The Spiegel and La Press Affaires articles do mention ED, and are definitely relibale sources. Seven newspapers and one TV news station, all of which are reliable, seem good enough to make this notable. 937:

really applied either. But this is so clearly non-notable and non-encyclopedic that in this rare case I have to say that restoring this would truly be an exercise in pointless process. However, I very much wish that the deleting admin had used

3181:. All sources cited contain trivial mentions only or the links are dead. Until there is non-trival coverage in reliable sources that can be used to demonstrate the notability of "Encyclopædia Dramatica", this article should remain deleted. 3208:

A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Knowledge (XXG) participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Knowledge (XXG) pages under any

1175:

This was originally tagged as an A1 (lacking context). After I mentioned it in a discussion as an example of an over-hasty tagging, ugen64 looked at the article and deleted it under A7. However, I certainly see the article's claim to be a

3356:

Everybody -- MONGO, ED users, and everyone else who has an opinion on the matter -- is invited to add their input to Knowledge (XXG) debates and discussions, as long as they stay civil and obey our policies and guidelines while doing so.

1588:

is not overcome by the possibility of editing (which is not being done). The necessary work was not done to save the articles, the policy concerns override the majority and the keep arguments do not answer the blatant policy violations.

1563:

which specifies that a plot summary may be appropriate as part of an overview of the work but not as a separate article. The "overall approach" argument has been soundly rejected for separate plot summary articles for everything from

3213:. Knowledge (XXG) is not in the business of aiding and abetting those have edited a website of very circumspect notability and enagages in harassment of our editors. Speedy close this effort as it was started by a banned editor.-- 436:

Please let us know if you have found any reliable sources that comment on Bwitty in English. The ynet.co.il reference is in Hebrew, so I can't tell whether it's a passing mention or a full treatment. Also there's nothing in

1565: 294:

if any editor thinks that it ought to be deleted, even if it has bene kept previously. There a discussion is normally held, to determine whether the aricle will be delted or not. in that discussion, issues such as the

3488:

Isn't eight major news publications, all of which mention ED (except the Washington Poat one, which still refers to it and is a reliable source) enough for you? Why do you have such a grudge? My scrotum is itching.

3245:. A few trivial passing mentions do not instantly convey notability upon ED; combined with the ArbCom ruling which strongly denounces ED-related content, the issue should not be revisited at this moment in time. 1555: 2581:. But given the history, i am not talking about marginal or trivial mentions. If I see in-depth coverage from multiple major media sources, then I think an article would be warranted. i haven't seem them yet. 2604:

I think one specific link, whcih i cited, is trival coverage. i think that if there is non-trivial coverage in clearly reliabel sources, no-one has linked to it in this discussion yet, and i haven't seen it.

195:

browsers", "WittySearch featured a new complex system of search" evoke the marketer, not the encyclopedist, IMO. Thus it was not unreasonable to delete this as spam, no matter how many references there were.

3304:

Alternatively, good sourcing could be presented. DES has done a persuasive analysis of the evidence presented to date, and it is not adequate to write a verifiable article. Keep deleted until there are

1580:

but also stated that editing could take care of policy concerns. I strongly disagree and, given that the strongest advocate of keeping the articles is not editing the existing articles but is instead

1635:

correctly, that there has been an inconsistency in the results of AfD. This issue needs a wider discussion. Everything considered, the close was as appropriate as the closes in the other direction.

854:

I would like to see this page replaced. This quote has become popular in New Berlin, WI and around Milwaukee, WI. If this page does not deserve to be replaced, I believe it should be added to the

3167:

Arbcom has prohibited links to ED. There is no prohibition on an article on the topic. In fact, such a statement was discussed in the workshop and the ArbCom decided not to make such a deicision.

1573: 3472:

Please remember, a notable Internet meme may well be commented on or embraced by lots of non-notable people or sites. if CNN did not actually mention ED, it is not of value as a source here. The

1569: 1942:

it seems that he deleted it because he felt it wasn't notable or didn't assert notability, but this isn't a valid reason to delete an article about a music album; csd a7 doesn't cover albums.

1299: 365: 2186:

I can't see why this was deleted. There's no explanation in the deletion log, I can't find an AFD, and the deleting admin has retired. What little of its content I can see looks legit.

3451:

place in article space. I'll believe such a draft when i see it, though. I'll be quite willing to comment on incomplete versions of such a draft, and provide suggestions, if I am asked.

323:

The afd should have been permitted to proceed. The matter seems to have been arguable, so it should have been argued. This is not the place to make decisions about notability. AfD is. '

1829:. The article is clearly not an A11 - the artist is definitely notable, and it is not obviously clear that this should be deleted, making it an inappropriate speedy, if nothing else. 240:

So you suggest I recreate the page? I rather feel that the deletion should be undone and then I'll fix the problems with the article. Otherwise, it's kinda useless to create it now.

451:

I am sorry, but I don't have English translated articles. On the other hand, most articles about Israeli issues (people & etc.) don't have English backing for them. You can see

2809:

No, a mention by itself is not. n mentions for large n is not enough. We need multiple, non-trivial reliable sources. Otherwise we will not be able to write much without doing

2517:

No luck with the sugested search or any of several varients. no luck with a google search limited to the MSNBC site. No significant relable sources found or provided to date.

273:

If you "userfy" this article, and I rewrite it and post it again, why would it now be deleted all over again? Would you mind helping me fixing the article so it will be fit?

2993:

Reliable source, but mentions ED only indirectly via a link, the site name is not so much as used, and the article is not about the site in any way. Coverage is sub-trivial.

1340:

if the matter needs argument, Afd is the place to do so. Speedy is only for incontestable deletions. ugen64 may be right, but Afd is where he should be making the argument.

1550:- yes, it is true that more people wanted the articles kept than deleted. However, AFD is not a vote. The arguments offered by the keepers do not address the cut-and-dried 2822:

Isn't the Jason Fortuny case notable? It's mentioned in enough notable places to make an article about ED easy to provide sources for. I wonde rwhy everyone is so biased.

959:

Hardly. The sockpuppeteer/vandal (whose two accounts have now been blocked) would just have removed the prod tag, and then we'd be stuck with this crap for five days.

1925: 1294:

The reason why "Gerak Khas" Knowledge (XXG) gets a lot of hits is because there are other references to "Gerak Khas" on Knowledge (XXG) and related pages (for example,

2444:

the site, then I'll change my opinion. But you can't, because such a reliable source does not exist. I tried really hard to find one 7 renominations ago. No success. -

1215:

It passes A7, for one thing, there is no provision to use A7 for movie series (or other creative works). Whether or not the series is notable is a question for AfD.

3545:

Luckily it's not a vote. And doubly lucky that you aren't the person determining consensus. But the AfD followed process and there is no reason to overturn it. --

2367: 384:. As someone pointed out in the 2nd AfD, BWitty gets less than one hit per day on Alexa; there are about 7 million web sites that are more popular. Take a look at 3042: 2324: 2319: 1166: 48: 34: 3053:

Story is in French. Appears to be a reliable source. Based on my (limited) knowledge of french, backed by machine no mention of ED by name, and no link to ED.

2387:

In this particualr case, can you give us some of the citations that you think establish notability? given the history here, this is going to be a tough case.

1486: 3347:

I've been trying to set up a working draft. Also, MONGO shouldn't be allowed to vote, and neither should hardcore EDers (I only edit that site occasionally)

2328: 2855:

not going to be like my friend Ratherduarm and respond to Corvus cornix, he wants to keep it deleted so that WP can be a charity case, not an encyclopedia.

2577:

If sources can be cited that unquestionably establish notability, i think the arbcom ruling would be obsolete, and i would be willing to create an article

1478: 1426: 2353: 2311: 43: 2559:

This is not going to get undeleted without prior approval from the ArbCom, so there's no point in even continuing this discussion until such a time.

357: 170: 2032:"I deleted it because I saw no notability in the article. It appears to be one article by an artist with no assertion of notability." That would be 258:

creating a more acceptable article, which could then be moved back into the article space. Still want to push for overturning the deletion first?

3400:

I see no reliable sources. No reason to create this article again unless there are reliable sources that do more than mention ED in passing.

2686:

You say "We should not even be discussing this." I don't see that there is any potential article that ought to be off-limits for discussion.

2506:

Not obviously. I don't think it unreasonable, particularly in this case, to ask those suggeting undeletion to provide direct links or cites.

1238:

says it had at least an assertion of significance, plus A7 simply soent' apply to TV sereis, movies, books, or other such creatice content.

2497:

Look up "encyclopedia dramatica-youtube" or something, that has a mirror of theMSNBC mention. Eight mentions worldwide seems notable to me.

715: 672: 667: 39: 3585: 2177: 676: 741:

applied, as the page is perfectly readable, and not gibberish. However, the page unambiguously does not belong in the encyclopedia.

1882: 1877: 1260:

on AFD where it will probably fail (for example a search for "Gerak Khas" movie -wikipedia comes up with less than 1000 Google hits).

828:

Please just restore it. Its not hurting you. I will make it appear nice. I have like 20 people working on it that want it restored.

1886: 1285: 1202: 845: 701: 659: 2134: 2129: 875: 2595:

You think all the mentions in relation to the RF Jason craigslist experiment are trivial? They are definitely reliable sources.

1964:

I don't undertand why you are claiming that there was no reason given in the deletion log, when it clearly says "{{db-spam}}".

21: 3599: 3571: 3110: 2138: 1911: 1869: 514:

already and only one person is arguing that it should now be restored. I cannot resist commenting that I would be surprised if

2745: 2543: 1123: 1118: 2315: 539:

We are not discussing the old article, I would appreciate if you stopped accusing me of stuff (from being a sock puppet to

3382: 3266: 2163: 2121: 1127: 2981: 2584:

is the only mention I found in a reliable source following the links above, and i think it is pretty close to 'trivial".

3446:

If you create such a draft, i for one would be very interested in seeing it. Note that I, at least, will be looking for

1576:

and the argument is no better here. Closing admin, while acknowledging that AFD is not a vote count, still did a bit of

1373:, the article asserted notability, even if it wouldn't appear to be much. A7 if for where there is no assertion at all. 921:

What nonsense - what do you know about the saying "Get in the truck"? Let people use this site the way it was intended.

3678: 2290: 2244: 2100: 2062: 1848: 1800: 1461: 1405: 1089: 1045: 638: 584: 568: 93: 17: 1152: 1110: 510:. As has been pointed out above, Alexa shows that hardly anyone uses this website. Furthermore, this has been through 2714:

Which has nothing to do with an article, which is the matter at question here. Please stay on topic Corvus cornix. --

1607:. Additionally, the PLOT concerns can conceivably be addressed by merging, which does not require deletion. See also 619: 199:

but with no prejudice against recreation in a more encyclopedic tone, and I'll be happy to userfy if so requested.

127: 122: 2307: 2265: 131: 2547: 543:). I have no connection with the previous articles, and I won't defend them. I can only discuss about my work. 2568:

That has been discussed before-ArbCom does not prohibit an article about it. They don't judge content anyway.

2410:

the sources appear to be trivial, but we do have enough such that a full DRV discussion is not unreasonable.

3579: 1702:- "A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic, but not as a separate article." 156: 114: 863: 833: 663: 2041:

series would at least suggest notability for this element of the series; in the fourth place, the link to

1581: 2971: 2715: 2640: 3661: 3628: 3611: 2474:

Those are surely relaible sources. Could you provide links or at least cites to soem of the references?

1683:

No compelling argument was made in the AfD other than that of overall context and "we need more time".

1281: 1198: 901: 855: 841: 771: 452: 2944: 1623: 974: 3665: 3651: 3632: 3615: 3549: 3540: 3531: 3509: 3493: 3483: 3467: 3457: 3441: 3416: 3407: 3391: 3351: 3340: 3312: 3294: 3275: 3227: 3217: 3192: 3171: 3162: 3148: 3128: 3095: 3081: 3066: 2947: 2935: 2922: 2904: 2877: 2868: 2865: 2859: 2836: 2826: 2823: 2817: 2804: 2801: 2795: 2792: 2786: 2770: 2752: 2749: 2739: 2736: 2718: 2709: 2700: 2681: 2678: 2677:

ED claims to be a parody site. You seem to hate ED more than MONGO does, Corvus, what is your grudge?

2672: 2656: 2653: 2643: 2634: 2620: 2617: 2611: 2599: 2596: 2590: 2572: 2569: 2563: 2554: 2551: 2532: 2529: 2523: 2512: 2501: 2498: 2492: 2480: 2469: 2466: 2453: 2432: 2414: 2393: 2381: 2279: 2231: 2218: 2190: 2089: 2051: 2015: 1997: 1987: 1968: 1959: 1946: 1837: 1787: 1775: 1768:

Is this a new discussion? It isn't advertised on the article(s) themselves, which hardly seems fair.

1758: 1745: 1732: 1710: 1691: 1671: 1646: 1626: 1614: 1593: 1450: 1394: 1380: 1363: 1351: 1332: 1314: 1289: 1269:

This is one of those cases where Google is giving funky results. If you search for "gerak khas" movie

1264: 1244: 1226: 1206: 1078: 1034: 1017: 1005: 1002: 993: 977: 963: 954: 912: 891: 837: 821: 793: 784: 762: 753: 728: 725: 655: 627: 605: 573: 570: 555: 530: 494: 475: 446: 431: 397: 345: 334: 310: 285: 264: 252: 233: 222: 205: 184: 82: 2406:

Since we are having a useful discussion and many sources have been presented, I'm changing simply to

2045:, where it says the artist is "widely known for his remixes" would also at least suggest notability. 1655:

Is there a single AFD for a plot summary article, other than these and its fellow EastEnders article

909: 871: 867: 553: 473: 429: 381: 283: 250: 2199:

You don't want the old version back, it was a one-sentence wonder that got nearly every fact wrong.

3593: 3565: 3211: 3205: 3188: 3104: 3008: 2958: 2917: 2765: 2705:

Making disgusting claims about minors such as Sceptre is not parody. It's character assassination

2582: 1873: 1608: 1577: 1029: 3546: 3528: 3045: 3649: 3575: 3537: 3507: 3490: 3481: 3464: 3455: 3413: 3348: 3289: 3092: 3064: 2998: 2874: 2706: 2698: 2669: 2631: 2609: 2588: 2560: 2521: 2510: 2490: 2478: 2419:

Obvious speedy endorse deletion, no significant new information, blatant trolling by nominator.

2391: 2049: 2012: 1965: 1939: 1834: 1830: 1772: 1447: 1443: 1377: 1360: 1329: 1242: 1075: 1071: 960: 952: 790: 759: 343: 308: 262: 231: 203: 118: 79: 75: 3235: 2913:

presenting them and allowing for them to be checked for their non-triviality and reliability. --

523: 2649: 3374: 3258: 3078: 2898: 2449: 2228: 2187: 2125: 1994: 1943: 3412:

Will you be more likely to restore if I make a working draft using reliable outside sources?

3305: 2270: 1585: 1560: 1551: 1435: 3657: 3624: 3607: 3404: 3026: 1392: 1275: 1192: 519: 419:

Israeli market is invisible to Alexa. And in any case, notably it not a popularity contest.

410:, there you have an article about bwitty that was printed in the Israeli biggest newspaper ( 110: 70: 3358: 3204:

and links to the website back onto Knowledge (XXG) are banned by the arbitration committee.

2687: 2033: 1825:– Closed early to protect this page against vandalism. In this case, the result is a clear 1703: 1684: 1604: 1439: 1185: 986: 934: 808: 746: 742: 738: 540: 515: 291: 191: 2042: 1656: 1295: 1114: 544: 464: 443: 420: 394: 274: 241: 219: 181: 2810: 2758: 2360: 2170: 1918: 1531: 1159: 930: 708: 300: 163: 3589: 3561: 3423: 3322: 3183: 3100: 2914: 2856: 2783: 2762: 2639:

This is an encyclopedia not a charity case, what does that have to do with anything? --

2378: 2200: 1976:

It does not seem to be any more of an advertisement than most sarticles about albums.

1865: 1821: 1742: 1611: 1026: 990: 985:, yes... it wasn't a G1 but there is no chance this would survive an AFD as an obvious 905: 888: 819: 782: 749:

would have been better speedy deletion criteria, even though they are each imperfect.

616: 296: 3646: 3504: 3478: 3452: 3284: 3144: 3061: 2695: 2606: 2585: 2518: 2507: 2487: 2475: 2427: 2421: 2388: 2046: 1983: 1935: 1769: 1755: 1728: 1721:

that is Afd, in a reasonable amount of time after the first afd. I suggest 3 months.

1668: 1642: 1590: 1374: 1357: 1347: 1239: 1222: 949: 942: 609:– deletion endorsed, valid CSD G1/G3; nominator provided no logical DRV rationale. – 490: 390: 340: 330: 305: 259: 228: 200: 2023:

The deletion log would lead one to believe this was deleted as spam - it was surely

3366: 3309: 3250: 3224: 3168: 3158: 3075: 3029: 2891: 2833: 2814: 2462: 2445: 2411: 2401: 2275: 2117: 2086: 1955:- I could see the argument for CSD A7 but I tend to agree with your argument here. 1784: 1688: 750: 3606:. Votestacking is not permitted, so I've struck out CornuSinistru's vote above. — 2345: 2155: 1903: 1516: 1144: 693: 148: 1184:

to be an assertion of notability. Searching Google News Archive turns up 145 hits

3401: 3011: 1956: 1389: 1311: 1261: 1014: 527: 456: 3037:

Story is in German. Based on machine translation, does not appear to mention ED

1298:). Also, you will notice if you go all the way to the end, that there are only 724:

This is a common phrase used in New Berlin, put it back up! It will catch on.

3214: 2984: 2931: 1707: 1106: 1066: 2930:

until these mythical reliable sources are actually produced, per Coredesat. (

3477:

to ED, by name, not by referring to events that are also referred to on ED.

2616:

Request Schmucky to do it. I'm not going to waste my time digging out urls.

1306:

for "Gerak Khas" movie, because the original number of over 10,000 includes

812: 775: 611: 481:

There is absolutely no requirement that supporting references be in English.

2782:

Still no non-trivial sources provided for this to demonstrate notability.--

2757:

All of those sources are either passing mentions (trivial), or unreliable (

1430:– Closed early so that page can be protected. In this case, the result was 3139: 2038: 1978: 1723: 1637: 1342: 1235: 1217: 485: 325: 2748:. You can fidn reliable sources there. As for Corvus, shut the hell up. 483:

It is however reasonable to ask for a translation of the key portions.

411: 356:

There is no lack of a full deletion process. This article went through

1938:

with no reason given in the deletion log. After discussing it on his

973:

per the law of inevitable deletion. Really inevitable in this case. --

190:

This may be notable. It was deleted as "Corporate promotion", that is

3299:

I note, having read it, that the Arbitration Committee decision does

3121: 1554:

policy violations of these articles. The 2000s article was AFDed and

3020:

Reliable source, Link dead, Story now available only for a $ 12 fee

2269:– Non-admin closure: Nominator blocked indefinitely as an ED troll, 1274:

Given this weird behavior, I trust the News Archive results more. --

1479:

Storylines of EastEnders (2000s) (EastEnders storylines nomination)

1427:

Storylines of EastEnders (2000s) (EastEnders storylines nomination)

811:. Article and accompanying personal photo were simple graffiti. 518:

were not at play here in some form. The original deleted entry for

299:

of the topic, and the degree to which this has been established by

218:

my first articles so it might not be perfect, but it can be fixed.

460: 380:. Most recently its notability issues were discussed at length at 2873:

I'm sorry, could you explain what you mean by a "charity case"?

3048: 3032: 3015: 2988: 2528:

It's on YouTube, not the MSNBC site. It's on google video also.

1783:

Fixed. I added an DRV notice to the three affected articles. --

1741:

Please do not vote twice. I've struck your second vote through.

1025:, if not G1 it's G3, wouldn't come close to surviving an AFD. -- 948:

instead -- this sort of thing is exactly what prod is for, IMO.

438: 415: 407: 385: 567:- my gran's facebook profile gets more hits than this website. 1328:, and possibly relist. Yet another abuse of speedy deletion. 3536:

Sorry, you're vote doesn't count. You didn't give a reason.

3003:

Reliabel source, Link dead, story may be available for a fee

522:

appeared at the same time as the obvious vanity article for

2440:, for the 43rd time. If you can provide a reliable source 3283:. Trivial passing mentions don't establish notability. 3120:

Again, unless notability-asserting sources are produced.

2735:

Oy vey, let's quit moving comments over a space for now.

3603: 3238: 2761:). You are cautioned to be civil in this discussion. -- 2341: 2337: 2333: 2151: 2147: 2143: 2029: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1512: 1508: 1504: 1180:

Malaysian television series" that became the basis for

1140: 1136: 1132: 689: 685: 681: 377: 373: 144: 140: 136: 2864:

Sorry, fivebytwo, won't be responding to him anymore.

3027:

Speiegel Online "Vorsicht beim virtuellen Striptease"

807:, agreed that it's not technically G1, but closer to 3498:

I have no grudge here -- I have consistently argued

2648:"These slugs" is a personal attack. Stop. Besides, 3060:In short i see no indepth reliable coverage yet. 929:This was not a proper speedy, it clearly was not 3234:Since it seems other admins and users intend to 2652:has nasty pages about Knowledge (XXG) editors. 1434:. The deletion debate seems to have considered 774:, incubator of cultural phenomenons it seems. 360:as 'BWitty' back in April 2007. It closed as 8: 3645:such a draft is later presented for review. 1750:It hardly seems reasonable to try to cast a 1234:This was not an A1 (it had content), and as 2289:The following is an archived debate of the 2099:The following is an archived debate of the 1847:The following is an archived debate of the 1460:The following is an archived debate of the 1356:You already said that. See above at 18:05. 1088:The following is an archived debate of the 637:The following is an archived debate of the 92:The following is an archived debate of the 2258: 2076: 2028:books, and films. The deleting admin says 1814: 1419: 1252:- A1 has nothing to do with content, just 1059: 789:Ah, that hotbed of cultural renaissance. 598: 526:, which also sounded like an advertorial. 63: 3156:- the subject has been banned by ArbCom. 1388:- clearly A7 is not appropriate here. -- 406:If you look at Answers you see a link to 290:Any article can, at any time, be sent to 2966:Reliable source, but coverage is trivial 2486:looked off-hand like a reliable source. 1754:of policy as an attempt to make policy. 3677:The above is an archived debate of the 2943:reliable sources that have been found. 2800:Has everyone forgotten about this DRV? 2791:Isn't a mention on TV worth something? 2243:The above is an archived debate of the 2061:The above is an archived debate of the 1799:The above is an archived debate of the 1404:The above is an archived debate of the 1044:The above is an archived debate of the 583:The above is an archived debate of the 382:User talk:MyWiseData#Deletion of bWitty 2744:Anyway, look at the links provided at 1622:Sandstein's reasoning makes sense. -- 933:, and i don't think any of the other 368:on 22 July that was speedy closed as 7: 3359:Knowledge (XXG) is not a bureaucracy 389:was moved to the other in May, and 339:Not an unreasonable point of view. 2546:has some. The NYT can be found at 28: 3306:independent and reliable sources 1609:the prior discussion at my talk. 3009:Toronto sun "Emo-tional rescue" 1442:to overturn a deletion debate. 1256:. If you want, this one can be 18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review 3239:my earlier closure of this DRV 2759:blogs are not reliable sources 2746:User talk:Alexjohnc3/Archive 1 2544:User talk:Alexjohnc3/Archive 1 1: 3656:I fully agree with that... — 1700:I opined to delete in the AFD 386:http://www.answers.com/bwitty 3422:discussion on my talk page. 2011:; yet another misuse of A7. 1833:03:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC) – 1446:03:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC) – 1074:03:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC) – 78:03:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC) – 3290:Orwellian Cyber hell master 2972:"You keep using thatr word" 2668:like a slug, it's a slug. 3704: 1582:starting over from scratch 3666:23:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 3652:23:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 3633:22:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 3616:22:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 3550:23:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 3541:22:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 3532:22:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 3527:appropriate deletion. -- 3510:22:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 3494:22:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 3484:21:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 3468:21:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 3458:21:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 3442:21:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 3417:21:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 3408:21:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 3392:22:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 3352:21:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 3341:21:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 3313:20:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 3295:20:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 3276:20:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 3228:20:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 3218:20:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 3193:20:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 3172:20:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 3163:20:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 3149:20:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 3129:20:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 3096:19:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 3082:17:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 3072:Strongly endorse deletion 3067:16:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2948:15:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2936:05:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2923:05:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2905:05:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2878:20:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2869:04:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2860:04:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2837:16:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2827:04:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2818:03:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2805:02:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2796:02:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2787:02:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2771:05:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2753:02:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2740:02:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2719:02:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2710:02:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2701:02:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2682:02:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2673:02:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2657:02:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2644:02:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2635:01:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2621:02:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2612:02:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2600:02:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2591:01:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2573:01:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2564:01:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2555:01:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2533:02:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2524:02:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2513:02:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2502:01:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2493:01:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2481:01:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2470:01:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2454:00:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2433:23:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 2415:20:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2404:23:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 2394:23:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 2382:00:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 2280:01:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 2232:01:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 2219:01:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 2191:01:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 2090:16:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 2052:07:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 2016:06:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1998:21:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1988:18:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1969:16:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1960:05:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1947:05:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1838:03:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 1788:17:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1776:07:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1759:02:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1746:20:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1733:20:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1711:03:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1706:Seems cut and dry to me. 1692:22:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1672:19:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1647:18:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1627:13:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1615:13:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1594:12:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1451:03:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 1395:22:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1381:22:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1364:22:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1352:20:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1333:06:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1315:14:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1290:05:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1265:03:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1245:23:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1227:18:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1207:16:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1079:03:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 1035:05:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1018:03:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1006:02:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 994:02:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 978:01:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 964:23:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 955:23:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 913:19:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 892:19:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 887:per GRBerry and Kuru. -- 822:19:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 794:20:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 785:18:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 763:18:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 754:17:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 729:17:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 628:06:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 574:18:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 556:20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 531:18:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 495:21:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 476:14:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 447:14:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 432:10:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 398:03:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 346:21:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 335:20:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 311:21:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 286:19:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 265:18:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 253:18:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 234:17:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 223:17:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 206:15:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 185:15:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 83:03:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 3684:Please do not modify it. 3308:to support an article. 2999:Ottowa sun "Finding Emo" 2548:User talk:SchmuckyTheCat 2296:Please do not modify it. 2250:Please do not modify it. 2106:Please do not modify it. 2068:Please do not modify it. 1974:Overturn and list at AfD 1854:Please do not modify it. 1806:Please do not modify it. 1584:, the policy concern of 1566:Buffy the Vampire Slayer 1467:Please do not modify it. 1411:Please do not modify it. 1095:Please do not modify it. 1051:Please do not modify it. 935:speedy deletion criteria 927:I want to oppose, but... 644:Please do not modify it. 590:Please do not modify it. 320:overturn and list at afd 99:Please do not modify it. 40:Deletion review archives 3202:outting and attack site 2982:Wadhiongton Post online 2227:All right, thank you.-- 900:Can it be added to the 758:What is "New Berlin"? 439:the text of the article 364:. It just went through 3681:of the article above. 2976:Blog, coverage trivial 2579:under those conditions 2308:Encyclopædia Dramatica 2293:of the article above. 2266:Encyclopædia Dramatica 2247:of the article above. 2103:of the article above. 2085:– request withdrawn – 2065:of the article above. 1993:article was deleted.-- 1851:of the article above. 1803:of the article above. 1464:of the article above. 1408:of the article above. 1092:of the article above. 1048:of the article above. 641:of the article above. 587:of the article above. 512:two deletion processes 96:of the article above. 2910:Strongly keep deleted 2630:be discussing this. 902:New Berlin, Wisconsin 856:New Berlin, Wisconsin 772:New Berlin, Wisconsin 453:Galila Ron-Feder Amit 3200:Of course. ED is an 2661:Wikitruth at least 1697:Overturn and delete 1681:Overturn and delete 1556:closed no consensus 1548:Overturn and delete 3154:COI speedy endorse 3043:la presse affaires 2832:opposite in fact. 614: 3691: 3690: 3621:Endorese deletion 3293: 3114: 2960:Observer Magazine 2811:original research 2452: 2431: 2257: 2256: 2075: 2074: 1813: 1812: 1701: 1418: 1417: 1058: 1057: 880: 866:comment added by 850: 836:comment added by 612: 597: 596: 354:Endorse deletion. 3695: 3686: 3525:Endorse Deletion 3439: 3436: 3433: 3430: 3389: 3385: 3381: 3377: 3373: 3369: 3365: 3338: 3335: 3332: 3329: 3287: 3281:Endorse deletion 3273: 3269: 3265: 3261: 3257: 3253: 3249: 3243:endorse deletion 3198:Endorse deletion 3191: 3179:Endorse deletion 3126: 3118:Endorse Deletion 3098: 2928:Endorse deletion 2920: 2903: 2896: 2852:Overturn per nom 2780:Endorse deletion 2768: 2448: 2425: 2363: 2349: 2331: 2298: 2259: 2252: 2216: 2213: 2210: 2207: 2173: 2159: 2141: 2108: 2077: 2070: 1921: 1907: 1889: 1856: 1815: 1808: 1699: 1534: 1520: 1502: 1469: 1420: 1413: 1288: 1278: 1205: 1195: 1162: 1148: 1130: 1097: 1060: 1053: 1032: 1023:Endorse deletion 1013:- common sense. 1011:Endorse deletion 999:Endorse deletion 983:Endorse deletion 947: 941: 879: 860: 849: 830: 817: 780: 737:I disagree that 711: 697: 679: 656:Get_in_the_truck 646: 626: 606:Get_in_the_truck 599: 592: 565:Endorse deletion 549: 508:Endorse deletion 469: 425: 301:Reliable sources 279: 246: 166: 152: 134: 101: 64: 53: 33: 3703: 3702: 3698: 3697: 3696: 3694: 3693: 3692: 3682: 3679:deletion review 3638:Do not undelete 3437: 3434: 3431: 3428: 3387: 3383: 3379: 3375: 3371: 3367: 3363: 3336: 3333: 3330: 3327: 3318:Endorse deleton 3271: 3267: 3263: 3259: 3255: 3251: 3247: 3182: 3125: 3122: 2963:] June 5, 2005 2918: 2901: 2892: 2766: 2688:WP:NOT#CENSORED 2408:endorse closure 2372: 2366: 2359: 2358: 2352: 2322: 2306: 2294: 2291:deletion review 2248: 2245:deletion review 2214: 2211: 2208: 2205: 2182: 2176: 2169: 2168: 2162: 2132: 2116: 2104: 2101:deletion review 2066: 2063:deletion review 2043:Tiga (musician) 2021:Strong Overturn 1930: 1924: 1917: 1916: 1910: 1880: 1864: 1852: 1849:deletion review 1804: 1801:deletion review 1574:All My Children 1543: 1537: 1530: 1529: 1523: 1493: 1477: 1465: 1462:deletion review 1409: 1406:deletion review 1296:Grup Gerak Khas 1280: 1276: 1197: 1193: 1171: 1165: 1158: 1157: 1151: 1121: 1105: 1093: 1090:deletion review 1049: 1046:deletion review 1030: 945: 939: 931:Patent Nonsense 861: 831: 813: 776: 720: 714: 707: 706: 700: 670: 654: 642: 639:deletion review 624: 610: 588: 585:deletion review 547: 467: 423: 277: 244: 175: 169: 162: 161: 155: 125: 109: 97: 94:deletion review 62: 55: 54: 51: 46: 37: 31: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 3701: 3699: 3689: 3688: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3635: 3618: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3474:Law of Gravity 3444: 3424:Andrew Lenahan 3410: 3397: 3396: 3395: 3394: 3344: 3343: 3323:Andrew Lenahan 3315: 3297: 3278: 3241:, I'll simply 3232: 3231: 3230: 3209:circumstances. 3195: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3151: 3131: 3123: 3115: 3084: 3074:per Cordesat. 3069: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3006: 3005: 3004: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2951: 2950: 2939: 2938: 2925: 2907: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2871: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2742: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2716:MichaelLinnear 2712: 2703: 2684: 2646: 2641:MichaelLinnear 2627: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2575: 2557: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2515: 2456: 2438:Speedy endorse 2435: 2417: 2396: 2374: 2373: 2370: 2364: 2356: 2350: 2301: 2300: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2255: 2254: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2222: 2221: 2201:Andrew Lenahan 2184: 2183: 2180: 2174: 2166: 2160: 2111: 2110: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2073: 2072: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2018: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1971: 1962: 1932: 1931: 1928: 1922: 1914: 1908: 1866:DJ-Kicks: Tiga 1859: 1858: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1822:DJ-Kicks: Tiga 1811: 1810: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1748: 1736: 1735: 1713: 1694: 1687:is policy. -- 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1664: 1657:Who Shot Phil? 1650: 1649: 1629: 1617: 1570:Les Miserables 1545: 1544: 1541: 1535: 1527: 1521: 1472: 1471: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1416: 1415: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1383: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1335: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1229: 1173: 1172: 1169: 1163: 1155: 1149: 1100: 1099: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1056: 1055: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1020: 1008: 996: 980: 968: 967: 966: 918: 917: 916: 915: 895: 894: 825: 824: 801: 800: 799: 798: 797: 796: 766: 765: 756: 722: 721: 718: 712: 704: 698: 649: 648: 633: 632: 631: 630: 620: 595: 594: 579: 578: 577: 576: 561: 560: 559: 558: 534: 533: 504: 503: 502: 501: 500: 499: 498: 497: 378:log for BWitty 374:log for Bwitty 351: 350: 349: 348: 316: 315: 314: 313: 271: 270: 269: 268: 267: 238: 237: 236: 209: 208: 177: 176: 173: 167: 159: 153: 104: 103: 88: 87: 86: 85: 61: 56: 47: 38: 30: 29: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3700: 3687: 3685: 3680: 3675: 3674: 3667: 3664: 3663: 3659: 3655: 3654: 3653: 3650: 3648: 3644: 3639: 3636: 3634: 3631: 3630: 3626: 3622: 3619: 3617: 3614: 3613: 3609: 3605: 3601: 3598: 3595: 3591: 3587: 3584: 3581: 3577: 3576:CornuSinistru 3573: 3570: 3567: 3563: 3560: 3557: 3551: 3548: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3539: 3538:CornuSinistru 3535: 3534: 3533: 3530: 3526: 3523: 3511: 3508: 3506: 3501: 3497: 3496: 3495: 3492: 3491:CornuSinistru 3487: 3486: 3485: 3482: 3480: 3475: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3466: 3465:CornuSinistru 3461: 3460: 3459: 3456: 3454: 3449: 3445: 3443: 3440: 3425: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3415: 3414:CornuSinistru 3411: 3409: 3406: 3403: 3399: 3398: 3393: 3390: 3386: 3378: 3370: 3360: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3350: 3349:CornuSinistru 3346: 3345: 3342: 3339: 3324: 3319: 3316: 3314: 3311: 3307: 3302: 3298: 3296: 3291: 3286: 3282: 3279: 3277: 3274: 3270: 3262: 3254: 3244: 3240: 3237: 3233: 3229: 3226: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3216: 3212: 3210: 3206: 3203: 3199: 3196: 3194: 3190: 3187: 3186: 3180: 3177: 3173: 3170: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3161: 3160: 3155: 3152: 3150: 3146: 3142: 3141: 3135: 3132: 3130: 3127: 3119: 3116: 3112: 3109: 3106: 3102: 3097: 3094: 3093:CornuSinistru 3090: 3089: 3085: 3083: 3080: 3077: 3073: 3070: 3068: 3065: 3063: 3059: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3047: 3044: 3041: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3031: 3028: 3024: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3013: 3010: 3007: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2997: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2986: 2983: 2980: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2970: 2965: 2964: 2962: 2961: 2957: 2956: 2953: 2952: 2949: 2946: 2941: 2940: 2937: 2933: 2929: 2926: 2924: 2921: 2916: 2911: 2908: 2906: 2900: 2897: 2895: 2888: 2885: 2884: 2879: 2876: 2875:Corvus cornix 2872: 2870: 2867: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2858: 2853: 2850: 2838: 2835: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2825: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2816: 2812: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2803: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2794: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2785: 2781: 2778: 2772: 2769: 2764: 2760: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2751: 2747: 2743: 2741: 2738: 2734: 2720: 2717: 2713: 2711: 2708: 2707:Corvus cornix 2704: 2702: 2699: 2697: 2693: 2689: 2685: 2683: 2680: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2671: 2670:Corvus cornix 2666: 2665: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2645: 2642: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2633: 2632:Corvus cornix 2628: 2622: 2619: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2610: 2608: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2598: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2589: 2587: 2583: 2580: 2576: 2574: 2571: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2562: 2561:Corvus cornix 2558: 2556: 2553: 2549: 2545: 2542: 2534: 2531: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2522: 2520: 2516: 2514: 2511: 2509: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2500: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2491: 2489: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2479: 2477: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2468: 2464: 2460: 2459:Weak overturn 2457: 2455: 2451: 2447: 2443: 2439: 2436: 2434: 2429: 2424: 2423: 2418: 2416: 2413: 2409: 2405: 2403: 2397: 2395: 2392: 2390: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2380: 2369: 2362: 2355: 2347: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2330: 2326: 2321: 2317: 2313: 2309: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2299: 2297: 2292: 2287: 2286: 2281: 2278: 2277: 2272: 2268: 2267: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2253: 2251: 2246: 2241: 2240: 2233: 2230: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2220: 2217: 2202: 2198: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2189: 2179: 2172: 2165: 2157: 2153: 2149: 2145: 2140: 2136: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2119: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2109: 2107: 2102: 2097: 2096: 2091: 2088: 2084: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2071: 2069: 2064: 2059: 2058: 2053: 2050: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2035: 2031: 2026: 2022: 2019: 2017: 2014: 2010: 2006: 2003: 1999: 1996: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1980: 1975: 1972: 1970: 1967: 1966:Corvus cornix 1963: 1961: 1958: 1954: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1945: 1941: 1937: 1936:User:Philippe 1927: 1920: 1913: 1905: 1901: 1897: 1893: 1888: 1884: 1879: 1875: 1871: 1867: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1857: 1855: 1850: 1845: 1844: 1839: 1836: 1835:Phil Sandifer 1832: 1831:Phil Sandifer 1828: 1824: 1823: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1809: 1807: 1802: 1797: 1796: 1789: 1786: 1782: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1774: 1771: 1767: 1764: 1760: 1757: 1753: 1749: 1747: 1744: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1734: 1730: 1726: 1725: 1719: 1718: 1714: 1712: 1709: 1705: 1698: 1695: 1693: 1690: 1686: 1682: 1679: 1678: 1673: 1670: 1665: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1639: 1633: 1630: 1628: 1625: 1621: 1618: 1616: 1613: 1610: 1606: 1601: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1592: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1578:vote counting 1575: 1571: 1567: 1562: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1540: 1533: 1526: 1518: 1514: 1510: 1506: 1501: 1497: 1492: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1470: 1468: 1463: 1458: 1457: 1452: 1449: 1448:Phil Sandifer 1445: 1444:Phil Sandifer 1441: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1428: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1414: 1412: 1407: 1402: 1401: 1396: 1393: 1391: 1387: 1384: 1382: 1379: 1376: 1372: 1369: 1365: 1362: 1359: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1349: 1345: 1344: 1339: 1336: 1334: 1331: 1327: 1324: 1316: 1313: 1309: 1305: 1303: 1297: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1272: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1263: 1259: 1255: 1251: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1243: 1241: 1237: 1233: 1230: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1219: 1214: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1190: 1186: 1183: 1179: 1168: 1161: 1154: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1129: 1125: 1120: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1098: 1096: 1091: 1086: 1085: 1080: 1077: 1076:Phil Sandifer 1073: 1072:Phil Sandifer 1069: 1068: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1054: 1052: 1047: 1042: 1041: 1036: 1033: 1028: 1024: 1021: 1019: 1016: 1012: 1009: 1007: 1004: 1000: 997: 995: 992: 988: 984: 981: 979: 976: 972: 969: 965: 962: 961:Corvus cornix 958: 957: 956: 953: 951: 944: 936: 932: 928: 925: 924: 923: 922: 914: 911: 907: 903: 899: 898: 897: 896: 893: 890: 886: 883: 882: 881: 877: 873: 869: 865: 859: 857: 851: 847: 843: 839: 835: 829: 823: 820: 818: 816: 810: 806: 803: 802: 795: 792: 791:Corvus cornix 788: 787: 786: 783: 781: 779: 773: 770: 769: 768: 767: 764: 761: 760:Corvus cornix 757: 755: 752: 748: 744: 740: 736: 733: 732: 731: 730: 727: 717: 710: 703: 695: 691: 687: 683: 678: 674: 669: 665: 661: 657: 653: 652: 651: 650: 647: 645: 640: 635: 634: 629: 625: 623: 617: 615: 608: 607: 603: 602: 601: 600: 593: 591: 586: 581: 580: 575: 572: 569: 566: 563: 562: 557: 554: 552: 550: 542: 538: 537: 536: 535: 532: 529: 525: 521: 517: 513: 509: 506: 505: 496: 492: 488: 487: 482: 479: 478: 477: 474: 472: 470: 462: 458: 454: 450: 449: 448: 445: 440: 435: 434: 433: 430: 428: 426: 417: 413: 409: 405: 402: 401: 400: 399: 396: 392: 391:User:utcursch 387: 383: 379: 375: 371: 367: 363: 359: 355: 347: 344: 342: 338: 337: 336: 332: 328: 327: 321: 318: 317: 312: 309: 307: 302: 298: 293: 289: 288: 287: 284: 282: 280: 272: 266: 263: 261: 256: 255: 254: 251: 249: 247: 239: 235: 232: 230: 226: 225: 224: 221: 216: 213: 212: 211: 210: 207: 204: 202: 198: 193: 189: 188: 187: 186: 183: 172: 165: 158: 150: 146: 142: 138: 133: 129: 124: 120: 116: 112: 108: 107: 106: 105: 102: 100: 95: 90: 89: 84: 81: 80:Phil Sandifer 77: 76:Phil Sandifer 73: 72: 68: 67: 66: 65: 60: 57: 50: 45: 41: 36: 23: 19: 3683: 3676: 3660: 3642: 3637: 3627: 3620: 3610: 3596: 3582: 3568: 3558: 3524: 3499: 3473: 3447: 3427: 3362: 3326: 3317: 3300: 3280: 3246: 3242: 3207: 3201: 3197: 3184: 3178: 3157: 3153: 3138: 3133: 3117: 3107: 3087: 3086: 3071: 3046:11 september 3030:11 September 2959: 2945:Moar mudkipz 2927: 2909: 2893: 2886: 2851: 2779: 2691: 2663: 2662: 2578: 2463:Wookieepedia 2458: 2441: 2437: 2420: 2407: 2398: 2375: 2295: 2288: 2274: 2264: 2249: 2242: 2229:Father Goose 2204: 2196: 2188:Father Goose 2185: 2118:The Sting II 2105: 2098: 2083:The Sting II 2082: 2067: 2060: 2024: 2020: 2008: 2004: 1977: 1973: 1952: 1933: 1853: 1846: 1826: 1820: 1805: 1798: 1780: 1765: 1751: 1722: 1716: 1715: 1696: 1680: 1660: 1636: 1631: 1619: 1599: 1547: 1546: 1466: 1459: 1431: 1425: 1410: 1403: 1385: 1370: 1341: 1337: 1325: 1307: 1301: 1270: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1231: 1216: 1212: 1188: 1181: 1178:long running 1177: 1174: 1094: 1087: 1065: 1050: 1043: 1022: 1010: 998: 982: 971:Keep deleted 970: 926: 920: 919: 885:Keep deleted 884: 862:— Preceding 853: 852: 832:— Preceding 827: 826: 814: 805:Keep deleted 804: 777: 735:Keep deleted 734: 723: 643: 636: 621: 604: 589: 582: 564: 546: 511: 507: 484: 480: 466: 422: 403: 369: 366:a second AfD 361: 353: 352: 324: 319: 276: 243: 214: 197:Weak endorse 196: 178: 98: 91: 69: 59:23 July 2007 58: 49:2007 July 24 35:2007 July 22 3623:per DES. — 3012:September 3 2866:Ratherduarm 2824:Ratherduarm 2802:Ratherduarm 2793:Ratherduarm 2750:Ratherduarm 2737:Ratherduarm 2679:Ratherduarm 2654:Ratherduarm 2618:Ratherduarm 2597:Ratherduarm 2570:Ratherduarm 2552:Ratherduarm 2530:Ratherduarm 2499:Ratherduarm 2467:Ratherduarm 2273:endorse. – 1953:List on AFD 1934:Deleted by 1704:WP:NOT#PLOT 1685:WP:NOT#PLOT 1605:WP:NOT#PLOT 1304:Google hits 1277:Groggy Dice 1194:Groggy Dice 1182:three films 1003:Ratherduarm 1001:-nonsense. 838:Brian002100 726:Brian002100 571:Peterharris 457:Dana Berger 2985:January 20 1603:case with 1432:do nothing 1107:Gerak Khas 1067:Gerak Khas 910:Bladder123 904:page? (To 868:Bladder123 743:WP:CSD#G10 524:Amit Avner 444:EdJohnston 395:EdJohnston 358:a full AfD 297:notability 220:MyWiseData 192:WP:CSD#G11 182:MyWiseData 3590:Howeltead 3562:Fivebytwo 3236:wheel war 3101:Fivebytwo 2857:Fivebytwo 2784:Isotope23 2650:Wikitruth 2379:Duarm3300 2197:Re-create 2034:WP:CSD#A7 1940:talk page 1743:Sandstein 1612:Sandstein 1308:duplicate 991:Isotope23 987:neologism 906:Gogo Dodo 889:Gogo Dodo 809:WP:CSD#G3 747:WP:CSD#G3 739:WP:CSD#G1 414:, and in 372:See also 44:2007 July 3604:admitted 3600:contribs 3586:contribs 3572:contribs 3448:in-depth 3285:Gamaliel 3134:Overturn 3111:contribs 3099:sock of 3088:Overturn 2887:Overturn 2271:SNOWball 2039:DJ-Kicks 2037:notable 2005:Overturn 1827:Undelete 1770:Stephenb 1756:Otto4711 1669:Otto4711 1591:Otto4711 1386:Overturn 1375:Picaroon 1371:Overturn 1358:Picaroon 1338:Overturn 1326:Overturn 1258:Relisted 1232:Overturn 1213:Overturn 1189:overturn 876:contribs 864:unsigned 846:contribs 834:unsigned 404:Comment. 20:‎ | 3559:Comment 3547:Tbeatty 3529:Tbeatty 3500:against 3310:GRBerry 3225:JoshuaZ 3169:JoshuaZ 3076:ElinorD 2894:ALKIVAR 2834:JoshuaZ 2815:JoshuaZ 2446:Amarkov 2412:JoshuaZ 2402:JoshuaZ 2354:restore 2325:protect 2320:history 2164:restore 2135:protect 2130:history 2087:GRBerry 1912:restore 1883:protect 1878:history 1785:Phirazo 1781:Comment 1766:Comment 1752:quoting 1717:endorse 1689:Phirazo 1632:Endorse 1624:W.marsh 1620:Endorse 1600:Endorse 1586:WP:PLOT 1561:WP:PLOT 1552:WP:PLOT 1525:restore 1496:protect 1491:history 1436:WP:PLOT 1254:context 1250:Comment 1153:restore 1124:protect 1119:history 975:W.marsh 751:GRBerry 702:restore 673:protect 668:history 412:Yedioth 370:Delete. 215:Comment 157:restore 128:protect 123:history 3662:tizzle 3629:tizzle 3612:tizzle 3402:Ral315 3189:scribe 3079:(talk) 2664:claims 2329:delete 2139:delete 2025:tagged 2013:Evouga 2009:relist 1957:ugen64 1887:delete 1773:(Talk) 1500:delete 1440:WP:NOT 1390:DS1953 1378:(Talk) 1361:(Talk) 1330:Evouga 1312:ugen64 1310:hits. 1302:unique 1262:ugen64 1128:delete 1015:ugen64 677:delete 541:WP:COI 528:TreveX 520:bWitty 516:WP:COI 362:Delete 292:WP:AFD 132:delete 111:Bwitty 71:Bwitty 3658:Scien 3625:Scien 3608:Scien 3215:MONGO 2932:ESkog 2919:desat 2767:desat 2442:about 2428:Help! 2361:cache 2346:views 2338:watch 2334:links 2171:cache 2156:views 2148:watch 2144:links 1919:cache 1904:views 1896:watch 1892:links 1708:Corpx 1532:cache 1517:views 1509:watch 1505:links 1160:cache 1145:views 1137:watch 1133:links 1031:desat 908:) -- 858:page. 709:cache 694:views 686:watch 682:links 461:QText 164:cache 149:views 141:watch 137:links 52:: --> 16:< 3594:talk 3588:) = 3580:talk 3574:) = 3566:talk 3159:Will 3145:talk 3105:talk 3049:2006 3033:2006 3016:2006 2989:2006 2915:Core 2763:Core 2450:moo! 2342:logs 2316:talk 2312:edit 2276:Will 2152:logs 2126:talk 2122:edit 2030:here 2007:and 1984:talk 1900:logs 1874:talk 1870:edit 1729:talk 1661:keep 1643:talk 1513:logs 1487:talk 1483:edit 1348:talk 1300:365 1271:with 1223:talk 1141:logs 1115:talk 1111:edit 1027:Core 943:prod 872:talk 842:talk 815:Kuru 778:Kuru 690:logs 664:talk 660:edit 613:Kinu 551:Data 548:Wise 491:talk 471:Data 468:Wise 427:Data 424:Wise 416:YNET 408:YNET 376:and 331:talk 281:Data 278:Wise 248:Data 245:Wise 145:logs 119:talk 115:edit 32:< 3647:DES 3505:DES 3479:DES 3453:DES 3435:bli 3334:bli 3301:not 3185:WjB 3140:DGG 3062:DES 2696:DES 2607:DES 2586:DES 2519:DES 2508:DES 2488:DES 2476:DES 2422:Guy 2389:DES 2368:AfD 2212:bli 2178:AfD 2047:DES 1995:P4k 1979:DGG 1944:P4k 1926:AfD 1724:DGG 1638:DGG 1572:to 1568:to 1539:AfD 1343:DGG 1240:DES 1236:DGG 1218:DGG 1167:AfD 989:.-- 950:DES 745:or 716:AfD 486:DGG 341:DES 326:DGG 306:DES 260:DES 229:DES 201:DES 171:AfD 22:Log 3643:if 3602:) 3438:nd 3432:ar 3429:St 3426:- 3361:. 3337:nd 3331:ar 3328:St 3325:- 3147:) 3014:, 2987:, 2934:) 2813:. 2694:. 2692:If 2550:. 2465:. 2344:| 2340:| 2336:| 2332:| 2327:| 2323:| 2318:| 2314:| 2215:nd 2209:ar 2206:St 2203:- 2154:| 2150:| 2146:| 2142:| 2137:| 2133:| 2128:| 2124:| 1986:) 1902:| 1898:| 1894:| 1890:| 1885:| 1881:| 1876:| 1872:| 1731:) 1645:) 1515:| 1511:| 1507:| 1503:| 1498:| 1494:| 1489:| 1485:| 1350:) 1284:| 1225:) 1201:| 1191:. 1143:| 1139:| 1135:| 1131:| 1126:| 1122:| 1117:| 1113:| 946:}} 940:{{ 878:) 874:• 848:) 844:• 692:| 688:| 684:| 680:| 675:| 671:| 666:| 662:| 545:My 493:) 465:My 459:, 455:, 421:My 333:) 275:My 242:My 147:| 143:| 139:| 135:| 130:| 126:| 121:| 117:| 42:: 3597:· 3592:( 3583:· 3578:( 3569:· 3564:( 3405:» 3388:t 3384:e 3380:p 3376:m 3372:i 3368:r 3364:K 3292:) 3288:( 3272:t 3268:e 3264:p 3260:m 3256:i 3252:r 3248:K 3143:( 3124:I 3113:) 3108:· 3103:( 3025:\ 2902:☢ 2899:™ 2430:) 2426:( 2371:) 2365:| 2357:| 2351:( 2348:) 2310:( 2181:) 2175:| 2167:| 2161:( 2158:) 2120:( 1982:( 1929:) 1923:| 1915:| 1909:( 1906:) 1868:( 1727:( 1641:( 1542:) 1536:| 1528:| 1522:( 1519:) 1481:( 1346:( 1286:C 1282:T 1221:( 1203:C 1199:T 1176:" 1170:) 1164:| 1156:| 1150:( 1147:) 1109:( 870:( 840:( 719:) 713:| 705:| 699:( 696:) 658:( 622:c 618:/ 489:( 329:( 174:) 168:| 160:| 154:( 151:) 113:(

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 23 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index