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

3938:. It reminds us that to demonstrate a change in consensus, you need to actually engage the arguments for the prior consensus, preferrably also actually engaging the participants in the prior consensus discussion. "A good sign that you have not demonstrated a change in consensus, so much as a change in the people showing up, is if few or none of the people involved in the previous discussion show up for the new one." With no link to the prior UCfD discussion, no engagement with the keep arguments therein, and no participation by those who said to keep it in the prior discussion, it is impossible to conclude that consensus did change. What should have happened was that the closing admin should have found the prior discussion (as closing admins should read the page's talk page before closing and check the history and ... a bunch of other steps that all too often get skipped) and either relisted with a link to that discussion and notification to its participants or closed the new discussion as "no consensus" with a closing comment that pointed out the prior discussion and the total failure to address the keep opinions there. In my opinion, if a XfD only has one opinion, that is enough to allow a close provided the required amount of time has gone by and there are no prior XfD discussions, but a one opinion XfD should be overturned on any reasonable request, because the low participation means that consensus is lost as soon as there is an objection. 3810:- I don't want to imply that you did something wrong. jc37 nominated it and was the only supporter. I don't count you as admin who closed the debate as a supporter, you are an arbitrator and executioner IMO. Last days of June (nomination)/first days of July (closure) and first days of October (nomination and deletion) are not 4 months apart but 3 months and a few days tops or less if you count from closure to new nomination. Consensus can change, but its unlikely within a subject that covers primarily past events (although the demoscene still exists) and being only a short time apart. I know that 5 days are the standard length, but I would suggest to give also Wikipedians a few days off and not count the weekends as days and do it like everybody else and use week days. To exclude holidays would be a bit too tricky :). Just my 2 cents -- 454:

content. I believe this deletion was done with haste and very improperly. Mr. Thurston is a valued Artist that is well respected by the Hispanic community of New Mexico, the (elite) Tamarind Institute of the University of New Mexico, as well as the African American population of New Mexico in which his recent Lithographs (produced at the Tamarind) focused on Tribal African American Art. The deletion of this article was a large loss to the varied cultures, as well as a loss to the many children who find Mr. Thurston a large inspiration. I would like to respectfully request that this article be restored, and I John Ramos (with proper and courteous communication) will make any corrections needed and with haste. Thank you for your time, it is greatly appreciated. I personally await a response.

3389:" Whatever the merits of the decision, the process had the unfortunate appearance of being a pro forma sham. In my opinion, there was an agenda being pushed against ethnic-American lists generally rather than a good faith review. In the spirit of good faith myself, I acknowledge the possibility I am wrong, but in fairness I don't see any reason to think so. Either way, anyone would be frustrated by being summarily dismissed rather than communicated with. Finally, on the merits, these lists should be viewed as adjuncts to the ethnic-American articles, which after all is how such information is incorporated into historical and cultural treatments of ethnicity in America all the time. It's more than just "trivia". 1271:, two local papers, with most appearing in minor local, neighborhood, and community sections of the paper; there are zero front page articles on him (the two sources which indicate "page 1" are page 1 of the community section, not the paper). Even the nintendo contest in 1991 wasn't national news, and it wasn't even front page; I'd even bet that the nintendo contest wasn't even national, it was local (after all, it was in the local section of the paper). There is zero national coverage of this individual. Even a poster contest isn't all that notable -- I know plenty of scientific researchers with major grant funding and 100 peer-reviewed publications or more that don't have wikipedia pages. 732:

several dozen libraries. The Ottawa public library had the Ottawa book in multiple copies, as they probably do everything published about their own city; the Kingston library similarly for its. Only the very largest academic Canadian libraries had copies--not even the other cities in Ontario, some of which were very large libraries. I concluded from this that they were of immediately local interest only. for a narrow academic book, a few library holding may be notability, but not for popular works such as this. I asked for reviews or sales figures--no information was provided.

1483:), search-engine optimization industry expert, Technorati 100 top blogger, and co-founder of the AuctionAds service, was deleted by NawlinWiki on Oct. 2, 2007 under criteria a7 nonnotable and g4 repost. I argue that Jeremy Schoemaker, a speaker at almost every search engine marketing conference for the past three years, and a major name in the Internet and search engine optimization world, is definitely important and notable. In fact, he has been called exactly that -- “notable” -- by the very popular Internet company-focused site TechCrunch ( 3993:- my knee jerk reaction was to oppose this DRV as I felt that the close was procedurally correct, and the stated procedure is to accept the nomination if it is unopposed. In response to GRBerry, let me say that there was no talk page, as you can see from the logs, so the only way that I would have know of the prior discussion would have been from edit histories and backlinks, which I normally do not check. Most importantly, in a case like this, had Cumbrowski discussed this with me at my talk page, as recommened at the page purpose 180:

The article is brilliant, original and promising.Knowledge (XXG) should be happy that such an original philosophical topic and new extension of historical philiosophy is being shown on their sites instead of shoving it to the corner. I believe that the article needs to be reinstated as soon as possible due to these reasons. Throwing things out like that suppresses knowledge and academic excellence and I believe that this is not one of the attributes and values of Knowledge (XXG)

1698:- The AfD was a year ago. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of usable information on the topic. Allow recreation, but expect an AfD nomination if you don't put in a lot of footnotes. I think you are (or I am) confusing coverage of "Schoemaker" with coverage of "Shoemoney". The two are not the same (Schoemaker is a person and ShoeMoney either is a production company (ShoeMoney Productions) or an online-marketing blog called "ShoeMoney". Here is the information I found on 3922:- While I don't have a problem with relisting, I do question the rationale. In the past, I've seen innumerable CfD "discussions" with no commenters except the nominator, which are closed on a regular basis. This is also typically what happen in speedy listings at CfD as well. The same goes for Requested moves. It's called being unopposed. Are you all, by suggesting relist, suggesting that such closures are now not to be considered? Just looking for clarification. - 3755:. If you exclude the weekend, then there was only little time for people to react and express their opinions. Compare that to the time given for the second nomination, where all expressed opinions, except the one of the nominator, were for keeping the category. Plenty of valid reasons were provided why the category should be kept. The first nomination was started on June 24, 2007 and was closed on July 4, 2007 to give editors time to comment. -- 1078:

wikipedia, he changed it to articles about his childhood? No I say! Delete this garbage! What makes this person more notable than anyone else? Everyone has some sort of childhood achievements, everyone placed or won something in their life, does that mean they deserve a wikipedia entry? I won bowling leagues when I was a little, do I deserve a wikipedia page too? Give me a break! (repost from talk page of "darren heitner" entry)

595:

the entry is a published author whose books were issued by a major Canadian house, as opposed to so many musicians, especially Canadian punk artists, who are considered notable simply for self-issued albums. I believe the deletion of this entry also shows a certain narrowness and age/interest/nationality bias on the part of the persons involved, since they obviously consider Canadian regional historians to be not important.

3236:

for the reader that categories only provide by lots of work, reading one article after another, It provides names, dates of birth/death, and occupation/reason for notability--in other words why one might want to then read an article. The list serves as an index to the category articles. Is the list perfect? No, but the job of WP editors is to improve articles (including lists) on notable subject matter, not delete them.

2646:

realised that. the result would however have been the same. i see no point though in immediately re-nominating this immediately, because we must first find some place to discuss the general issue. A non-admin closing something in a situation like this is going way out on a limb, and is likely to do as much harm as good to the cause he may wish to advance. We make people admins so they can more safely take the heat.

2305:; there was never an explanation of why that particular image of the bells was necessary for the article. It doesn't matter whether the justification was on the image description page or the talk page; it was visible to the admin, who quite reasonably deleted the image anyway. If I've misunderstood you and you were requesting something else, then I apologize; your nomination summary is a little confusing. 3265:- Our users have suffered over the past month or so from not having the sourced, annotated information about individuals of these ethnic backgrounds contained in these articles, and their research has consequently been hampered, as the names of the individuals from each ethnic group were conspicuously not merged into the articles about the ethnic groups themselves. Deletion was done solely to make a 608:. Nothing wrong with the deletion process, and I, for one, !voted for deletion without having previously even heard of the subject's husband. No sources were present in the article or turned up during the AfD that would establish the person as at all notable. Also, if the deletion is endorsed, would someone please delete the article linked to in the header of this discussion, created by 3270:

argument used by previous "delete" voters that editors should not be the arbiters of who belongs to a particular ethnic group (such as Norwegian Americans) was not valid, because our lists go by the individual's self-definition/ethnic identification, using sources that state they are a member of that ethnic group (the same process we use to cite any information in WP).

1143:. Darren has a number of achievements that individually would not merit an article, but cumulatively are very impressive. It appears that some of these at least would be widely known. Also, the article records that: "In late 2002, news reports indicated that many U.S. high school students could not find Iraq on a world map". This belongs with the 2007 article on 3371:

I stand by my belief expressed both in that DRV and the German DRV that, once we conclude the ethnic group is notable, the default presumption is that we should have a list of individuals who are themselves notable for Knowledge (XXG) purposes, but that inclusion thereon needs to be due to a reliable source indicating that the individual belongs in the category.

1829:- if it is substantially different than what was deleted before - it's not G4; I didn't delete under G4 because the crap that I saw was different that what was deleted. If you want the crap I've quoted restored, let's make sure it is included on the next "best of Knowledge (XXG)" CD. It lacked content, it was crap, is was speedy bait, it was deleted. Doh! 2627:. Non-admins can only close non-controversial AFDs. This was not a non-controversial AFD, and it should not have been closed by a non-admin. I would have closed it as "no consensus" and not "keep", but there wouldn't be anything different about the effect of the AFD itself. There was no consensus to delete, so endorse the actual effect of the closure. -- 3966:- What could possible be wrong with having a category for a Wikipedian to identify themselves as a person who produces demos that are non-interactive audio-visual presentations run real-time on a computer to show off programming, artistic and musical skills? The topic needs more participation at CfD for all the reasons listed by GRBerry. -- 3948:

with current pratice in all such discussions. While I don't oppose it (because I happen to prefer discussion, as I've said elsewhere) I think relisting for these reasons is inconsistant with current convention. So should we consider this closure to suggest that current convention now needs to be changed based on it? Or are we just

1214:

area in that small of capacity? What exactly makes him "well known"? The fact that he won a local nintendo contest or made a poster to enter in a local contest? You become notable for winning contests now? I can bet that there are many who have won the nobel prize who don't even have wikipedia pages...

3947:

That doesn't address my question, however. I'm asking about current practice across Knowledge (XXG). You seem to be talking about whether consensus can change and what to do in such discussions. I'm asking whether suggesting a relist in the case (due to the nomination being unopposed) is inconsistant

3750:

without providing any new arguments or reasons that were not already debated during the deletion debate less than 3 months earlier. The deletion debate had only one comment and that was the one by the user who flagged the category for deletion in the first place. Based on that was the deletion debate

1634:

He's merely quoted in the Forbes article which is not about him and the BusinessWeek article is about ICanHasCheezburger.com and doesn't even mention him. I mean, if we can now include random articles that have nothing to do with the subject and don't even mention them or anything related to them, we

731:

I worked on my comments for this afd for over an hour, trying to judge objectively the notability of the two local history books that comprise the notability. I checked whether they were in Canadian libraries--as there is no union catalog for public libraries in that country, I checked individually

3370:

I note that the Norwegian AFD has had a prior DRV, linked above, and am not convinced the closure of that DRV was correct, as too much of the first DRV was contaminated by an inappropriate comment and reactions thereto, and the legitimate discussion of the close may have been somewhat lost therein.

2096:

blatant advertising deletion is meant for cases when nothing in the article would have been useful in a theoretical good article on the subject, but there appears to multiple items in the deleted article that would be useful to keep. Article needs some cleanup and better sources, but wasn't all bad.

1838:

My thinking is that allowing recreation and restoring the deleted article are different approvals. A year has passed since the old AfD and allowing recreation of the topic with the new sources listed seems appropriate. If the recreated article is insufficient, that would be best brought out in a new

1509:

I can see why the editors may have expected yet another Shoemoney entry to not be worthy, because the several previous entries (now deleted) appear to have been frivolous and non-serious attempts at article creation; e.g. “A shoemoney is a finctional creature created by Esrun, often referred to as a

1241:

Hi 63.147.152.182. This does not warrant a big discussion since I'm obviously in the minority on this issue. Winning a contest at age 6 against 14 year olds is notable, assuming it's true of course. And winning a poster contest with 400,000 entries is some kind of achievement. Being a university

3341:

was meant to prohibit lists of people belonging to notable ethnic groups. Policy has to be interpreted in light of the consensus supporting it, and not simply based on one's personal opinions about what policy means. Just asserting that a list is "loosely associated" does not make it a violation of

3269:

and the case that our users should not be permitted to have well sourced, annotated lists of individuals of these notable ethnic groups was not convincingly made. Neither was the case made that a category "does the same job," as a category is clearly not sourced and properly annotated. Further, the

3235:

was deleted. This list is for a notable American ethnic group as evidenced by its having an article and having a category. There is no valid WP reason why this list was deleted. There is nothing in WP that says lists cannot also exist when categories exist. The list readily provides information

2562:

without prejudice against re-nomination. As I also close unambiguous AfD's (i.e. the article got speedied or there is a clear consensus to keep), I would have left this one alone until a better consensus was achieved - though as there isn't a policy or guideline to refer to, as Dhartung said, there

2290:

During the fair use review process I got the impression that image page, together with my reasons against the deletion of the image, should be moved to the talk page of the image; but it wasn't done. So, I ask that they are moved. I haven't notified the admin who deleted the image because I believe

1296:

Thank you, Doctor. Fair enough. Have you any feedback on my suggestion that Knowledge (XXG) "either does not set its standards very high, or is inconsistent in applying them"? I notice, for example, that there are many articles whose purpose is to list other articles that are of "low importance"

1213:

Wanderer57, what achievements would you say are "impressive", even cumulatively? Maybe if you're applying to be president of student government in highschool...but not worthy of an entire wikipedia entry. Give me a break! What achievement of his would be recognized in a farther reach than his local

594:

I believe the article was killed because the subject's husband, or people purporting to be him, have had issues with several of the people who voted for deletion. In fact, community consensus can hardly be guaged by the number of comments (about six different people) on the AFD page. The subject of

4033:

And I apologize for not asking you first. I was a bit upset, because of the second and brief listing for deletion followed by the deletion of the category. It's not your fault as I said. I would also not suggest to relist it, because what is the point if no new facts were brought forward since the

3300:

with the usual vague arguments. Lists and categories can certainly coexist, preferably with the list article using its advantages over categories wisely, but this is not a requirement. I have even seen the overreaching argument that lists by ethnic group are "cross-categorizations" but that really

2645:

with the same limitation as Coredesat. My own feeling was to keep, but I would have closed as no-consensus. The one thing which seems clear is that there is no real community agreement on such articles, and there is no point in pretending there is, one way or another. I hope most admins would have

1881:

Normally, I say show DRV a draft first. However, the nominator did mention many sources, the AfD was a long time ago, and there seems to be an article somewhere in the sources listed in this discussion that might have a chance of surviving AfD. Yes, it might cause drama (everything seems to) but I

179:

The arguments that were given for this article's removal are flawed. They say it is a personal philosophy and exultation of the writer's self,but I firmly believe it is not because this is a new philosophy that extends from Zeno's paradoxes, which is a very popular and highly discussed philosophy.

453:

This article was deleted for no reason. Several (verifiable) sources were sited, and with a small amount of effort can be confirmed. This article, about one of the (very) few successful artists from Albuquerque, New Mexico. No attempts via talk nor email were made to pose any questions related to

1077:

winning a nintendo contest and winning a few childhood contests now a poster now makes someone notable enough to get a wikipedia page? This page was SEVERELY changed from it's original intent...first it was all about his "blog" and his agency, then when he realized he wasn't notable enough for a

1867:

Nothing prevents that, so no allowal here is needed - that which isn't forbidden is allowed - it just has to be sufficiently different than the version deleted after Afd. Note my deletion wasn't based on G4 because it was different and there were more obvious reasons to delete that version :-).

4015:

Comment for After Midnight. Sorry if it came across that I blame you for what you did. That is not the case. The appropriate template should have been placed by the closing admin to the talk page to refer to the discussion. I noticed that this is often not done. I don't know if that is written

3439:

The majority of the participants were dismissed in spite of using rational arguments and in spite of their reliance on established policy for lists; they were dismissed solely for not satisfying the closing admin's personal opinion of what was is "sufficient justification" for keeping a list.

3474:

directly to lists, and there isn't really a notability guideline for lists in particular. We don't need a specific policy violation to delete an article, but in its absence we do need a rough consensus, and there isn't any consensus to delete "List of <notable ethnic cross-section:

2685:

for the non admin closer. Non admins should not close AfDs like this because someone likly will be upset and if a non-admin does the close, they are likely to be even more upset since non-admins have not received a consensus minimum level of trust over a period of seven days. --

2615:. For any of these, the article is kept. Delete doesn't look like a viable outcome for that discussion, and no compelling case is made for it above (especially as time passage will either invalidate or prove correct in a future AFD many of the arguments most disagreed with). 623:

The argument against having the article that was put forwards at the deletion debate is that there are no secondary sources available for the author. If this is true then the article obviously has to stay deleted until there are some. She needs to be written about somewhere.

3327:), but not the lists. But if the notability of a topic does not justify a corresponding list, what does? In fact, the books I cited included one which was specifically about promintent Swiss Americans (not just the about the ethnic grouping "Swiss American"); if this isn't " 1498:

As aforementioned, he has spoken at almost every search engine marketing conference for the past three years, such as Elite Retreat, Search Engine Strategies (SES) Conference & Expo, eComXpo, and Affiliate Summit 2007 East. This is not something you get if you're not an

779:

at AFD as well as following. Arguments for deletion were valid as the article had no substantive attribution of notability to secondary sources, without which it is difficult to have an article at all. Bad faith claims in the DRV are not supported by evidence such as diffs.

4001:

rather than bringing it directly here, I likely would have accepted a request to extend the discussion. Therefore, I should probably withdraw my objection to the relisting of this category, as I should not penalize Cumbrowski for the poor form in his lack of discussion.

3282:. There is no policy-based reason for these to be deleted. Hence, the debates themselves will be extremely subjective. In such cases, the result should be keep unless there is an overwhelming consensus to delete, which there obviously was not in the first two cases. --- 3549: 3252:

was found to be invalid at DRV, it should be invalid for the rest of the lists. I can't see any significant difference between other lists of __ Americans, so if all the others do not violate WP policy, then neither do these, and they should be restored.

2536:

and a slight edge in !votes, so I think it's a good keep, but there were strong moral arguments on the other side. I have myself long lamented the lack of a good guideline for crime cases, since even minor crimes get news coverage and can technically meet

2545:

is not the easiest indicator to apply nor even explicitly extended to the deceased. I believe what is trying to be done here needs to be done by forging a guideline, as difficult as that is, because under the present ruleset there isn't a real consensus.

3469:

meet notability criteria; rather, the general criterion for inclusion is the lack of policy/guideline/precedent/consensus violations. Deletion arguments are mostly notability/significance-based in some sense, but it would be ludicrous to apply the

2130:

I supposed he just wasn't sure if he should overturn himself or not. Admins can do so in situations like this without a lot of controversy... just in case anyone was unsure. Asking for opinions here is okay too. Discussion is rarely a bad thing.

1682:. It's marginal but with the BW mini-profile there's a claim to notability. Still might not survive AFD. There's no reason we can't allow recreation of articles if they include new information and improve on the former material in other ways. -- 2475: 1147:, which notes "a fifth of Americans can't locate the U.S. on a world map." These articles document two significant points on a downward curve. A future article on decline in the US educational system might need this information. 1059:

Jreferee shouldn't have closed the AFD, in my opinion, when you take such an interest in an article it's best to let a neutral admin close the AFD. But the article was substantially improved, it should really just get a fresh AFD.

3434:

is upheld as the proper guideline to turn to for reinforcement. The lack of consensus should have been guiding the decision, here as elsewhere on Afd. In addition, participants should never be randomly dismissed unless they use

3333:" enough to justify a list of notable Swiss Americans, I don't know what is. The closing admin then justified deletion of the Swiss and Belgian American lists by saying that the delete arguments "cited valid policy", but merely 1510:

small furry creature which collects chocolate coins(money).” However, I believe these many silly attempts may have unfairly negatively weighted the ultimate serious attempt at Schoemaker’s biography against being accepted.

800:

She may have written two regional history books, but if no reliable source independent of Wetering reported biography information about her, there would not be much to say in the Knowledge (XXG) article about the matter. --

1242:

valedictorian is also something that most people don't manage. IMO, an encyclopedia with (at least) 18 articles about flatulence either does not set its standards very high, or is inconsistent in applying them. Cheers,

3346:! The arguments that the inclusion criteria are not well defined ("How Norwegian does one have to be to be on the list?") are addressed by better defining the criteria, not by deletion. And even Neil acknowledged in the 3541: 3846:. Consensus can not possibly be determined by a single person, especially when there have been previous debates. This should have been relisted until a significant number of opinions were given by the community. --- 1625:. The Forbes and BusinessWeek articles linked above are both more recent than the AfD discussion which deemed him non-notable, seems reasonable to allow another crack at producing a well-sourced article about him. -- 3545: 751:- Arguments presented in the AFD for deletion were reasonable, and the closing admin did nothing wrong as far as I can see in closing the nomination as delete. The accusations of age/interest/nationality bias by 649:

deletion of the recreated page. After all, people who are emotional can be right. Had I thought there was anything wrong with the AFD close, I'd have discussed with the closing admin or brought a case here.

1494:

Schoemaker has been featured in such mainstream popular magazines as Forbes and Business Week, and also has been regularly mentioned in top Internet sites TechCrunch, Search Engine Watch, PepperjamBLOG, and

1183:

is right. Those "awards" are used as an excuse for him to have an article in WP and promote his career as a sport manager. Note also that most of this article's "improvements" have been made by the creator:

3403:

Arguments to 'keep' in a number of cases lack any justification for retaining the list and a number of others don't really provide any justification for why we should keep the list. duplicate argument is

3528:. Whatever flaw that exists in WP policies and guidelines or whatever is leading/allowing this to continue to occur needs to be addressed or this activity will simply happen over and over again. Thanks 3743: 3708: 3564:

You can't categorise everything... and besides, lists can be expanded more than categories can, well, in some cases anyway. It was a no-consensus, no-win situation, so overturn and allow re-creation. --

191:

While most of us have tremendous respect for new and original thought, Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, and as such, it is not an appropriate venue for it. Knowledge (XXG) requires that articles be

1161:

This individual is not a celebrity, and his achievements are no more notable than half of everyone else that has attended high school or college. The article reads like his personal resume, which is

3124: 2969: 3870:

There was nothing necessarily wrong with the close; however, discussions with so few participants (namely, here, just the nominator) should be easily overturned in light of any reasonable request.

3739: 170: 3120: 3038: 2831: 2238: 2233: 3347: 3337:

should not be enough, there must be a demonstration of how the policy applies, and of a consensus to apply policy in such a manner; but there has never been any evidence of a consensus that

2242: 3525: 585: 2507:

No comment on the Jennifer Moore AFD, but this was a valid AFD and we let non-admins close them, under the current rules. DRV is not round 2 of AFD, you can always re-nominate at AFD. --

2267: 2229: 765:) do seem to lack foundation. I also continue to endorse my own nomination of the re-created page for speedy deletion as an attack page and inappropriate re-creation of a deleted page. 3424: 2301:

I'm not sure what you're asking. If you're requesting undeletion of the image description page but not the image, we don't do that. If you're requesting undeletion of the image,

658:

as an attack page of the recreated pages. Knowledge (XXG) is not a site for attacks on anybody, including without limitation, editors. It is especially not a site for attacks on

3401:. Deletion was not based in policy. All the above articles were deleted by the same editor, based solely on the use of the following arguments to overrule the lack of consensus: " 3193:- Some are just downright absurd - is there a serious concern that there will be a proliferation of lists like "List of Nebraskan Americans" (seems that is already covered by 3427:

to reinforce his/her decision to ignore the lack of consensus: "I closed a deletion discussion as best I saw fit, using that very link you provide to reinforce my judgement."

3436: 3431: 1506:), which Jeremy consistently ranks in, are included in Knowledge (XXG). (Matt Cutts, who has an entry in Knowledge (XXG), ranks 89, lower than Jeremy’s 70, at this writing). 989:

sourced (try following the links!) this person has not achieved anything of note. The article is basically his CV (COI may apply; a notability tag was removed in April by

974: 960: 3694: 2432: 2427: 3320: 1129:

The article has changed too much for the old AFD comments to be relevant. But the closing admin had made the changes, which makes them not appropriate as a closer.

444: 48: 34: 2926: 2921: 2436: 3128: 2930: 2281: 127: 122: 1608:. He's a blogger. And being mentioned in an article doesn't mean you've been "featured" in it...no evidence that he's somehow become more notable since the AfD. 3457:. This has been debated ad nauseum, and precedent tells us that there's no consensus in either direction. The main case for deletion of these lists seems to be 2995: 2990: 2857: 2852: 2788: 2783: 2461: 2419: 131: 2532:. As a non-admin closer myself I wouldn't have touched this one; I stick to the unambiguous ones as much as possible. In this case there's a stronger argument 1517:

Thank you so much for your thoughtful review of these comments and I look forward to your careful and reasoned decision. – Julia L. Wilkinson Further Sources:

43: 2999: 2955: 2913: 2861: 2792: 1466: 3064: 3059: 1374:– Recreation allowed; nothing usable to restore. This can be recreated at any time, by anyone; the links provided in this discussion will prove useful. – 156: 114: 3524:

Even as this is heading toward overturn, the deletion activity of editors claiming that lists should be deleted because categories exist continues. See

3416:. No policy violation was cited by the closing admin. Rather, the personal opinion of the closer was used to judge which arguments were to be dismissed. 3068: 3024: 2982: 2886: 2844: 2817: 2775: 1319:- Since the article has substantial new and different information, the prior AfD should not affect the time period between the close of the last AfD. -- 762: 686:, nothing presented by the nom (who should probably be blocked for creating attack pages) that indicates anything that would address the AFD concerns. -- 542: 537: 3790:

The time period between nomination was exactly 4 months from the prior decision and more than 4 months from the nomination, not less than 3 as asserted.

3354:". It is clear from all of the AfD and DRV discussions that there is no consensus to delete lists of people belonging to notable ethnic groups, and per 2071:

Tagged as db-spam for looking too much like advertising, deleted by me. Author contacted me to ask why it was deleted and how it could be put back up.

1017:. That was inadvisable to say the least. Anyway, now that the article has been nominated for GA by one of the editors, there can be no more appeals to 2485: 1723: 546: 2900: 3093: 3051: 3301:

applies to "ethnic group" + "something else" lists. If these lists can be properly sourced, there is no reason we can't retain this information. --

3107: 571: 529: 2563:

may never be a consensus. I think it's best to leave it as a keep, and if someone wants to re-nom it for another reason, then they can go ahead.

1825:

If you want that restored, why bother to call ourselves an encyclopedia; as for all those saying "allow recreation" - NOTHING IS SALTED HERE; BE

1221: 1179:

He won some local contests while growing up, and after that nothing, he didn't make a career as a poster designer or as a Nintendo player,

1085: 39: 3181:- Probably about 60 percent of the redlinked ethnic groups are implausible, like "Etruscan Americans," "Northamptonian Americans," etc. 4016:

somewhere in the guide for admins regarding how to close a AFD or other deletion debates. If it is not, then it should be added IMO. --

2117:. The article basically describes this unique service and I don't think there's too much POV language. Restore and tag for sourcing. -- 2062: 3552:

have been deleted with very little input (the vote was probably not widely advertised, so only the "delete page regulars" caught it).

1526: 917: 912: 1513:

Given that he is linked from another Knowledge (XXG) entry, it stands to reason that the stub should be expanded on for completeness.

2423: 1648:

segments in there about Shoemoney and other bloggers besides the (awesome) ICanHasCheezburger: here's the direct link to the frame:

921: 401: 396: 2917: 405: 21: 4034:

last debate only a few months ago. It should IMO be undeleted and the discussion should be closed via speedy ... something :)--

2019: 2014: 1745: 1719: 946: 904: 3980: 3484: 3166: 3149: 2986: 2848: 2779: 2700: 2342: 2023: 1896: 1853: 1761: 1333: 815: 756: 430: 388: 351: 215: 3858:

There was no reason to delete since no consensus was reached. Relist it to get some consensus,whether it be keep or delete.

2225: 2184: 1742: 3669: 3198: 1423: 1418: 828:

the first at afd was clearly correct, the others for the attack pages and gratuitous insults need no further discussion.

3194: 3055: 2415: 2379: 2048: 2006: 1427: 4059: 3643: 3603: 2754: 2716: 2398: 2358: 2208: 2163: 1985: 1933: 1389: 1349: 883: 843: 508: 468: 367: 315: 93: 17: 3677: 2909: 719:...keep arguments were "she wrote a book" and "she's not famous". And then this character accuses people of sexism... 3660: 3624: 1559: 493:– Deletion endorsed; DGG's thorough research is convincing. I'm salting this, because of the recent attack pages. – 118: 3882:

Definitely needs some sort of discussion before deletion - that's the entire reason we have XfD in the first place.

1715: 1452: 1410: 1268: 1263:

It should be pointed out the every single one of the references for all of his "achievements" came from either the

2978: 2840: 2771: 993:); the external links are advertising spam; and the name given for the uploaded image doesn't match the article. 533: 3997:

where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question.

3952:

in this case, because we feel like it? Or what? I'm looking for your and everyone else's perspective on this. -

1707: 110: 70: 3249: 3232: 3210: 2673:

is what needs to be discussed at the AfD. The delete discussion was not convincing regarding the topic meeting

1484: 1225: 1089: 752: 609: 596: 3334: 3297: 1537: 1103:. I see no evidence of notability, but the article has been substantially changed since the last discussion. 3047: 2324:

does not exist and there is no reason to create that talk page, this DRV request should be speedy closed as

632: 525: 489: 2591:

Happy to re-open and re-close this with the same rationale if "non-admin closure" is the only objection. ~

1217: 1081: 4046: 4028: 4006: 3985: 3956: 3942: 3926: 3914: 3902: 3874: 3862: 3850: 3838: 3822: 3781: 3767: 3729: 3632: 3592: 3580: 3568: 3565: 3556: 3532: 3516: 3504: 3488: 3462: 3449: 3393: 3375: 3362: 3309: 3286: 3274: 3257: 3240: 3217: 3206: 3185: 3171: 3139: 2743: 2705: 2657: 2636: 2619: 2595: 2583: 2554: 2522: 2511: 2498: 2387: 2347: 2309: 2295: 2197: 2148: 2135: 2125: 2101: 2087: 1974: 1914: 1901: 1872: 1858: 1833: 1790: 1766: 1690: 1668: 1655: 1639: 1629: 1612: 1598: 1378: 1338: 1301: 1275: 1246: 1229: 1203: 1169: 1151: 1133: 1119: 1093: 1064: 1047: 1031: 1027: 1001: 872: 832: 820: 788: 769: 743: 723: 709: 695: 678: 635: 616: 599: 497: 458: 356: 304: 283: 271: 247: 220: 184: 82: 3935: 908: 2292: 1910:

I should watch this page to see what develops, I am now somewhat curious. As for you getting sof....LOL

1730: 973:. I have serious doubts about its notabilty, and on investigation found it was previously listed on AfD 392: 3437:"arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious." 3197:"), "List of Antarctic Americans" (don't be making fun of our Penguin-American friends, now), "List of 2508: 2383:– AfD close as keep endorsed, though non-admins are reminded to avoid closing controversial debates. – 2132: 2098: 1061: 3793:

The prior discussion was supported by a user other than the nominator, as opposed to what is asserted.

3323:. The closing admin dismissed the keep arguments by saying they justify the various articles (such as 4041: 4023: 3817: 3762: 3724: 2592: 1649: 79: 3497: 1703: 1595: 1414: 1180: 900: 864: 4003: 3778: 3752: 2631: 2192: 1911: 1869: 1830: 1490:

I respectfully ask that you please reinstate the article, based on that and all the reasons below:

1185: 990: 829: 704: 690: 384: 336: 299: 3465:

noted, really has to be on those favoring deletion given that there's no policy by which articles

1736: 1711: 1527:

http://www.forbes.com/technology/2006/12/06/internet-advertising-search-tech_cx_ag_1207google.html

670:

of the current article as it also was created as an attack page. This new user appears to need a

256: 181: 3974: 3306: 3160: 2694: 2551: 2336: 2145: 2122: 1890: 1847: 1787: 1755: 1687: 1644:

The layout of the BusinessWeek article is a grotesque crime against usable web design, but there

1327: 1272: 1166: 809: 785: 628: 346: 280: 243: 210: 3500:

arguments on the cited AfD. No clear consensus, should have defaulted to keep per no consensus.

3266: 2682: 2678: 2670: 2542: 671: 1699: 1476: 1406: 1370: 3885: 3859: 3501: 2566: 1727: 1480: 234:

a publisher of original thought; it's an encyclopedia, and thus articles must be supported by

3802:

5 days is the standard run time for both CFD and UCFD. This discussion was not closed early.

3550:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American social and political scientists

1826: 3629: 3324: 3136: 2740: 2384: 2306: 2010: 1375: 1112: 494: 3949: 3799:. Many categories kept in the past are being deleted in the present; this is no different. 3796: 3338: 2674: 2666: 2489: 2317: 1733: 1162: 1018: 1012: 982: 970: 665: 659: 646: 292: 231: 75: 4035: 4017: 3811: 3756: 3718: 3231:. This article-list was deleted for the same incorrect reasons that the since overturned 1665: 1636: 1609: 1298: 1243: 1200: 1148: 720: 3701: 3355: 3100: 3031: 2962: 2893: 2824: 2516:

Which had nowhere near consensus to keep. Both closing reasons are pretty much the same.

2468: 2274: 2055: 1536:“Bloggers Bring in the Big Bucks” – BusinessWeek Small Biz feature on five top bloggers: 1459: 953: 578: 437: 260: 235: 197: 163: 3553: 3458: 3271: 3182: 2628: 2189: 1072: 994: 701: 687: 455: 296: 264: 3496:

Whilst I agree that categories serve a simular purpose too much weight was put on the

3471: 3423:

As per the deletion review, the closing admin. admitted to having relied on the essay

3329: 2538: 1571: 1548: 201: 193: 3967: 3911: 3589: 3478: 3302: 3153: 2687: 2653: 2547: 2329: 2141: 2118: 2084: 1971: 1883: 1840: 1783: 1748: 1683: 1320: 1189: 1144: 1008: 802: 781: 766: 739: 341: 259:'s comments. Knowledge (XXG) cannot publish original thought; it violates one of our 239: 205: 3999:

This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second look.

3588:

These are all perfectly sensible concepts, and should be verifiable fairly easily.--

1882:

don't see any harm in giving the nominator a chance. Maybe I'm getting soft. : ) --

1778:

I think the title reflects his using "Shoemoney" as a handle/nickname. For example,

3939: 3847: 3390: 3372: 3359: 3283: 3214: 3202: 3118:

These were originally separate and I combined them. There are two AFDs and one DRV:

2616: 2518: 2494: 1652: 1626: 1264: 1193: 1130: 1044: 869: 675: 3085: 3016: 2947: 2878: 2809: 2665:- In situations like this where there are more than enough sources for the topic, 2453: 2259: 2040: 1560:

http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/07/27/mediawhiz-buys-another-ad-startup-auctionads/

1444: 938: 563: 422: 148: 1739: 3934:(with response to prior question). Our consensus policy has a section entitled 3835: 3529: 3237: 3132: 2002: 1954: 1779: 1105: 3205:), "List of Americanh Americans" (what is an "Americanh" anyway?), or "List of 3871: 3717:

Nomination time was too short and too soon after previous (failed) nomination

3577: 3446: 3254: 1588:

Search Engine Strategies (SES) Conference & Expo - Aug 2007, San Jose, CA

1815: 3953: 3923: 3747: 3513: 1485:

http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/02/23/mybloglog-bans-blogger-backlash-begins/

613: 3419:(One editor was dismissed solely for having participated in a similar Afd!) 2320:

is a basis for deleting talk pages for images that do not exist. Since the

1664:. Still don't think he's notable...but...no sense in not giving it a shot. 3542:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American philosophers

2109:, although I'm not sure why you're bringing your own deletion to DRV. The 1538:

http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/jul2007/sb20070713_202390.htm

2648: 2072: 1959: 734: 1578:

SEM Conferences where Shoemoney has spoken include, but not limited to:

3546:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American musicians

2114: 3385:

DHowell is correct that "the Scandinavian American lists were deleted

2140:

It was more the lack of an actual question. Not a big deal, though. --

2110: 969:

This article came to my attention because it has been nominated as a

3421:(No, sorry. Correction: there really was a duplicated "keep" entry). 1503: 2113:

doesn't look too bad, even if it could reasonably be merged with

3411:

arguments to 'keep' "failed to address why we should have a list

1566:

AuctionBytes article about AuctionAds eBay Star Developer award:

3834:- deleted because of a single vote is hardly a consensus. // 3342:

policy. Further, the Scandinavian American lists were deleted

3152:

to give an idea of where we are and where we may be going. --

3148:

For anyone wanting to see the scope of this matter, I created

3526:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of Japanese people

662:

in which category I hope all of our non-bot editors belong.

3777:- Very unremarkable UCFD which followed standard process. -- 1575: 868:– relist by consent of closing admin and consensus within – 238:. Judging from the comment above and the AFD, this wasn't. 3443:

or for having participating in other, similar discussions.

3425:

Knowledge (XXG):Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

3209:

Americans" (I guess we don't need to worry about "List of

2486:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators'_noticeboard#Jennifer_Moore

1818: 981:

despite no support for this outcome (closing admin citing

2603:

I'm not certain on first glance if the right closure was

1726:. I think you would be better off creating an article on 279:. This is a personal essay, as its author admits above. 3685: 3681: 3673: 3665: 3512:

per Pia. (hope that is considered enough justification)

3428: 3414: 3407: 3352:

list could be replaced by a category are not convincing

3081: 3077: 3073: 3012: 3008: 3004: 2943: 2939: 2935: 2874: 2870: 2866: 2805: 2801: 2797: 2449: 2445: 2441: 2321: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2188:– Closed, request is not for undeletion of the image – 2036: 2032: 2028: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1197: 934: 930: 926: 559: 555: 551: 418: 414: 410: 144: 140: 136: 3432:

Knowledge (XXG):Deletion guidelines for administrators

3387:

without even a single policy being cited for deletion!

3344:

without even a single policy being cited for deletion

1525:"Bitten By The Google Spider" - Forbes.com, 12-7-06, 1199:). (User:ANJaffe has only edited in this article.) -- 1021:. The article is clearly not notable, and should be 1807:== Shoemoney is funny. Visit the real Shoemoney == 1572:

http://www.auctionbytes.com/cab/abn/y07/m06/i12/s00

1549:

http://www.auctionbytes.com/cab/abn/y07/m06/i12/s00

700:

I also re-deleted the article as an attack page. --

2484:Controversial AFD closed by non-admin (see also: 1071:(Note: following comment from IP editor moved by 3296:. We seem to be going through another spate of 1547:“eBay Honors Developers at Annual Conference”: 3544:has similarly been proposed for deletion, and 1582:eBay Developers Conference 2007 - June, Boston 1558:MediaWhiz Buys Another Ad Startup, AuctionAds 3751:closed on Tuesday morning October 9, 2007 by 2625:Endorse closure but not the way it was closed 1585:Elite Retreat - June, 2007 - Orlando, Florida 1570:eBay Honors Developers at Annual Conference – 8: 1782:is his self-chosen title for his profile. -- 3642:The following is an archived debate of the 2753:The following is an archived debate of the 2397:The following is an archived debate of the 2207:The following is an archived debate of the 1984:The following is an archived debate of the 1554:TechCrunch on Schoemaker’s AuctionAds sale: 1388:The following is an archived debate of the 1043:. WP is not the place to post a resume. -- 882:The following is an archived debate of the 796:- Closer interpreted the debate correctly. 507:The following is an archived debate of the 366:The following is an archived debate of the 92:The following is an archived debate of the 3617: 2730: 2372: 2177: 1947: 1363: 857: 482: 329: 63: 3746:on Thursday night of October 4, 2007 by 1816:Will the Real Shoemoney please stand up! 4058:The above is an archived debate of the 3602:The above is an archived debate of the 3150:User:Jreferee/Lists of Ethnic Americans 2715:The above is an archived debate of the 2357:The above is an archived debate of the 2162:The above is an archived debate of the 1932:The above is an archived debate of the 1348:The above is an archived debate of the 842:The above is an archived debate of the 467:The above is an archived debate of the 314:The above is an archived debate of the 3742:from June/July 2007. The category was 3330:signficant coverage in reliable souces 2226:Image:Temple of Saint Sava's bells.jpg 2185:Image:Temple of Saint Sava's bells.jpg 74:– Deletion endorsed, article violates 3358:, these lists should have been kept. 2488:). Keep arguments mostly based upon " 1075:to avoid breaking nomination format): 7: 1015:to his/her own edits to the article! 3319:for the same reasons I gave in the 1594:Affiliate Summit 2007 East - Miami 78:policy by nominator's admission. – 3995:"1. Deletion Review is to be used 1502:Twelve of the Technorati Top 100 ( 645:I reviewed the AFD before I did a 28: 3201:Americans" (a shining example of 340:– Contested prod, sent to AFD – — 3461:-based. The burden of proof, as 3321:DRV for List of German Americans 1708:December 30, 2006 New York Times 1504:http://technorati.com/pop/blogs/ 1007:Furthermore, the closing admin, 3661:Category:Demoscener Wikipedians 3625:Category:Demoscener Wikipedians 1591:eComXpo - March 2007, Chicago 18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review 1712:January 29, 2007 Press release 1574:Shoemoney - Schoemaker’s Blog 1562:AuctionAds www.auctionads.com 1: 2291:that this is a technicality. 1802:: the contents of which were: 1297:or "no importance". Thanks, 4047:23:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 4029:23:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 4007:00:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 3991:2nd comment by closing admin 3986:00:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 3957:17:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 3943:13:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 3927:11:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 3915:20:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 3903:19:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 3875:17:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 3863:15:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 3851:14:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 3839:10:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 3823:23:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 3782:02:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 3768:00:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 3730:00:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 3633:02:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 3593:21:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 3581:15:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 3569:13:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 3557:03:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 3533:03:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 3517:10:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 3505:09:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 3489:04:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 3472:general notability guideline 3450:03:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 3394:22:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 3376:21:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 3363:21:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 3310:17:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 3287:14:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 3275:05:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 3258:04:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 3241:01:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 3218:01:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 3195:List of people from Nebraska 3186:00:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 3172:00:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 3140:04:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 2744:02:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 2706:00:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 2658:04:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 2637:00:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 2620:21:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 2596:21:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 2584:19:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 2555:16:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 2523:17:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 2512:16:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 2499:15:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 2416:SuccessTech Academy shooting 2388:02:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 2380:SuccessTech Academy shooting 2348:00:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 2310:20:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 2296:15:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 2198:23:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 2149:18:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 2136:17:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 2126:17:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 2102:16:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 2088:15:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 1975:03:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 1915:19:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 1902:18:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 1873:18:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 1859:17:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 1834:17:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 1791:21:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 1767:01:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 1720:August 1, 2007 Press release 1704:April 30, 2004 Press release 1691:18:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 1669:19:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 1660:Well...given that, I'll say 1656:05:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 1640:03:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 1630:03:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 1613:03:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 1599:17:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 1521:Coverage in Forbes Magazine: 1379:02:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 1339:15:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 1302:12:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 1276:07:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 1247:06:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 1230:04:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 1204:22:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 1170:22:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 1152:21:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 1134:21:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 1120:19:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 1094:18:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 1065:18:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 1048:18:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 1032:17:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 1002:17:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 873:15:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 833:19:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 821:01:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 789:18:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 770:10:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 744:04:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 724:03:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 710:00:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 696:00:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 679:21:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 674:lesson, possibly a mentor. 636:19:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 617:19:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 600:19:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 498:02:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 459:19:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 357:20:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 305:00:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 284:20:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 272:20:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 248:20:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 236:reliable third-party sources 221:20:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 185:19:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 83:04:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 2910:List of Norwegian Americans 2681:was never really an issue. 1716:May 7, 2007 Chicago Tribune 1635:could make anyone notable. 985:). Although the article is 977:; the debate was closed as 4085: 3248:: If the reason to delete 2739:– Deletions overturned. – 1269:South Florida Sun Sentinel 111:Rexist Equilibrium of Life 71:Rexist Equilibrium of Life 3936:"Asking the other parent" 3628:– Overturn and relist. – 2979:List of Swedish Americans 2841:List of Finnish Americans 2772:List of Belgian Americans 1576:http://www.shoemoney.com/ 1543:Coverage in AuctionBytes: 1532:Coverage in BusinessWeek: 1192:, unregistered users and 1163:not what wikipedia is for 4065:Please do not modify it. 3649:Please do not modify it. 3609:Please do not modify it. 3250:List of German Americans 3233:List of German Americans 2760:Please do not modify it. 2722:Please do not modify it. 2404:Please do not modify it. 2364:Please do not modify it. 2214:Please do not modify it. 2169:Please do not modify it. 1991:Please do not modify it. 1939:Please do not modify it. 1724:September 5, 2007 U-WIRE 1395:Please do not modify it. 1355:Please do not modify it. 889:Please do not modify it. 849:Please do not modify it. 514:Please do not modify it. 474:Please do not modify it. 373:Please do not modify it. 321:Please do not modify it. 200:, and their subjects be 99:Please do not modify it. 40:Deletion review archives 3350:that arguments that a " 3048:List of Swiss Americans 2737:Lists of ____ Americans 4062:of the article above. 3646:of the article above. 3606:of the article above. 2757:of the article above. 2719:of the article above. 2401:of the article above. 2361:of the article above. 2211:of the article above. 2166:of the article above. 1988:of the article above. 1936:of the article above. 1822: 1809: 1392:of the article above. 1352:of the article above. 886:of the article above. 846:of the article above. 526:Marion van de Wetering 511:of the article above. 490:Marion van de Wetering 471:of the article above. 370:of the article above. 318:of the article above. 232:Knowledge (XXG) is not 96:of the article above. 3832:Overturn and undelete 3736:Overturn and undelete 3229:Overturn and undelete 1813: 1805: 1317:List at AfD as closer 826:Endorse all deletions 3797:Consensus can change 753:Dominic J. Solntseff 643:Endorse AFD deletion 610:Dominic J. Solntseff 597:Dominic J. Solntseff 76:No Original Research 3753:User:After_Midnight 3740:previous discussion 3348:German American AfD 1800:Endorse my deletion 1780:Shoemoney Biography 612:in a fit of pique. 3444: 3420: 1475:The biography of “ 1118: 4072: 4071: 3616: 3615: 3445: 3442: 3422: 3418: 3142: 2729: 2728: 2371: 2370: 2176: 2175: 1946: 1945: 1728:Jeremy Schoemaker 1481:Jeremy Schoemaker 1362: 1361: 1232: 1220:comment added by 1117: 1104: 1096: 1084:comment added by 856: 855: 664:Also, do another 481: 480: 328: 327: 246: 4076: 4067: 3983: 3977: 3972: 3898: 3894: 3891: 3888: 3775:Endorse Deletion 3704: 3690: 3689: 3651: 3618: 3611: 3481: 3441: 3417: 3325:Belgian American 3169: 3163: 3158: 3117: 3103: 3089: 3071: 3034: 3020: 3002: 2965: 2951: 2933: 2896: 2882: 2864: 2827: 2813: 2795: 2762: 2731: 2724: 2703: 2697: 2692: 2634: 2579: 2575: 2572: 2569: 2471: 2457: 2439: 2406: 2373: 2366: 2345: 2339: 2334: 2303:endorse deletion 2277: 2263: 2245: 2216: 2195: 2178: 2171: 2081: 2078: 2075: 2058: 2044: 2026: 1993: 1968: 1965: 1962: 1948: 1941: 1899: 1893: 1888: 1856: 1850: 1845: 1819:Find a HOT date! 1764: 1758: 1753: 1696:Allow recreation 1680:Allow recreation 1662:Allow Recreation 1623:Allow Recreation 1462: 1448: 1430: 1397: 1364: 1357: 1336: 1330: 1325: 1215: 1115: 1110: 1108: 1079: 997: 956: 942: 924: 891: 858: 851: 818: 812: 807: 794:Endorse deletion 777:Endorse deletion 767:Camaron1 | Chris 749:Endorse deletion 707: 693: 606:Endorse deletion 581: 567: 549: 516: 483: 476: 440: 426: 408: 375: 354: 349: 344: 330: 323: 302: 291:, open and shut 289:Endorse deletion 277:Endorse deletion 267: 253:Endorse deletion 242: 228:Endorse deletion 218: 213: 208: 198:original thought 166: 152: 134: 101: 64: 53: 33: 4084: 4083: 4079: 4078: 4077: 4075: 4074: 4073: 4063: 4060:deletion review 3981: 3975: 3968: 3910:per others. -- 3896: 3892: 3889: 3886: 3744:nominated again 3713: 3707: 3700: 3699: 3693: 3663: 3659: 3647: 3644:deletion review 3607: 3604:deletion review 3566:Whitmorewolveyr 3487: 3477: 3356:deletion policy 3263:Strong overturn 3246:Strong Overturn 3167: 3161: 3154: 3112: 3106: 3099: 3098: 3092: 3062: 3046: 3043: 3037: 3030: 3029: 3023: 2993: 2977: 2974: 2968: 2961: 2960: 2954: 2924: 2908: 2905: 2899: 2892: 2891: 2885: 2855: 2839: 2836: 2830: 2823: 2822: 2816: 2786: 2770: 2758: 2755:deletion review 2720: 2717:deletion review 2701: 2695: 2688: 2632: 2593:trialsanderrors 2589:Endorse closure 2577: 2573: 2570: 2567: 2560:Endorse closure 2530:Endorse closure 2480: 2474: 2467: 2466: 2460: 2430: 2414: 2402: 2399:deletion review 2362: 2359:deletion review 2343: 2337: 2330: 2322:image talk page 2286: 2280: 2273: 2272: 2266: 2236: 2224: 2212: 2209:deletion review 2193: 2167: 2164:deletion review 2079: 2076: 2073: 2067: 2061: 2054: 2053: 2047: 2017: 2001: 1989: 1986:deletion review 1966: 1963: 1960: 1937: 1934:deletion review 1897: 1891: 1884: 1854: 1848: 1841: 1762: 1756: 1749: 1471: 1465: 1458: 1457: 1451: 1421: 1405: 1393: 1390:deletion review 1353: 1350:deletion review 1334: 1328: 1321: 1113: 1106: 1011:, was applying 995: 965: 959: 952: 951: 945: 915: 899: 887: 884:deletion review 847: 844:deletion review 816: 810: 803: 705: 691: 590: 584: 577: 576: 570: 540: 524: 512: 509:deletion review 472: 469:deletion review 449: 443: 436: 435: 429: 399: 383: 371: 368:deletion review 352: 347: 342: 319: 316:deletion review 300: 265: 216: 211: 206: 175: 169: 162: 161: 155: 125: 109: 97: 94:deletion review 80:trialsanderrors 62: 59:22 October 2007 55: 54: 51: 49:2007 October 23 46: 37: 35:2007 October 21 31: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 4082: 4080: 4070: 4069: 4054: 4053: 4052: 4051: 4050: 4049: 4031: 4010: 4009: 4004:After Midnight 3988: 3961: 3960: 3959: 3929: 3917: 3905: 3880:Relist on UCfD 3877: 3865: 3853: 3841: 3828: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3804: 3803: 3800: 3794: 3791: 3785: 3784: 3779:After Midnight 3771: 3770: 3715: 3714: 3711: 3705: 3697: 3691: 3654: 3653: 3638: 3637: 3636: 3635: 3614: 3613: 3598: 3597: 3596: 3595: 3583: 3571: 3559: 3535: 3519: 3507: 3491: 3483: 3476:" articles. — 3459:negative proof 3452: 3396: 3379: 3378: 3365: 3313: 3312: 3298:IDONTLIKELISTS 3290: 3289: 3277: 3260: 3243: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3213:Americans")?! 3188: 3143: 3119: 3114: 3113: 3110: 3104: 3096: 3090: 3044: 3041: 3035: 3027: 3021: 2975: 2972: 2966: 2958: 2952: 2906: 2903: 2897: 2889: 2883: 2837: 2834: 2828: 2820: 2814: 2765: 2764: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2727: 2726: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2660: 2639: 2622: 2598: 2586: 2557: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2482: 2481: 2478: 2472: 2464: 2458: 2409: 2408: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2369: 2368: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2312: 2288: 2287: 2284: 2278: 2270: 2264: 2219: 2218: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2174: 2173: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2111:mirror I found 2104: 2069: 2068: 2065: 2059: 2051: 2045: 1996: 1995: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1944: 1943: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1912:Carlossuarez46 1905: 1904: 1876: 1875: 1870:Carlossuarez46 1862: 1861: 1831:Carlossuarez46 1811: 1804: 1803: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1770: 1769: 1693: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1618: 1616: 1615: 1601: 1592: 1589: 1586: 1583: 1568: 1567: 1556: 1555: 1545: 1544: 1534: 1533: 1523: 1522: 1515: 1514: 1511: 1507: 1500: 1496: 1473: 1472: 1469: 1463: 1455: 1449: 1400: 1399: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1360: 1359: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1234: 1233: 1222:63.147.152.182 1207: 1206: 1181:63.147.152.182 1173: 1172: 1159:Relist at AfD. 1155: 1154: 1137: 1136: 1123: 1122: 1086:63.147.152.182 1068: 1067: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1035: 1034: 967: 966: 963: 957: 949: 943: 901:Darren Heitner 894: 893: 878: 877: 876: 875: 865:Darren Heitner 854: 853: 838: 837: 836: 835: 830:Carlossuarez46 823: 791: 773: 772: 746: 726: 714: 713: 712: 681: 639: 638: 633:The otter sank 620: 619: 592: 591: 588: 582: 574: 568: 519: 518: 503: 502: 501: 500: 479: 478: 463: 462: 451: 450: 447: 441: 433: 427: 378: 377: 362: 361: 360: 359: 326: 325: 310: 309: 308: 307: 286: 274: 250: 224: 223: 196:, not contain 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: 4081: 4068: 4066: 4061: 4056: 4055: 4048: 4044: 4043: 4039: 4038: 4032: 4030: 4026: 4025: 4021: 4020: 4014: 4013: 4012: 4011: 4008: 4005: 4000: 3998: 3992: 3989: 3987: 3984: 3978: 3973: 3971: 3965: 3962: 3958: 3955: 3951: 3946: 3945: 3944: 3941: 3937: 3933: 3930: 3928: 3925: 3921: 3918: 3916: 3913: 3909: 3906: 3904: 3901: 3900: 3899: 3881: 3878: 3876: 3873: 3869: 3866: 3864: 3861: 3857: 3854: 3852: 3849: 3845: 3842: 3840: 3837: 3833: 3830: 3829: 3824: 3820: 3819: 3815: 3814: 3809: 3806: 3805: 3801: 3798: 3795: 3792: 3789: 3788: 3787: 3786: 3783: 3780: 3776: 3773: 3772: 3769: 3765: 3764: 3760: 3759: 3754: 3749: 3745: 3741: 3737: 3734: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3727: 3726: 3722: 3721: 3710: 3703: 3696: 3687: 3683: 3679: 3675: 3671: 3667: 3662: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3655: 3652: 3650: 3645: 3640: 3639: 3634: 3631: 3627: 3626: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3619: 3612: 3610: 3605: 3600: 3599: 3594: 3591: 3587: 3584: 3582: 3579: 3575: 3572: 3570: 3567: 3563: 3560: 3558: 3555: 3551: 3547: 3543: 3539: 3536: 3534: 3531: 3527: 3523: 3520: 3518: 3515: 3511: 3508: 3506: 3503: 3499: 3495: 3492: 3490: 3486: 3480: 3473: 3468: 3464: 3460: 3456: 3453: 3451: 3448: 3438: 3433: 3429: 3426: 3415: 3412: 3408: 3405: 3400: 3397: 3395: 3392: 3388: 3384: 3381: 3380: 3377: 3374: 3369: 3366: 3364: 3361: 3357: 3353: 3349: 3345: 3340: 3336: 3335:citing policy 3332: 3331: 3326: 3322: 3318: 3315: 3314: 3311: 3308: 3304: 3299: 3295: 3292: 3291: 3288: 3285: 3281: 3278: 3276: 3273: 3268: 3264: 3261: 3259: 3256: 3251: 3247: 3244: 3242: 3239: 3234: 3230: 3227: 3226: 3219: 3216: 3212: 3208: 3204: 3200: 3196: 3192: 3189: 3187: 3184: 3180: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3173: 3170: 3164: 3159: 3157: 3151: 3147: 3144: 3141: 3138: 3134: 3130: 3129:Norwegian DRV 3126: 3125:Norwegian AFD 3122: 3116: 3115: 3109: 3102: 3095: 3087: 3083: 3079: 3075: 3070: 3066: 3061: 3057: 3053: 3049: 3045: 3040: 3033: 3026: 3018: 3014: 3010: 3006: 3001: 2997: 2992: 2988: 2984: 2980: 2976: 2971: 2964: 2957: 2949: 2945: 2941: 2937: 2932: 2928: 2923: 2919: 2915: 2911: 2907: 2902: 2895: 2888: 2880: 2876: 2872: 2868: 2863: 2859: 2854: 2850: 2846: 2842: 2838: 2833: 2826: 2819: 2811: 2807: 2803: 2799: 2794: 2790: 2785: 2781: 2777: 2773: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2763: 2761: 2756: 2751: 2750: 2745: 2742: 2738: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2725: 2723: 2718: 2713: 2712: 2707: 2704: 2698: 2693: 2691: 2684: 2680: 2676: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2661: 2659: 2655: 2651: 2650: 2644: 2640: 2638: 2635: 2630: 2626: 2623: 2621: 2618: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2599: 2597: 2594: 2590: 2587: 2585: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2561: 2558: 2556: 2553: 2549: 2544: 2540: 2535: 2531: 2528: 2524: 2521: 2520: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2510: 2506: 2505:Endorse close 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2497: 2496: 2491: 2487: 2477: 2470: 2463: 2455: 2451: 2447: 2443: 2438: 2434: 2429: 2425: 2421: 2417: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2407: 2405: 2400: 2395: 2394: 2389: 2386: 2382: 2381: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2367: 2365: 2360: 2355: 2354: 2349: 2346: 2340: 2335: 2333: 2327: 2323: 2319: 2316: 2313: 2311: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2294: 2283: 2276: 2269: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2249: 2244: 2240: 2235: 2231: 2227: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2217: 2215: 2210: 2205: 2204: 2199: 2196: 2191: 2187: 2186: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2172: 2170: 2165: 2160: 2159: 2150: 2147: 2143: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2134: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2124: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2105: 2103: 2100: 2095: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2086: 2082: 2064: 2057: 2050: 2042: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2025: 2021: 2016: 2012: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1994: 1992: 1987: 1982: 1981: 1976: 1973: 1969: 1958:– OVERTURN – 1957: 1956: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1942: 1940: 1935: 1930: 1929: 1916: 1913: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1903: 1900: 1894: 1889: 1887: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1874: 1871: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1860: 1857: 1851: 1846: 1844: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1832: 1828: 1824: 1823: 1821: 1820: 1817: 1812: 1808: 1801: 1798: 1797: 1792: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1777: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1768: 1765: 1759: 1754: 1752: 1746: 1743: 1740: 1737: 1734: 1731: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1713: 1709: 1705: 1701: 1697: 1694: 1692: 1689: 1685: 1681: 1678: 1670: 1667: 1663: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1654: 1650: 1647: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1638: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1628: 1624: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1614: 1611: 1607: 1606: 1602: 1600: 1597: 1593: 1590: 1587: 1584: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1577: 1573: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1561: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1512: 1508: 1505: 1501: 1497: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1488: 1486: 1482: 1478: 1468: 1461: 1454: 1446: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1429: 1425: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1398: 1396: 1391: 1386: 1385: 1380: 1377: 1373: 1372: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1358: 1356: 1351: 1346: 1345: 1340: 1337: 1331: 1326: 1324: 1318: 1315: 1314: 1303: 1300: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1277: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1248: 1245: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1212: 1209: 1208: 1205: 1202: 1198: 1195: 1191: 1190:User:Jreferee 1187: 1186:User:Dheitner 1182: 1178: 1175: 1174: 1171: 1168: 1164: 1160: 1157: 1156: 1153: 1150: 1146: 1145:Caitlin Upton 1142: 1139: 1138: 1135: 1132: 1128: 1125: 1124: 1121: 1116: 1109: 1102: 1101:Relist at AfD 1099: 1098: 1097: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1076: 1074: 1066: 1063: 1058: 1057:Relist at AFD 1055: 1054: 1049: 1046: 1042: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1033: 1030: 1029: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1000: 998: 992: 991:User:Dheitner 988: 984: 980: 976: 972: 962: 955: 948: 940: 936: 932: 928: 923: 919: 914: 910: 906: 902: 898: 897: 896: 895: 892: 890: 885: 880: 879: 874: 871: 867: 866: 862: 861: 860: 859: 852: 850: 845: 840: 839: 834: 831: 827: 824: 822: 819: 813: 808: 806: 799: 795: 792: 790: 787: 783: 778: 775: 774: 771: 768: 764: 761: 758: 754: 750: 747: 745: 741: 737: 736: 730: 727: 725: 722: 718: 715: 711: 708: 703: 699: 698: 697: 694: 689: 685: 682: 680: 677: 673: 669: 667: 661: 660:living people 657: 655: 654:my WP:CSD#G10 648: 644: 641: 640: 637: 634: 630: 629:Theresa Knott 627: 622: 621: 618: 615: 611: 607: 604: 603: 602: 601: 598: 587: 580: 573: 565: 561: 557: 553: 548: 544: 539: 535: 531: 527: 523: 522: 521: 520: 517: 515: 510: 505: 504: 499: 496: 492: 491: 487: 486: 485: 484: 477: 475: 470: 465: 464: 461: 460: 457: 446: 439: 432: 424: 420: 416: 412: 407: 403: 398: 394: 390: 386: 385:Seth_Thurston 382: 381: 380: 379: 376: 374: 369: 364: 363: 358: 355: 350: 345: 339: 338: 337:Seth Thurston 334: 333: 332: 331: 324: 322: 317: 312: 311: 306: 303: 298: 294: 290: 287: 285: 282: 281:Sam Blacketer 278: 275: 273: 270: 268: 262: 261:core policies 258: 254: 251: 249: 245: 241: 237: 233: 229: 226: 225: 222: 219: 214: 209: 203: 199: 195: 190: 189: 188: 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: 77: 73: 72: 68: 67: 66: 65: 60: 57: 50: 45: 41: 36: 23: 19: 4064: 4057: 4042: 4040:<sac: --> 4036: 4024: 4022:<sac: --> 4018: 3996: 3994: 3990: 3969: 3963: 3931: 3919: 3907: 3884: 3883: 3879: 3867: 3860:TonyBallioni 3855: 3843: 3831: 3818: 3816:<sac: --> 3812: 3807: 3774: 3763: 3761:<sac: --> 3757: 3735: 3725: 3723:<sac: --> 3719: 3716: 3648: 3641: 3623: 3608: 3601: 3585: 3576:per Pia L.-- 3573: 3561: 3537: 3521: 3509: 3502:EconomicsGuy 3493: 3466: 3454: 3430:. I suggest 3410: 3402: 3398: 3386: 3382: 3368:Overturn all 3367: 3351: 3343: 3328: 3316: 3293: 3279: 3262: 3245: 3228: 3203:RAS syndrome 3190: 3178: 3155: 3145: 2759: 2752: 2736: 2721: 2714: 2689: 2662: 2647: 2642: 2624: 2613:no consensus 2612: 2608: 2604: 2601:Close enough 2600: 2588: 2565: 2564: 2559: 2533: 2529: 2517: 2504: 2493: 2490:wait and see 2483: 2403: 2396: 2378: 2363: 2356: 2331: 2325: 2315:Speedy close 2314: 2302: 2289: 2213: 2206: 2183: 2168: 2161: 2106: 2093: 2070: 1990: 1983: 1953: 1938: 1931: 1885: 1842: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1799: 1775: 1750: 1695: 1679: 1661: 1645: 1622: 1617: 1604: 1603: 1569: 1557: 1546: 1535: 1524: 1516: 1489: 1474: 1394: 1387: 1369: 1354: 1347: 1322: 1316: 1265:Miami Herald 1210: 1194:User:ANJaffe 1176: 1158: 1140: 1126: 1100: 1070: 1069: 1056: 1040: 1028:Geometry guy 1026: 1022: 999: 986: 978: 971:Good article 968: 888: 881: 863: 848: 841: 825: 804: 797: 793: 776: 759: 748: 733: 728: 716: 684:Keep deleted 683: 663: 653: 651: 642: 626:Keep deleted 625: 605: 593: 513: 506: 488: 473: 466: 452: 372: 365: 335: 320: 313: 288: 276: 269: 252: 227: 178: 98: 91: 69: 58: 44:2007 October 3630:Chick Bowen 3121:Belgian AFD 2741:Chick Bowen 2683:Trout whack 2675:WP:NOT#NEWS 2667:WP:NOT#NEWS 2534:from policy 2385:Chick Bowen 2307:Chick Bowen 2003:Marquis Jet 1955:Marquis Jet 1376:Chick Bowen 1216:—Preceding 1080:—Preceding 495:Chick Bowen 3498:WP:USELESS 3467:inherently 3339:WP:NOT#DIR 1666:Smashville 1637:Smashville 1610:Smashville 1499:authority. 1299:Wanderer57 1244:Wanderer57 1201:Yamanbaiia 1149:Wanderer57 987:apparently 721:Smashville 666:WP:CSD#G10 647:WP:CSD#G10 194:verifiable 3970:Jreferee 3748:User:Jc37 3554:Badagnani 3272:Badagnani 3183:Badagnani 3156:Jreferee 2690:Jreferee 2332:Jreferee 2318:WP:CSD#G8 1886:Jreferee 1843:Jreferee 1751:Jreferee 1700:Shoemoney 1596:Juliawilk 1477:Shoemoney 1407:Shoemoney 1371:Shoemoney 1323:Jreferee 1073:EyeSerene 996:EyeSerene 805:Jreferee 456:Ramos9111 293:WP:NOT#OR 266:EyeSerene 255:based on 3912:Kbdank71 3590:Bedivere 3586:Overturn 3574:Overturn 3562:Overturn 3510:Overturn 3494:Overturn 3479:xDanielx 3455:Overturn 3404:ignored. 3399:Overturn 3383:Overturn 3317:Overturn 3303:Dhartung 3294:Overturn 3280:Overturn 3267:WP:POINT 2679:WP:CFORK 2671:WP:CFORK 2548:Dhartung 2543:WP:BLP1E 2142:Dhartung 2119:Dhartung 2107:Overturn 2094:Overturn 1839:AfD. -- 1784:Dhartung 1684:Dhartung 1273:Dr. Cash 1218:unsigned 1167:Dr. Cash 1082:unsigned 1009:Jreferee 782:Dhartung 763:contribs 672:civility 668:deletion 656:deletion 652:Endorse 343:bbatsell 295:case. -- 240:Tony Fox 207:bbatsell 187:Rexeken 20:‎ | 3940:GRBerry 3920:Comment 3848:RockMFR 3808:comment 3738:as per 3695:restore 3674:history 3538:Comment 3522:comment 3391:Langrel 3373:GRBerry 3360:DHowell 3284:RockMFR 3215:DHowell 3207:ירושלמי 3191:Comment 3179:Comment 3094:restore 3065:protect 3060:history 3025:restore 2996:protect 2991:history 2956:restore 2927:protect 2922:history 2887:restore 2858:protect 2853:history 2818:restore 2789:protect 2784:history 2663:Endorse 2643:endorse 2617:GRBerry 2509:W.marsh 2462:restore 2433:protect 2428:history 2326:endorse 2268:restore 2239:protect 2234:history 2133:W.marsh 2115:NetJets 2099:W.marsh 2049:restore 2020:protect 2015:history 1827:WP:BOLD 1776:Comment 1653:Stormie 1627:Stormie 1605:Endorse 1495:SEOMoz. 1453:restore 1424:protect 1419:history 1267:or the 1131:GRBerry 1062:W.marsh 1045:SECisek 1023:deleted 947:restore 918:protect 913:history 870:GRBerry 798:Comment 729:Endorse 717:Endorse 676:GRBerry 572:restore 543:protect 538:history 431:restore 402:protect 397:history 257:Rexeken 202:notable 182:Rexeken 157:restore 128:protect 123:history 4045:.oOo. 4027:.oOo. 3964:Relist 3950:WP:IAR 3932:Relist 3908:Relist 3868:Relist 3856:Relist 3844:Relist 3836:Gargaj 3821:.oOo. 3766:.oOo. 3728:.oOo. 3530:Hmains 3238:Hmains 3211:القُدس 3133:chaser 3069:delete 3000:delete 2931:delete 2862:delete 2793:delete 2541:, and 2437:delete 2293:Nikola 2243:delete 2232:| ] | 2024:delete 1428:delete 1211:Relist 1177:Relist 1127:Relist 1107:henrik 1041:Delete 1019:WP:HEY 1013:WP:HEY 983:WP:HEY 922:delete 547:delete 406:delete 244:(arf!) 132:delete 3872:Xoloz 3702:cache 3682:watch 3678:links 3578:Berig 3463:Xolox 3255:Leuko 3101:cache 3086:views 3078:watch 3074:links 3032:cache 3017:views 3009:watch 3005:links 2963:cache 2948:views 2940:watch 2936:links 2894:cache 2879:views 2871:watch 2867:links 2825:cache 2810:views 2802:watch 2798:links 2633:desat 2609:merge 2469:cache 2454:views 2446:watch 2442:links 2328:. -- 2275:cache 2260:views 2252:watch 2248:links 2194:desat 2056:cache 2041:views 2033:watch 2029:links 1747:. -- 1460:cache 1445:views 1437:watch 1433:links 954:cache 939:views 931:watch 927:links 706:desat 692:desat 579:cache 564:views 556:watch 552:links 438:cache 423:views 415:watch 411:links 301:desat 164:cache 149:views 141:watch 137:links 52:: --> 16:< 3954:jc37 3924:jc37 3709:UCfD 3686:logs 3670:talk 3666:edit 3548:and 3514:Inge 3307:Talk 3146:NOTE 3082:logs 3056:talk 3052:edit 3013:logs 2987:talk 2983:edit 2944:logs 2918:talk 2914:edit 2875:logs 2849:talk 2845:edit 2806:logs 2780:talk 2776:edit 2677:and 2669:and 2654:talk 2629:Core 2605:keep 2552:Talk 2539:WP:N 2519:Will 2495:Will 2450:logs 2424:talk 2420:edit 2256:logs 2230:edit 2190:Core 2146:Talk 2123:Talk 2085:Talk 2037:logs 2011:talk 2007:edit 1972:Talk 1788:Talk 1688:Talk 1651:. -- 1487:). 1441:logs 1415:talk 1411:edit 1226:talk 1141:Keep 1114:talk 1090:talk 979:keep 975:here 935:logs 909:talk 905:edit 786:Talk 757:talk 740:talk 702:Core 688:Core 614:Deor 560:logs 534:talk 530:edit 419:logs 393:talk 389:edit 297:Core 204:. — 145:logs 119:talk 115:edit 32:< 4037:roy 4019:roy 3895:Fan 3813:roy 3758:roy 3720:roy 3475:--> 3447:Pia 3409:, " 3199:CSA 3131:.-- 3108:AfD 3039:AfD 2970:AfD 2901:AfD 2832:AfD 2649:DGG 2611:or 2576:Fan 2492:". 2476:AfD 2282:AfD 2063:AfD 1646:are 1479:” ( 1467:AfD 961:AfD 735:DGG 586:AfD 445:AfD 171:AfD 22:Log 4002:-- 3897:24 3893:AR 3890:SC 3887:NA 3684:| 3680:| 3676:| 3672:| 3668:| 3540:- 3305:| 3135:- 3127:- 3123:- 3084:| 3080:| 3076:| 3072:| 3067:| 3063:| 3058:| 3054:| 3015:| 3011:| 3007:| 3003:| 2998:| 2994:| 2989:| 2985:| 2946:| 2942:| 2938:| 2934:| 2929:| 2925:| 2920:| 2916:| 2877:| 2873:| 2869:| 2865:| 2860:| 2856:| 2851:| 2847:| 2808:| 2804:| 2800:| 2796:| 2791:| 2787:| 2782:| 2778:| 2656:) 2607:, 2578:24 2574:AR 2571:SC 2568:NA 2550:| 2546:-- 2452:| 2448:| 2444:| 2440:| 2435:| 2431:| 2426:| 2422:| 2258:| 2254:| 2250:| 2246:| 2241:| 2237:| 2144:| 2131:-- 2121:| 2097:-- 2083:| 2039:| 2035:| 2031:| 2027:| 2022:| 2018:| 2013:| 2009:| 1970:| 1786:| 1744:, 1741:, 1738:, 1735:, 1732:, 1722:, 1718:, 1714:, 1710:, 1706:, 1702:: 1686:| 1443:| 1439:| 1435:| 1431:| 1426:| 1422:| 1417:| 1413:| 1228:) 1196:( 1188:, 1165:. 1092:) 1060:-- 1025:. 937:| 933:| 929:| 925:| 920:| 916:| 911:| 907:| 784:| 780:-- 742:) 631:| 562:| 558:| 554:| 550:| 545:| 541:| 536:| 532:| 421:| 417:| 413:| 409:| 404:| 400:| 395:| 391:| 348:¿? 263:. 230:; 212:¿? 147:| 143:| 139:| 135:| 130:| 126:| 121:| 117:| 42:: 3982:c 3979:/ 3976:t 3712:) 3706:| 3698:| 3692:( 3688:) 3664:( 3485:C 3482:/ 3413:" 3406:" 3168:c 3165:/ 3162:t 3137:t 3111:) 3105:| 3097:| 3091:( 3088:) 3050:( 3042:) 3036:| 3028:| 3022:( 3019:) 2981:( 2973:) 2967:| 2959:| 2953:( 2950:) 2912:( 2904:) 2898:| 2890:| 2884:( 2881:) 2843:( 2835:) 2829:| 2821:| 2815:( 2812:) 2774:( 2702:c 2699:/ 2696:t 2652:( 2641:' 2479:) 2473:| 2465:| 2459:( 2456:) 2418:( 2344:c 2341:/ 2338:t 2285:) 2279:| 2271:| 2265:( 2262:) 2228:( 2080:P 2077:I 2074:J 2066:) 2060:| 2052:| 2046:( 2043:) 2005:( 1967:P 1964:I 1961:J 1898:c 1895:/ 1892:t 1855:c 1852:/ 1849:t 1763:c 1760:/ 1757:t 1470:) 1464:| 1456:| 1450:( 1447:) 1409:( 1335:c 1332:/ 1329:t 1224:( 1111:• 1088:( 964:) 958:| 950:| 944:( 941:) 903:( 817:c 814:/ 811:t 760:· 755:( 738:( 589:) 583:| 575:| 569:( 566:) 528:( 448:) 442:| 434:| 428:( 425:) 387:( 353:✍ 217:✍ 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 October 22 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index