Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2007 October 24

4478:. What is an "English American"? Someone who identifies as both English and American? Someone who is English but happens to have an American parent? Someone who is American but who happens to have an English parent? Is it simply someone from North America who claims some ancestry from England, in which case they would not be considered ethnically English by an English person actually from England. Is an English American simply an American who has culturally assimilated to the English way of life, and so identifies as English? Or is an English American simply someone who has some vague connection to both England and America and who some Knowledge (XXG) editor decided arbitrarily to place into the article (this seems the most likely scenario to me). Obviously this is not about citizenship because it is impossible to be a citizen of England. 1053:

from the news - exactly the sort of situation the policy is meant to address. What sourcing? The article cites one media report and one press release by one of the raiding agencies, and simultaneously links (pretty obviously inappropriately) to a number of other contemporaneous media reports, either copies of the wire service article or thinly disguised copies of that wire service article. That is all it had when the AFD was closed, and all it has now. This pretty obviously had no chance of being deleted currently, let's revisit in while after the article either meets standards or by failing to meet standards demonstrates that the subject is not and never was notable due to lack of reliable sourcing.

1976:

notability . After I restored the relevant portion, the other people there--almost all supported the article. The exception was one ed. who insisted on arguing that the editorships and journal publications were not significant despite explanations to him by several eds. that the comparisons he was using were not valid. I improved the article enough to pass, and can probably improve it further. As Dhartung says, the notability of an academic is proved by their accomplishments, and the publications are a matter of record and thus V is satisfied. Frankly, I am a little puzzled at the degree of vehemence shown at AfD and here about this particular article.

666:. The article was nominated for deletion as being original research, nobody was able to prove otherwise in the deletion discussion. Asserting "no, no, it can be cleaned up" would be great if that hadn't already happened in the first AFD - nothing changed, which is why someone re-nominated it. I will revert my closure and undelete this article if someone can cite just 10 "examples of snowclones". Not ones you have decided are snowclones - ones that are described as being snowclones, in the reliable, non-blog, reference. And if, as you say, DRV is about procedure, I refer you to GBerry above, and 4306:

is nothing in WP that says lists cannot also exist when categories exist. The list readily provides information 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 on a person. 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.

1486:– Keep closure endorsed. John254 provides sound reasoning to support the consensus below. Although WP:V requires independent sourcing according to its letter (and this requirement is normally very firm and indisputable), it is within closer's discretion to apply a "reasonableness test" in any closure. The argument between "eventualism" and "immediatism" is tension at the core of Wiki-policy debates, never firmly settled in favor of either. For "eventualist" arguments to have any force at all, it must be permitted, at the very least, for 2228:. It is not a summary of the notability guideline, it is policy with higher standing and addressing different issues. (It was also forged, if I understand the history correctly, as part of deciding what to do about otherwise articles on non-notable victims of the 9/11 terrorism attacks, a notable event if there ever was one.) However, with DGGs argument unresponded to, the right close was no consensus. The difference between keep and no consensus is immaterial for DRV's purposes. 623:, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions." I added here emphasis to the clause in the deletion procedure that made deletion mandatory, not optional. 1238:. The subject of the article is clearly notable. The close was a snowball keep. This is one of those bizarre things that seems to be happening on Knowledge (XXG) these days. People seem to have a novel, but growing, in terpretation of WP:NOT whereby anything relating to current events, pop culture, or newsworthy events is automatically assumed to be non-notable. That isn't what WP:NOT says, if anyone would care to unerstand it. I can't help but think people are making 4656:. The decision is inconsistent with decisions regarding other ethnicities and nationalities. If necessary a strong criterion can be drawn up, e.g. people born in the UK or who are former or current UK citizens who resided in the US. Something like that. But the question of English and other UK men and women and their role in the business and culture of the United States is an important, notable subject. It makes no sense to delete this yet leave Germans, Swiss, etc. 2001:], he's just one of numerous editorial board. I won't go through the rest of his bio to ferret out other misclaims, but that's the problem with unsourced BLP's - a reasonable reader may (perhaps reasonably) think that the professor had inflated his position - academic fraud has been known to occur and we'd be making it seem as though this guy was party to some. Bleh. Better to delete it and get it right rather than this unsourced problem. 2846:

major political figures reported in a great many RS newspapers sources over a period of years. Jreferees comment about why NOT#MEMORIAL does not apply is correct, and he understand that policy correctly--if others misunderstand, we perhaps need to adjust the wording. If there is going to be a policy about this type of articles, we need to develop a consensus on them, not have this sort of argument about each individual instance.

551:

which uses an old idiom in a new context. Very few things have been described by reliable sources as snowclones, so temporarily undelete if anyone wants to scavenge for any verifiable ones, but looking through most of the sources listed, I haven't seen any yet. The consensus seems to have been merge and I would have no issue if it was closed as such, but not too much information should have to/be able to be merged.

2359:. There was plenty of time for one to develop, so a relist would accomplish little, and renomination in a month would be unsurprising, so there's time to improve the article as well as incentive. But John254 is again overreaching with his non-admin closures, teasing a consensus out of none and adding a dollop of his own interpretation. I've got one, too, but I wouldn't presume to base a false consensus on it. -- 4676:. No one gave a cogent explanation of why a category was sufficient in this case, and since a category cannot contain redlinks, it probably is not. The only other delete argument was that this is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization, but there are numerous books written on various ethnic groups in America that include examples, so that is sufficient to establish the encyclopedic suitability of these lists. 2089:– There is a consensus below that the article should not be deleted; there is also strong consensus below (reading in a "bipartisan" fashion, beyond the boldfacing) that a non-admin closure was inappropriate. To reconcile these two widely-accepted points of agreement, it is best to adopt the suggestion offered and supported below to mark the debate as "no consensus", but to otherwise sustain the outcome. – 3201:"I am nominating this as I want to point out that this is nothing but a vanity page of what I called an one-trick pony of an attention seeking wannabe somebody, plus like the livestream according to somebody who informed me, the hype over that bill has died down and so has the amount of google links. Like I always said, this subject has nothing but the iPhone bill to show any other form of notability. 4402:

occupation and date of birth and death, etc. Further, the argument used by previous "delete" voters that editors should not be the arbiters of who belongs to a particular ethnic group 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).

538:. Hit me with a fish if I'm wrong, but I gather that the merits of an article are irrelevant in DRV, just the procedure. And procedurally I'm not comfortable with an admin deleting an article because of his own opinion, justified as it may be, contrary to the actual discussion. Said discussion here does seem to have enough dissenting voices for the doubt that brings lack of deletion. -- 3270:- The AfD ran for five days, so the only remaining question is whether the closer interpreted the debate correctly. This one was not even close. The article included an overwhelming amount of footnotes. The delete reasonings were "a vanity page" and that this topic was not important enough for Knowledge (XXG) even though it was important enough to numerous reliable sources. 1797:

the path to censorship. It is the discord and censorship that I am concerned about. Judging a topic only by the amount of reliable source material available seems the best way to have everyone feel that they are being treated fairly. However, I can appreciate this issue being a fundamental disagreement on how to implement Knowledge (XXG)'s polices. --

4397:- Our users have suffered over the past month or so from not having the sourced, annotated information about individuals of English American background contained in this articles, and their research has consequently been hampered. As seen by the spate of similar deletions that followed, the deletion seems to have been conducted solely to make a 1015:. I don't know where this "only one thing" is coming from; BLPs have a presumption of privacy, but even if corporations are a legalistic person there's no moral obligation to preserve the dignity of an entity. This was a significant closure with international legal repercussions and this is reflected by the sourcing. The nomination interpreted 2482:

her murderers, because they were party to the same notable events, and further ones such as trial, an apparent escape attempt and other things making them certainly more notable than she is. WP is not wiki policeblotter. This ought to be deleted and that was the consensus at afd, improperly overrided by the closer.

3472:

it, and there was consensus to keep. John254 got it right this time. The deletes seemed to be that her accomplishments were not the sort of thing that is intrinsically notable, and that's totally against WP:N policy, which does not have that sort of exception for things individual people arent interested in.

3783:

in the South West." I'm not sure if they are the same person. There also is a Canadian Governor General Adrian Clarkson and there is the Adrian Clarkson public school in Ottawa, Canada. There seems to be no information on the Adrian Clarkson that was the subject of the deleted Knowledge (XXG) article. --

3448:- but I don't think that holds water either, because this is fundamentally not news coverage of anything. There used to be the notaion that notability is permanent, and some arguments were along those lines, but (1) I don't think that notion is as accepted as it once was, and (2) all these people are 5424:

I went to his userpage, posted over a day ago, then posted again. He has since been posting other stuff, but has been unwilling to reply to my repeated query in any way, shape or form. That's not bad faith on my part, just the application of common sense to facts. He is obviously not interested in

5405:

Despite trying to politely engage with him on his talk page, DF has refused to reply to me, which shows bad faith right there. Can someone more senior please have a word to him? Given I've never even spoken to DF before, nor has he to me, I don't see how this has anything to do with past behaviour.

5316:

appropriate before sources are demonstrated to exist. One of the basic reasons AFD is a process that takes time is because, even when sources exist, they are not necessarilly online or right at hand, and the AFD time allows real research to be done. The early closing of this, or any comparable, AFD

3782:

correctly and no substantial new information has been brought forth as a basis to restore the article. Adrian Clarkson (per the deleted article) is a 36 year old radio broadcaster in England. An October 6, 2004 Bristol Evening Post article reads, "Adrian Clarkson, operational manager of the NHS CFSMS

2461:

which I think would have been the right closure. I do not think NOT MEMORIAL applies to articles like these, but I recognize that there is probably not consensus about how to handle them one way or another. I support the closers view about the article, but he should not have been the one to close it.

357:

None of the keep arguments hold water. Even the best: "wait, we can clean this up" doesn't argue against merging, and is growing very thin at the 3rd AfD. Let me point out that although there were 18 or so references, there was really only two entries that were properly sourced - that is - only two

4688:

per Wikidemo and Dhaluza. Although I can't fault the closure, I think that the general fate of these types of lists should be considered outside the framework of 5-day deletion debates. What is needed is a general consensus about if/when these lists are appropriate and how they should be structured.

2523:

In the continuing discussion of which criminal victims get media coverage, Moore's name is still cited. I believe that makes her notable (think of Kitty Genovese). However, this notability has been edited out of the article, so it needs to be re-edited. Oh, and complete agreement with DGG's point

2481:

crime victims and crime perps get the usual headlines demonstrated here, that doesn't make them notable - of the thousands of homicides in the US (and multiply that round the world) - this isn't a notable one. This article is a memorial. If you think otherwise, then you'd be glad to keep articles on

1659:

I couldn't care less. It looked like a clear keep to me and I'm hardly shy about deleting articles if they don't meet policy and I have never counted heads. Then again, I went and helped out with a back log and cleared a half dozen unclosed AFDs at one go so its more than possible I got it wrong. If

1279:

seems to bring up a lot of information, but it is from two days ago (October 23, 2007 to now). There seems to be little coverage prior to October 23, 2007. OiNK's Pink Palace (www.oink.me.uk) barely has any news coverage and the only thing I found was Boulder Daily Camera, March 2, 2006, "Don't try

4600:

While it was probably reasonable for the closer to presume consensus to delete based on the appearance of a majority opinion to delete this specific article, that was it—it was just opinion, not backed by policy or wider consensus. Consensus seems to be better represented by support for a number of

4305:

was subsequently deleted. The deletion of this article was the 'trigger delete' leading to the subsequent deletion activity. 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

3352:

Naturally, the personal attack against the subject of the article didn't constitute a compelling rationale for deletion, nor did the large number of single purpose accounts who supported deletion, using largely the same argument (and I use that term very loosely). By my count, 10 established users

3241:

There are over two dozen sources. As I said in the AfD, we have CNET News, BizTechTalk, San Francisco Chronicle x2, Sydney Morning Herald, NY Times, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Manila Mail - Phillipines, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review x2, Computerworld, USA Today x2, ABC News, CNN, Fox News, WTAE TV news -

3181:

The wording needs to be endorsed that it was a firm "KEEP". The wording as used was a bit too open-ended, which can lead to further disruptive AfDs because some apparently dislike this person. The close was within consensus relatively, but there were ample sources demonstrating notability for three

2495:

No, I think most such cases are appropriately handled by a single article, and when there are more, which way the merge should go is an editing decision depending on how the matter is commonly known. A few such cases will justify more than one article--I don't think this is one of them & anyway

1877:

is satisfied, I see no procedural issue with the close. Feel free to revisit the article in a few months, but the urgency of using DRV to get last-ditch shots at deletion is something I just don't see for this article. Perhaps if there had been a serious misunderstanding about the sources, but that

1796:

I don't thing we should be in the business of judging value of someone's intellectual contribution. To say that some academic's work is important but some rapper and cartoonist work is not important may cause discontent in those who contribute to Knowledge (XXG) and may eventually will lead us down

1745:

I used to be really big on V but since I got the shiny buttons, I find less and less people seem to take it as seriously so I really only considered notability in my close. You have a good eye for policy in deletion discussions and while I don't always agree with you, I certainly agree with you far

1617:

policy. The keep reasoning responded by saying that Hample wrote books and journal article, which obviously are not independent of Dale Hample. A Knowledge (XXG) article is not a reward for producing scholarly works. A Knowledge (XXG) article about Dale Hample needs to be a compilation of reliable

4985:

wins over csd - which is supposed to be for non-controversial cases. Deletion of good content is always controversial. In this case G4 only applies if the same content as was deleted at the AFD is readded. Since we are still waiting for the good content that is verifiable, well sourced and clearly

4617:

towards keeping such articles. The specific reasons given for deleting this list, e.g. "this is what categories are for," "too broad and unmaintainable," "loosely associated," "trivial intersection," "how English must one be to get listed here?" have all been considered in other AfDs and DRVs have

4192:

continues to exist, it is presumed that a list of such people is a useful aid to reader comprehension and is encyclopedic (as established by the consensus at the latest German American DRV and those following.) While the agreement on this particular list found below is not as strong, an "argument

4081:

does apply, but if someone wants to continue working on the article, as was stated on the talk page and in the nomination, they should be allowed to as they might produce the required assertion of significance. Tagging for speedy deletion doesn't require immediate action, it is OK for an admin to

3533:

was not on the talk page, but I added it. The discussion was so ridiculous. The woman has been noted in almost every media outlet and people want to debate her notability. She is so notable. People were trying to argue that her 15 minutes of fame were up on a Monday after her picture was in the

3471:

unlike the two items above, i did not express a view on the article at the AfD--this is not one of the usual types of subject that I watch for at AfD. Reading the article, it seems unimpeachably sourced, and notability demonstrated for a range of things extending over time. The AfD clearly showed

2264:. Personally, I think they do, but I appreciate that some other people think they don't. However, the closer allowed his personal opinion to supersede the apparent mixed bag of the community's opinions; the closure, as stated, clearly favors one side of the debate. Mind you, the difference between 78:

deletion, supported by a consensus below. As suggested by GRBerry, this decision would be more difficult -- though not impossible -- to defend if the article were new. As a matter of common practice, if it is felt that reliable material should be easy to find and cite, AfDs sometimes result in a

4401:

and the case that our users should not be permitted to have well sourced, annotated lists of individuals of this notable ethnic group 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, organized by

3216:

My perdiction of this nomination are, like the previous nom, the outcome of this nom will always come out as keep because that Justine woman is a attractive young woman and therefore it attracts deluded fanboys who will always vote keep for that reason. Plus excluding all blog hits, the number of

1052:

actually is policy, or is just something lacking community support stuck in a larger document that actually does have policy support. I think it is, and that the nomination was completely appropriate. There is no evidence that this thing was notable before the news, nor that it is notable apart

550:

some verified examples - Re-examining the sources (which I believe is an appropriate function of DRV, no?), almost none of them use the word "snowclone". It seems like a lot of disputable and not directly verifiable stuff crops up if we attempt to create an original list of formula-based clichés

2845:

just as above. I would have supported an non-admin close as non consensus, which was clearly the debate. Personally, my own view is that the article is a definite keep--somewhat different from some of the others, as there was evidence of the case being used as a matter of significant debate my

2747:

applies to attempts to fondly remember a person by summarizing in Knowledge (XXG) their obituary, which this topic does not. The deletion reasoning lacked strength. The keep reasoning was clear and focused on the availability of sufficient reliable source material for the topic. The closer was

2313:

2036:

does state in relevant part that "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Knowledge (XXG) should not have an article on it", this does not imply that any article which lacks such sources at the time of an AFD closure must be deleted. Rather, where it is reasonably

1975:

The majority of the delete arguments were on the unrevised version of the article, which as submitted to AfD did not show notability because most of the content had been removed--not in bad faith, the original content was absurdly excessive, but the removal also removed the part that would show

5522:

JJJ is right--there was not sufficient time allowed., considering the nature of the arguments presented in the short period. It was being asserted, and denied, that the article could be adequately sourced, and there should have been a full chance to do so. That's one of the functions of AfD--it

5282:

I have asked the admin who closed the page already, long story short this AfD was not a speedy, nor did anyone, including the closing admin, suggest as much, so it should be given 5 days (not less than 24 hours), especially after the submarine nomination I got, with no notice. Regardless of the

1942:

At the very least there was no consensus at the article, and as Spartaz noted DGG's argument for keep had some extremely good points; either way the article would have stayed. As such the close as keep was fine procedurally, and we should not overturn to delete when that was not the consensus

382:

My opinion is divided. There was no consensus to delete at the AfD, and the closer simply chose to close on the basis of his own opinion, which is not the role of the closing admin. He should instead, have joined the discussion. But his opinion was in fact in my opinion correct -- and better

5443:

Well, what else do you call a 5 hour closure which doesn't even invoke SNOW or speedy, and which he won't reply to. If that isn't bad faith, what is it? Laziness? Contempt? Whatever you want to characterise it as, it all falls under the heading of poor form, which was the gist of my above

1702:

I'm saying I couldn't care less not that its definitly wrong but any independent admin is welcome to redo the close if they feel like it. I think DDG's comments on notability in the AFD are persuasive and it may be that stubing the article to the verifiable bits is the best way forward but...

2695:

The argument is the same as for Ramona above, here somewhat stronger due to the lower participation in the AFD. DGG's argument that this individual case is notable was not responded to, nor is it contradicted by the article. (This one definitely needs to be rewritten, Knowledge (XXG) is an

4553:

I think consensus has changed on this sort of article, and there is a reasonable chance the a new afd would give a different result. Consensus can change is usually given here as a reason for deleting somethingthat has survived multiple AfDs, but it works just as well the other way round.

3122:

The second AfD has shown more points to policy that this article should be kept. The AfD did serve the five-day debate period, but due to the revolving door of AfDs on this article, as well as the subject of the debates, I feel it needs to be closed by an experienced, non-involved admin.

1673:

You're right. Instead of posting a notice on your talk page about the close, I should have attempted to discuss the matter with you first. I apologize. Since it appears that you agree the close should have been delete, it may be appropriate for someone else to speedy close this DRV. --

481: 3384:

of this review? Even if the closure were modified to no consensus, the result is the same. It's hard to see good faith in the timing or the content of the nom, the delete votes were mostly novel interpretations of Notability and personal POV, and the close was clearly following the

923:. 20 keep votes and it was only open for 4 hours is as much of a snowball close as you can get. There was also no valid reason given for deletion given..."Notable for only one thing" means that it is notable. I mean, lots of people, places and things are only notable for one thing. 1152:

of its noteworthiness has come from one. If not, why was the article only created yesterday? The crystal balling comment applies to trialsanderrors saying "it has the potential to be..." in defense of the article (quite easily, OiNK may wimper and we'll hear nothing of it again).

1716:

I haven't discovered what the most thankless job is in Knowledge (XXG), but I think AfD closer is in the top three and in my personal experience it is number one. Again, I really am sorry for not discussing the matter with you first. I won't repeat my mistake in the future. --

2392:: A thoughtful and well reasoned closing argument in my opinion. But opinions do differ. Personally, I have no problems with experienced non-admins closing difficult AfD's provided they are knowledgeable of policy and the result does not require the deletion button -- 1778:

guideline.) We thus sometimes end up, quite appropriately, with highly important and Wiki-notable academics where all that we can talk about is their work, not their life. The article could be better cited, but the discussion was reasonable and the close was correct.

1773:

sections of WP:V. Notability normally requires independence. However, for academics as academics, the most significant indicator of importance is the publishing of papers in independent and peer-reviewed journals, not independent publishers of biographies. (See the

3353:

supported retention of the article, while only 6 established users supported deletion. The established users who supported retention of the article employed largely policy-based rationales in supporting retention of the article, citing the massive media coverage of

1073:

it should have been clear that it has no bearing on the article. The Oink case has the potential to become a relevant footnote in the ongoing fight over downloadable music, and as such it is a meaningful, secondary-sourced article on a topic of ongoing relevance. ~

79:

consensus to allow more time for an article's sourcing. Without commenting on the wisdom of that practice, it is clear that such lenience is inappropriate at a 3rd AfD. Having said that, merging is not an unreasonable outcome for the minimal information that

247:. Rough consensus was (and always has been) to keep and do our best to improve the sources, not to give up and delete. Neil's closing statement was a rather partial attempt to belittle perfectly reasonable arguments for keeping, hardly an objective summary. — 3439:

I'm an independent admin, and my take on the closure is that it is correct. Almost every single delete comment was fundamentally "I don't like it" argument, which really can't counterbalance that with so many independent, reliable sources, this person meets

1618:

source material that conveys what others write about Dale Hample, not what Dale Hample writes about himself. The delete reasoning that the topic lacked reasonable source material that was independent of Dale Hample for the article to meet Knowledge (XXG)'s

5078:, that trademark only applies to sound recordings and musical video recordings. If you use the ® after T-Rock when you refer to the person, it seems like you might lose your trademark for misusing it. You should contact your attorney, Melissa E. McMorries, 196:

no body voted for it to be deleted, his main reason for geting red of it seemd to be that that it was OR becouse he had never herd of it and he did not give his reasoning until he deleted it. Also it survived a AFD just 2 mounth before being renominated

1495:

of WP:V, it is sufficiently meritorious (and such sourcing is sufficiently likely to exist) such that its retention is not offensive to policy. GRBerry's point is interesting, and very possibly correct; however, the special cases of academics (if they

2375:. While this has the same effect, non-admins simply shouldn't close controversial AFDs such as this. If there is no consensus (which looks to be the case to me), it isn't non-controversial, and it should only be considered by an admin at that point. -- 3232:

If this stays as keep, well next time, I think we will start an article of some NN attractive young woman as that is what internet always favors, source it and see how long that will stay, which will be forever. Dr Tobias Funke 18:07, 15 October 2007

1746:

more often than not. Lets just leave this for some passing admin to revisit the AFD and let us know what the correct answer was. I think we can close this then. No need to beat yourself up about it. We have plenty of other people to do that for us.

3406:

DRV. There was consensus at AN that John254 had closed some AFDs controversially. Please don't shoot the messenger, all I want to happen is that we make sure we get this right for the sake of policy, not to mention the RealWorld people involved.

402:

here we are again, Can those who say "improve it" show us some sources here or are we taking it on faith. This has had 3 go-arounds and now DRV and still no sources are found, therefore it is reasonable to assume that they cannot be found per

4065:. I note first that it is impossible for all of them to be true - if there is no context, it can't be spam, because the spam would provide sufficient context to allow expansion. Looking at the deleted article, it is reasonably certain that 2224:, as the participants did not agree on whether she is notable by our standards. The closer should have offered their thinking in debate, especially as it is partially correct and partially not. In particular, the closer doesn't understand 2738:

is unsupported. Stories about crime victims eventually include biographical information to gain sympathy for the victim, particularly in a case such as this with widespread media coverage. Given the significant coverage about this topic,

2049:. Those participating in the original AfD seem in agreement that he meets WP:PROF. He is verifiably Editor-in-Chief Elect of a major journal (see my note regarding this above), which seems to meet the requirement for 3rd party sources. 5041:

is not relevant without reliable source material. Please list the sources in this DRV so that they may be reviewed. Swithcing the name of the recreated article so that it avoids linking to the prior AfDs seems reason enought to salt

4289: 5283:

merits, this is a matter of principle. It may or may not lose the AfD vote, but this premature closure, after no notice being given, smacks of something quite wrong, and I would like it to get the same 5 days everything else gets.

802:– "Keep" closure endorsed, though non-admins should still not close controversial AFDs; naming of the article is editorial and should be discussed on its talk page. No prejudice against relisting in a sufficient length of time. – 654:. Lists can be tricky in terms of original research. I think they can (and particularly in this case) be edited to comply with the no original research policy. The closing admin failed to take this fact into account in the close. 5016:

If the editor "was in the process of adding sources", presumably they know what those sources are and can mention them now. Without the sources, this review doesn't stand a chance. With sources, it will depend on the sources.

358:

that had sources describing them as Snowclones (the one about Eskimos, and "X is hard. Let's go shopping!"). That said, there's no need to have deleted this when it's pretty straightforward to merge the two good entries into

1184:

How? There are so many legitimate articles of people, places and things that are only notable for one thing. I know they are extreme cases, but these just came to mind since I'm reading a book about the Kennedy assassination:

4618:

been, or are now being, rejected by the community. Quite simply, it is clear from other AfD and DRV discussions that there is no general consensus to delete lists of notable people belonging to notable ethnic groups, and per

1703:

whatever... I'm not fussed either way and I'm always open to external review. By the way, I wouldn't normally be this sensitive about the notification but I'm still feeling very bruised by the events at ANI over the weekend.

181: 5577:

As the original nominator of the article, I'd be fine with a relist for procedural purposes. I'm extremely dubious that this article will actually pass an AFD even given 5 days on strict policy grounds as it totally fails

4038:

Page was deleted without allowing time for discussion and despite a Hold On request. Page was under construction and was marked as Stub. There was no need for such hasty action because page was not libellous or copyvio.

332:

Well, DRV isn't AfD #2 (or rather, #4), either. It would unreasonable to suppose that we've reached a point in policy crafting where consensus can be evaluated objectively without considering !votes on a particular AfD. —

210:. Closer's reason clearly states that he deleted because no one could prove that it was not OR. Unless it can be proven to not be OR (and given the nature of the subject, I have a hard time believing that it wouldn't be). 3348:

would justify deleting the article anyway. Consider the statement by the user who nominated the article for deletion: "this is nothing but a vanity page of what I called an one-trick pony of an attention seeking wannabe

3418:

You are asking for a third AfD, which would be pointless. If you just wanted to set the record straight, you could have asked for a change to no consensus, but the result would be the same, so that is pointless as well.

1490:

articles (not yet conforming to the strictest reading of WP:V, but still sourced) to be given some time and latitude to allow for further work before deletion is compelled. Although this article does not conform to the

1863:

is not met when clearly we can verify that so-and-so has published x, y and z. Even if the publications are non-independent, if they can be verified through independent means, which journal articles certainly can be,

234:

policy, so any potential flaw from renominating too soon is irrelevant. To show that this isn't inherently OR, we need reliable sources for "Y is a snowclone", preferably at least one containing multiple examples.

3501: 3365: 3345: 3012: 3003: 518:. Why not just merge the content and trim it over time? Seems more appropriate to go through list items individually then to make these generalizations about what should be kept and deleted. I'd be happy to help. — 4108:, (except that it's written by the company's CEO). Plenty of GHits, but it's difficult to tell the reliable sources from fan pages and business listings, and many are in German. It should be given a chance though. 701:] we have "If Eskimos have N words for snow, then X have Y words for Z." "Oh my God, they killed X!" "Not your father's X" "The X that can be spoken of is not the true X", and several more. finally in this article 187: 727:

Note Rafff18 has already argued for overturning the decision as nominator. One of those sources (wisegeeks) is a blog. But there's two references, each with a handful of overlapping examples. Still not ten.

5380:

writes, "That disc doesn't have its official release party until Shabadoo's mastermind Joey Pegram (Hot Monkey, 611, Joint Chiefs) takes the stage at the Buccaneer on Friday, April 22nd." That's about it. --

1872:

is a guideline, however, and consensus on interpreting guidelines is more flexible. Personally, I considered a !vote of delete here but ultimately chose not to participate. But if consensus is, for now, that

588:; DRV is about procedure, not article merits. On the topic of merits, however, I would say that the original article (having seen it before it was deleted) should be at a minimum be massively scaled back. — 3097:

While I don't think the consensus was to keep the article, I find substantial arguments for both sides sufficient to have closed the AfD as "no consensus". However, seeing as an "nc" defaults to "keep", I

3569:

per DGG and Mangojuice. Also (and this is slightly-off topic), these types of nominations should ideally be speedy closed as soon as they are posted. The nomination statement was filled with violations of

3274:

and finding a topic objectionable as being beneath a personal standard is not a basis to delete the article. The non-admin close was fine given the very weak delete reasoning and strong keep reasoning. --

2304:

doesn't support the deletion argument. Stories about kidnappings/crime victims eventually include biographical information to gain sympathy for the victim. Given the significant coverage about this topic,

4602: 1655:

Was there a reason why you didn't discuss this with me before opening the DRV? I know it seems to have gone out of fashion but admins at least should try and show some courtesy. Concerning the close,

5406:

As for searching reliable sources Jeferee, you have to remember, the name is a variant, so it might be "Joe Shabadoo" or "Joey Joe Joe" etc. At any rate, I am glad for the support for relisting.

4285: 2297:- The AfD ran for six days, so the only remaining question is whether the closer interpreted the debate correctly. The news has run from April 2003 (the kidnapping date) to at least October 2006 316:

Please keep in mind that AFD is not a vote. It's the weight of the arguments that counts, not the number of votes. And our policies are non-negotiable, regardless of the discussion in an AFD.

5364:, your behavior towards others is causing them to react negatively, and that is impacting Knowledge (XXG), such as by us having to spend time addressing this matter at DRV. Please reconsider 2731:- The AfD ran for six days, so the only remaining question is whether the closer interpreted the debate correctly. The news has run from June 2006 (the crime date) to at least September 2007 1905:

It can easily be verified that Hample has published numerous articles in scientific journals. The consensus was at AfD that Hample did in fact meet the notability guidelines set forth in

5523:

doesn't always happen by a long shot, but it sometimes does. I'm a little skeptical about this article, but I want an opportunity to see what is proposed in the way of further sources.

5434:

Don't say you didn't assume bad faith because you straight up said, "DF has refused to reply to me, which shows bad faith right there." Perhaps he just didn't feel the need to respond,

1613:. The delete reasoning brought up early in the discussion that the topic lacked reasonable source material that was independent of Dale Hample for the article to meet Knowledge (XXG)'s 3452:

that this person's fame is ephemeral, and that just isn't clear. Rather, I think based on how she has managed to get so much attention so far, she probably will continue to do so.

230:"Y is a snowclone" - they don't even use the word "snowclone". With almost a year from AFD1 to AFD2, the article should have been deleted in AFD2 for failing to comply with the 2665: 2656: 175: 446: 2444:. Six deletes, two keeps, one of which was without a reason - I can't draw any other conclusion. Agree with Coredesat insofar as he suggests that it is not non-controversial. 407:

and this must go - we're an encyclopedia not a repository for everyone's unsupported original ideas and research - take it to a university, get it published, then come back.

1610: 667: 613: 563:

and restore due to lack of consensus. Problems with the article itself may result in the list being scaled back dramatically, but that's not what we're discussing here. --

5594:

and every other applicable policy/guideline. but we can at least afford it a few more days to exist. I will say though that the originator has a bit more to learn about

3779: 3720: 3080:

as they had participated in the discussion prior to closing it. Their close, however, was correct for AFD1, and probably helped still the sockfest, so I think we should

2273: 1098:

Since I'm not writing an article here I can make as many speculative statements as I want. What matters here is that the article was sourced and there is no provision in

3182:

factors in chronological order: 1. her videos, 2. followed by the iPhone bill mess, 3. followed by her lifecasting as "iJustine". All the "Deletes" typically were SPAs.

3043: 2997: 3869:. Nominator, please note that DRV is a place to note when an article has been deleted improperly, i.e. proper process has not been followed, or (if the title has been 5273: 4635: 4610: 48: 34: 4133:

does apply since the article itself lacked an assertion of importance/significance. Recreation of the article using reliable source material would be acceptable. --

2345:

a non-admin closure of an AfD discussion that was not an obvious keep. No consensus was reached one way or the other the editor should not have closed this as Keep.

4129:

manufacturer of modern steam engines for railway and marine service. For a company to manufacture engines, the need a lot of money and important clients. Even so,

2425:

clearly states that you shouldn't be closing controversial AFDs, and any closure which goes completely against the weight of "votes" is necessarily controversial.

2190: 2181: 1275:

did not applied. It might be too soon to determine whether the topic is of historical notability and there seem to be no showing of the harm our work might cause.

1069:

even though it seems the AfD was infested with SPAs (this will only get worse if it runs the full five days). If the nominator had actually taken the time to read

1035:

While the AfD was tainted by a few questionable anon !votes, there are also several longtime editors who also !voted to keep the article. Multiple stories by BBC,

3873:), when additional sourcing or relevant information has come to light. It is not a place to take a second bite at the cherry to try and get a favourable result. 1606: 1596: 1111:

WP:NOT#NEWS is a subsection of WP:NOT, which details content that is unsuitable for Knowledge (XXG). Also, CRYSTAL applies everywhere too, if not, then at least

4242: 4237: 4104:, that was really hasty deletion; it wasn't either of the cited CSD criteria. It's difficult to tell whether the article would survive an AfD -- there's even a 43: 1102:

that mandates that the article has to be deleted. The nomination therefore failed to make a valid case, as the community (minus SPAs) correctly recognized. ~

4848: 4246: 4986:

demonstrates notability this was a good call by the deleting admin. But that's fine, we can wait until good content exists in user space before we unsalt.

1660:

anyone wants to redo the close as a delete feel free - I'm really not bothered and I'm sure that we have better things to use our time at DRV considering.

5030: 4827: 1609:

was closed as keep. Knowledge (XXG)'s policy requiring that articles be verifiable is not negotiable and cannot be superseded by editors' consensus. See

4271: 4229: 3020: 2673: 2198: 968:), and "The person behind the site got arrested and the site got shut down" (wow, how many times has that happened) just aren't enough to be notable. 940:(but they didn't say where) or "It's really really notable and that's that" or "It's notable within the Bittorrent community". I think that we should 4823: 5312:

SNOW closures are almost never appropriate in less than 24 hours. In a case like this, where the issue is whether reliable sources exist, they are

3357:

as evidence of notability, while the established users who supported deletion employed purely subjective assertions of non-notability, bordering on

908:

AFD snowballed after several hours because of "consensus", where most keeps were basically ILIKEITs or failed to address the nomination's concerns.

5136:, any article title with a registered trademark sign in it is already on the wrong path. AFDs were interpreted correctly and G4 applied properly. 2905:– Keep closure endorsed. Unlike the above case, consensus below supports the view that this was an appropriate close for a non-admin to make. – 899: 431:), so the entries in the Knowledge (XXG) article before that time appear to be original research. There might be enough information to support a 4353:- Probably about 60 percent or more of the redlinked ethnic groups are implausible, like "Etruscan Americans," "Northamptonian Americans," etc. 703:] we have "Once an X, always an X," "My big fat X,""To X or not to X?". you might want to actually look before saying there is nothing out there 2734:

and there appears to be no reason to believe that new reliable source material won't be generated in the future. The deletion reasoning citing

2613: 2608: 1276: 1193:

is only notable for one thing. The argument that something is not notable because it's only notable for one thing is just...well...fallacious.

132: 127: 2617: 1254:

I closed this debate and I'm going to abstain between overturn and endorse. Please judge based on my judgment, not the fact I'm a non-admin.

136: 3361:

arguments. One user actually suggested that the article should be deleted, in part, "because I have never in my life heard of this person"

4419: 1435: 1242:

about notability and non-administrative closures. If so, the proper place is the policy pages, not contentious AFD and DRV nominations.

39: 3677: 3672: 2642: 2600: 1891:

Dhartung, its not necessary to accuse Jreferee of bad faith because that's clearly not the case and its bordering on a personal attack.

161: 119: 3681: 3582:, and a more civil and reasoned nomination statement would have set the tone for a more productive discussion. However, I endorse the 3548: 2954: 2949: 2298: 1392: 1387: 5470:

To JJJ999: There is nobody "more senior" as admins go, we are all on an equal level and answerable to the community (and, nominally,

4362:

Indeed, yet most of the plausible categories have their own list that is not deleted (with some notable, and unfortunate exceptions).

3937:– Undeleted and userfied. No objection to restoration in main space once the article has sources and demonstrates it meets WP;CORP – 3852:

the nominator or anyone else has sources. The redirect can actually be created right now by anyone, so that shouldn't be an issue. --

3084:. I'm tentative on the close of AFD2; I'm not sure what the proper close was, but I'm sure that it wasn't delete, so the outcome is 5230: 5225: 4448: 4433: 2958: 1396: 4029: 3826:(the former Governor General mentioned by Jref). Good call on the deletion, per the discussion this was a borderline CSD A7 case. 2010:

According to the journal's website, he's the Editor-in-Chief Elect and seems to be currently acting as the Editor-in-Chief -- see

5552: 5510:. I haven't put my vote in, but I have no problem with relisting. I do have a problem with the continuous bad faith assumptions. 5234: 3706: 3664: 3552: 3456: 2138: 2133: 1299: 572: 366: 4444: 21: 3556: 2983: 2941: 2142: 1553: 1548: 1421: 1379: 5395: 5259: 5217: 5095: 4465: 4338: 4320: 4233: 4147: 3797: 3289: 3064: 2766: 2332: 1833: 1811: 1731: 1688: 1644: 1557: 640: 526: 505: 341: 255: 4451:

from a guideline requirement to an essay seems to be a significant blow to our ability to discuss these matters at AfD. --

3076:

Urk, this one has two AFDs with closes of debatable quality. My first instinct was to award the closer of the first AFD a

932:

Well, discounting the IP's and the SPA's (of which there seems to be at least one), yes, most if not all of the Keeps were

226:

is non-negotiable. More than 90% of the list was unsourced, of the sources I tested 100% supported only "X said phrase Y"

2167: 2125: 761: 719: 4668:. Most of the delete votes were based on the list being replaced by a category, but this is not a valid reason to delete 4105: 3325: 5345: 1582: 1540: 302:

per xDanielx. Closing as delete when there are two deletes among a sea of keeps seems like an end-run around consensus.

5613: 5196: 5156: 4746: 4706: 4208: 4163: 3952: 3912: 3643: 3603: 2920: 2880: 2579: 2539: 2104: 2064: 1954:

I would have closed as no consensus reflecting the strength of argument, but as keep has more or less the same effect,

1519: 1461: 1358: 1318: 822: 777: 98: 17: 4885:

for a few years. This reason was called "irrelevant" and was deleted while in the process of adding sources. Sources:

317: 278:

Our core policies trump "Uh, maybe some day someone might find something that kinda looks like a source" arguments. ~

4642:, no less! This is now the only list of American ethnicity based on a single European country which remains deleted. 467: 2037:

believed that such sources exist, the article may be retained, unless deletion would be warranted on other grounds.

5373: 4780: 4775: 3986: 3981: 1921:

based on strength of argument. Nominator's reason seems straightforward unless someone can prove the subject meets

1290:

keep due to obvious consensus, although the article name should be revisited due to article naming conventions. --

5348:

as a plausible search term seems in order here, as much fun as it is to delete anything related to pop culture. --

3329: 3139:. Decision seems to have occurred against consensus, and non-admin closures in such situations are questionable. 2496:

the problem doesnt arise here, since this is the single article. I really dont think we're on a slippery slope to

2033: 1623: 1619: 1614: 5300:. And while I support relisting the AfD out of procedure's sake, I doubt the article can stand on its own merit. 4784: 4225: 4184: 3990: 5454: 5121: 4909: 4606: 4536:, valid deletion. DRV is not a place to relist the same arguments in the hope of a more sympathetic reception. 4302: 3195:

violation and attack (I had been considering blanking the AfD because of this). Did anyone read what he wrote?

856: 851: 3358: 2828:. This one has fewer in support of deleting, but there are insufficient keeps to be considered a keep result. 5340:

through unneeded process because no one objects excepts on process grounds, it's not something with which to

1135:

WP:NOT#NEWS doesn't apply. This article isn't about a news event. Part of its noteworthiness comes from one.

488: 123: 4809: 4767: 4589: 4015: 3973: 2604: 1626:

policy, it appears that the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly and the close should be overturned to

1282:

Camera archives for BitTorrent). The website (www.oink.co.uk) seems to have little information as well. See

860: 3341: 3317: 1164:

Even if that is the case...you fail to accurately explain why being notable for one thing = no notability.

749: 707: 439: 428: 5602: 5569: 5557: 5534: 5514: 5502: 5483: 5457: 5448: 5438: 5429: 5419: 5410: 5400: 5352: 5325: 5304: 5287: 5185: 5181:– Undeleted and relisted. The nominator is reminded to comment on decisions, not on those making them. – 5145: 5128: 5100: 5021: 5004: 4993: 4972: 4958: 4941: 4916: 4735: 4695: 4680: 4660: 4646: 4626: 4592: 4577: 4565: 4545: 4528: 4505: 4482: 4470: 4406: 4389: 4366: 4357: 4343: 4310: 4197: 4152: 4117: 4094: 4043: 3941: 3901: 3882: 3861: 3839: 3830: 3814: 3802: 3770: 3758: 3733: 3730: 3632: 3592: 3561: 3544: 3513: 3495: 3483: 3463: 3423: 3413: 3397: 3372: 3308: 3294: 3260: 3171: 3158: 3131: 3113: 3092: 3069: 3033: 2909: 2869: 2857: 2837: 2820: 2803: 2787: 2771: 2748:

correct in the interpretation of the discussion and even provided cogent summary of the closing thoughts.

2723: 2700: 2686: 2568: 2528: 2511: 2486: 2473: 2453: 2434: 2416: 2396: 2384: 2367: 2349: 2337: 2314:

correct in the interpretation of the discussion and even provided cogent summary of the closing thoughts.

2289: 2236: 2211: 2093: 2053: 2041: 2022: 2005: 1987: 1967: 1947: 1934: 1913: 1895: 1886: 1837: 1816: 1787: 1750: 1736: 1707: 1693: 1664: 1649: 1508: 1451: 1347: 1307: 1263: 1246: 1230: 1197: 1179: 1168: 1159: 1143: 1130: 1121: 1106: 1093: 1078: 1061: 1043: 1027: 1005: 988: 927: 914: 811: 765: 739: 689: 658: 644: 632:

Is it very unlikely that this article can exist without breaching policy? I'd say the opposite is true. —

627: 604: 580: 555: 542: 530: 510: 411: 394: 373: 345: 327: 311: 294: 282: 268: 259: 239: 214: 201: 87: 83:

properly sourced. Upon request, a history restoration and redirect for GFDL compliance is permissible. –

5063: 965: 5221: 5067: 5051: 3766:

nothing new here... if you had sources, we could pretty easily overturn such a low-participation AFD. --

1258: 885: 843: 115: 70: 5349: 5037:

speedy deletion was correct. A Knowledge (XXG) article is not an award and meeting criteria 5 and 6 of

3767: 2277: 616:, 3rd paragraph. "Knowledge (XXG) policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, 5453:

For the record, I meant to reply to him earlier but didn't get around to it. I have since fixed that.

5321:

for getting this so wrong. (The issue of notice is irrelevant; there is no requirement for notice.)

5112:

be the restored version or at least the unsalted version as it is his most commonly referred to name.

5079: 5075: 460: 5548: 4854: 3835:

I've done this. I was trying to remember why the name sounded so familiar when I read JR's comment.

3668: 3527: 3242:

Pittsburgh, NPR news, WPXI - Pittsburgh, Yahoo! News, TG Daily, and the Wall Street Journal. That is

3188: 2050: 2019: 1127: 1103: 1075: 474: 279: 1770: 1136: 1084: 933: 423:

to support a Knowledge (XXG) list, so the closing admin interpreted the delete reasoning correctly.

5213: 5177: 5113: 4953: 4901: 4657: 4574: 4384: 4363: 3856: 3750:. Without such independent sources, the subject is not notable by Knowledge (XXG)'s standards for 3535: 3492: 3255: 3166: 2945: 2866: 2815: 2483: 2379: 2002: 1929: 1622:

policy was the stronger argument. Looking at strength of argument and Knowledge (XXG)'s underlying

1383: 1243: 806: 408: 4874: 4867: 4415:

Americans debate rages on. Until AfDs start sufficiently discussing these lists in the context of

3271: 404: 362:, so I wouldn't object to an overturn with an immediate merge (and I can do it, if people want.) 5389: 5089: 4842: 4771: 4586: 4459: 4332: 4141: 3977: 3791: 3408: 3283: 3058: 3028: 2760: 2681: 2596: 2560: 2364: 2326: 2206: 1883: 1805: 1725: 1682: 1638: 1186: 1024: 499: 5318: 5038: 4895: 4837: 4426: 4398: 3810:. AfD was unanimous and I highly doubt she's become that much more notable in the last 10 days. 3742:

Unanimous AFD. No evidence in the deleted article, the AFD, or the nomination here that anyone

3579: 3575: 3403: 3381: 3336:

has been the subject of massive coverage in a number of the national news media, as detailed at

3247: 3077: 2749: 2315: 2243: 2014: 1239: 5376:

writes "Joey Jojo Shabadoo The Friends star hangs out with his new ... friends? Betrayer!" The

4892: 4889: 4886: 453: 4691: 3823: 3588: 3539: 3305: 2784: 2346: 2129: 1944: 1910: 1448: 1190: 971: 960:. "It sounds notable" (an argument which was used in several comments), "It's notable to me" ( 757: 715: 655: 590: 5377: 5333: 5297: 5047: 4930: 4673: 4087: 3743: 2676:. I request that, at a minimum, the AFD be relisted and allowed to run its course. (See also 2201:. I request that, at a minimum, the AFD be relisted and allowed to run its course. (See also 1906: 1874: 1775: 949: 5498: 5479: 5471: 5365: 5182: 5141: 5109: 5043: 4926: 4763: 4727: 4541: 4495: 4189: 3878: 3836: 3104:

Full disclosure: I !voted to keep this article in this (and the previous) AfDiscussion. —

3023:. I request that, at a minimum, the AFD be relisted and allowed to run its course.(See also 2833: 2449: 2430: 1963: 1544: 1255: 1226: 746:

you asked for examples not sources and combined the two you except sight over ten examples

552: 307: 5595: 5587: 5583: 5034: 4614: 4130: 4078: 4074: 4070: 4066: 4062: 4058: 4054: 4050: 3751: 3571: 3445: 3390: 3192: 3024: 2744: 2743:

seems misapplied in the discussion and does not provide support to the deletion reasoning.

2740: 2735: 2677: 2422: 2310: 2309:

seems misapplied in the discussion and does not provide support to the deletion reasoning.

2306: 2301: 2257: 2253: 2229: 2225: 2202: 1766: 1272: 1112: 1099: 1070: 1049: 1016: 961: 953: 619: 231: 223: 5566: 5543: 5511: 5435: 5416: 4859: 4301:. This article-list was deleted for the same incorrect reasons that the since overturned 4040: 3811: 3660: 3624: 3453: 1291: 1194: 1165: 1140: 1087:. You might want to read GRBerry's comment, as it's quite thorough and what I'm on about. 1002: 952:

anyway. The AfD was a complete mess, with basically all of the Keeps coming straight from

924: 564: 363: 265: 211: 5591: 5266: 4816: 4619: 4278: 4022: 3870: 3747: 3713: 2990: 2732: 2649: 2174: 1589: 1428: 892: 671: 168: 5296:

Five hours and only six discussion participants is hardly enough to build up a case for

5599: 5081:

to get some clarification and be thankful that Knowledge (XXG) deleted the article. --

5055: 4950: 4523: 4502: 4403: 4381: 4354: 4113: 4049:

Oh boy, what a laundry list of offered CSD criteria by the deleting admin. They cited

3853: 3354: 3337: 3333: 3246:

distinct sources. That's just today, and there is no reason to assume more won't come.

3140: 2937: 2901: 2812: 2719: 2564:– Same result as Ramona Moore above: mark as no consensus, otherwise retain outcome. – 2376: 2285: 1926: 1375: 1339: 803: 734: 684: 5579: 3441: 3386: 3251: 2261: 1922: 1869: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1500:

deserve special treatment) would be a subset of the reasonableness test applicable to

1280:

this at home" as a one sentence mention of "British site OiNK's Pink Palace." (search

994: 957: 945: 937: 675: 5530: 5382: 5082: 4949:

per Caknuck's comment and the lack of reliable sources, as mentioned in both AFDs. --

4882: 4878: 4561: 4452: 4325: 4134: 4082:

leave the page tagged for a while to see what the expanded state of the article is.

3897: 3784: 3479: 3276: 3124: 3051: 2853: 2796: 2753: 2507: 2469: 2405: 2360: 2319: 1983: 1879: 1827: 1798: 1718: 1675: 1631: 1139:

doesn't apply at all...if it doesn't exist anymore, why would it be crystal balling?

1020: 998: 634: 520: 492: 390: 335: 249: 3500:

I don't find any of your other arguments on this page to be pertinent as to whether

1504:

articles in equal measure. (Hence, no undue discrimination, to mollify Jreferee.) –

1444:

The Jamie Chandler page should be undeleted because he has played for England U19's

944:

the keep, because it clearly is notable for only one thing, which is not enough for

5322: 5301: 5018: 5000: 4990: 4968: 4938: 4934: 4677: 4643: 4623: 4091: 3938: 3827: 3755: 3506: 3420: 3394: 3369: 3106: 3089: 3016: 2800: 2697: 2669: 2525: 2413: 2233: 2194: 2121: 2085: 2038: 2017: 1892: 1784: 1747: 1704: 1661: 1344: 1175: 1155: 1117: 1089: 1058: 1040: 910: 753: 711: 624: 291: 236: 198: 5251: 4801: 4263: 4007: 3698: 3364:. There wasn't a snowball's chance in heck of finding a consensus for deletion in 2975: 2634: 2159: 1574: 1413: 877: 153: 2500:

articles for each murder--that's a straw man entirely, no one would defend that.

2011: 5494: 5475: 5445: 5426: 5407: 5361: 5284: 5137: 5059: 4689:

I know there is an ongoing discussion somewhere, but I forget the exact link. –

4537: 4479: 4307: 4126: 3874: 2829: 2445: 2426: 1959: 1536: 1482: 1222: 303: 5317:

is a massive flaw that makes the close completely invalid. Award the closer a

2232:

appears to require further editing of the article to conform with the policy.

4732: 4194: 3629: 2906: 2565: 2409: 2393: 2090: 1505: 997:

says that in order to be notable, you have to be notable for multiple things?

699:] has "In X, no one can hear you Y." "X is the new Y" among others, from here 539: 432: 424: 420: 322: 84: 3628:– Deletion endorsed unanimously. Redirect currently in place is unrelated. – 4518: 4109: 3746:

of the subject has ever thought it worth recording anything about them in a

2715: 2281: 1995:

one claim in his article was apparently overstated: he is not the editor of

1765:

Verifiability does not require independence of the reliable source, see the

847: 729: 679: 359: 5474:. Indeed, we admins are just regular users with a couple of extra buttons. 4193:

for consistency" in treatment of the lists is offered and is reasonable. –

3165:

What was against consensus? Only SPAs were generally endorsing deletion. •

74:– Deletion endorsed. The closing admin reasonably made a case that policy 3729:

This shouldn't have been deleted, the subject is notable enough as it is.

2696:

encyclopedia, and it is not currently written in an encyclopedic style.)

1958:. However I fully expect this to show up on AFD again in the near future. 1445: 5525: 4556: 3892: 3474: 2848: 2502: 2464: 1978: 419:- There certainly is not enough reliable source information on the topic 385: 3502:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Justine Ezarik (second nomination)

3366:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Justine Ezarik (second nomination)

3346:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Justine Ezarik (second nomination)

3890:

This article could not reasonably be supported on the current material.

3015:

was non-admin closed without (and some would say against) consensus by

2668:

was non-admin closed without (and some would say against) consensus by

2193:

was non-admin closed without (and some would say against) consensus by

1281: 1271:- Snow close seemed appropriate. The keep consensus seem to think that 4380:, nothing in the nomination is a reason for overturning a deletion. -- 668:

Knowledge (XXG):Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus

614:

Knowledge (XXG):Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus

4323:

to give everyone an overview of where we regarding List of <x: -->

3969: 3933: 5344:

objections to ensure you get your way. At any rate, redirecting to

4613:; so even if there was once a consensus to delete, it appears that 4603:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans

4188:– Deletion overturned. At least for so long as the parent article 2016:. The Editorial Board page states that it is "to be updated soon": 5372:- There are few reliable sources that even mention Joey Shabadoo. 4925:- I corrected the links to the AfD discussions. I had salted both 938:"It's really really notable, I read an news story about it today", 697:

I wish you would have posted this request sooner neil. this page

839: 798: 3187:

Also, both AfDs were brought within one month of each other by

548:

Endorse deletion though make available if anyone wants to merge

3047: 1173:

Notability for one thing effectively makes it a news article.

612:

All of you who are commenting based on procedure need to read

4420:

Knowledge (XXG) is not non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations

4447:, we won't get any meaningful AfD results. The demotion of 3340:, clearly meeting the standard of notability articulated in 1999:, Randall A. Lake is according to the publication's website 1925:. This could have been closed early, but it can't be now. -- 1825:

How did you arrive at censorship? I'm not following... :O —

4090:

is the standard the article will eventually need to meet.

1343:– speedy close; duplicate nom of open item on 21 October – 477:

March 24, 2007, Annie Warburton, "I mean, what's it mean?"

4634:

Five more similar lists which were deleted have just been

3324:

to be notable if it has received significant coverage in

3019:. This closure was the subject of substantial discussion 2672:. This closure was the subject of substantial discussion 2197:. This closure was the subject of substantial discussion 1048:

This is one of those days that makes me really wonder if

222:(alternatively, overturn AFD2 and close it as delete). 5247: 5243: 5239: 4797: 4793: 4789: 4259: 4255: 4251: 4003: 3999: 3995: 3694: 3690: 3686: 3362: 3350: 3318:

Knowledge (XXG):Notability#General_notability_guideline

2971: 2967: 2963: 2630: 2626: 2622: 2155: 2151: 2147: 1570: 1566: 1562: 1409: 1405: 1401: 873: 869: 865: 149: 145: 141: 1611:

Knowledge (XXG):Deletion guidelines for administrators

2274:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Stanley Dunin 3

1446:

Jamie Chander plays for England U19's against Romania

1126:

I don't think this discussion is worth continuing. ~

4125:- DLM AG, Dampflokomotiv- und Maschinenfabrik, is a 3402:

I'm not thrilled with the allegation that this is a

3393:

guidelines, so the AfD in no way supports deletion.

1001:

is an example of someone notable for only one thing.

5542:it wasn't a straight speedy if I recall correctly. 3586:closure and do not think relisting is necessary. – 3046:was close as no consensus on 18 September 2007 and 1221:non-admin closure, reopen and hold for the 5 days. 482:

Globe and Mail May 31, 2007, "Do you speak kitteh?"

383:explained than any of the actual delete arguments. 5493:, six hours isn't enough for a consensus to form. 2752:to the non-admin for closing a mixed view AfD. -- 2524:that the multiple-aticles argument is strawman. -- 2318:to the non-admin for closing a mixed view AfD. -- 2272:can turn crucial in the potential future AfDs see 264:OR doesn't have sources. That's what makes it OR. 3250:certainly doesn't apply. Does that qualify under 2811:per reasoning in the Ramona Moore DRV above. -- 4585:. Seems like the correct close to me as well. 3217:google hits for her has dropped down to 9,000. 3523:- I was a bit surprised with all this action 1859:. It is incorrect and misleading to say that 8: 4849:Three 6 Mafia Presents: Hypnotize Camp Posse 3191:, and his AfD nomination itself was a gross 2242:Overturn, close as no consensus, and hand a 956:and posted by users clearly unfamiliar with 5195:The following is an archived debate of the 4745:The following is an archived debate of the 4731:– Deletion endorsed and protected blank. – 4440:adherence to that membership criteria, and 4324:Americans and where we might be headed. -- 4207:The following is an archived debate of the 3951:The following is an archived debate of the 3642:The following is an archived debate of the 3444:. The one exception was the comment about 3344:. Now, let's consider whether anything in 2919:The following is an archived debate of the 2578:The following is an archived debate of the 2103:The following is an archived debate of the 1518:The following is an archived debate of the 1357:The following is an archived debate of the 821:The following is an archived debate of the 97:The following is an archived debate of the 5170: 4720: 4177: 3926: 3617: 2894: 2553: 2078: 1475: 1332: 791: 290:. I wish all closes were this thoughtful. 63: 4674:categories and lists are different things 4517:, correctly closed as far as I can tell. 5033:discussion correctly and the subsequent 5612:The above is an archived debate of the 5155:The above is an archived debate of the 4705:The above is an archived debate of the 4321:User:Jreferee/Lists of Ethnic Americans 4162:The above is an archived debate of the 3911:The above is an archived debate of the 3602:The above is an archived debate of the 2879:The above is an archived debate of the 2538:The above is an archived debate of the 2063:The above is an archived debate of the 1460:The above is an archived debate of the 1317:The above is an archived debate of the 776:The above is an archived debate of the 461:Columbia Journalism Review July 1, 2006 5159:of the article listed in the heading. 4709:of the article listed in the heading. 3915:of the article listed in the heading. 3606:of the article listed in the heading. 2883:of the article listed in the heading. 2542:of the article listed in the heading. 2067:of the article listed in the heading. 1909:a such the closing admin was correct. 1321:of the article listed in the heading. 780:of the article listed in the heading. 3557:tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM 3504:was closed unduly or improperly. — 1851:. Jreferee is deliberately confusing 1039:, etc. adequately assert notability. 427:originated around December 2003 (see 7: 5415:Why do you keep assuming bad faith? 4077:also doesn't apply in my judgment. 454:NPR Talk of the Nation June 28, 2006 4937:continually reposting the article. 4836:Article meets criteria 5 and 6 of 3050:was listed on 15 October 2007. -- 1878:does not appear to be the case. -- 964:, perhaps?), "it's very popular" ( 28: 5425:discussing it, and is being rude. 5360:- Obviously and per above posts. 2826:Overturn and mark as no consensus 2809:Overturn and mark as no consensus 2780: 2711: 2373:Overturn and mark as no consensus 2357:Overturn and mark as no consensus 2343:Overturn and mark as no consensus 2262:WP:N#General notability guideline 4622:, this list should be restored. 3822:& recreate as a redirect to 3342:the general notability guideline 4954: 4868:charted on two Billboard charts 4494:- It might be good if you read 4385: 3857: 3304:per WikiLeon and Starblind. -- 3272:Knowledge (XXG) is not censored 3128: 3125: 2816: 2708:Overturn, close as no consensus 2380: 1943:reached in the AfD discussion. 1930: 1189:is only notable for one thing, 975: 807: 595: 593: 591: 468:New Scientist November 18, 2006 18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review 5115: 4903: 2777:Overturn, mark as no consensus 2220:The proper close for this was 1: 5122: 4910: 4414:- Yes, the List of <x: --> 3778:- The closer interpreted the 2034:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability 1300: 1293: 573: 566: 323: 5603:17:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 5570:09:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 5558:00:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 5535:16:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 5515:16:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 5503:12:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 5484:12:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 5458:17:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 5449:01:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 5439:01:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 5430:23:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 5420:23:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 5411:22:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 5401:17:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 5378:Memphis Flyer April 21, 2005 5353:14:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 5346:The Last Temptation of Homer 5326:13:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 5305:06:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 5288:03:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 5186:20:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 5146:12:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 5129:19:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 5101:16:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 5022:13:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 5005:16:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 4994:15:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 4973:13:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 4959:02:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 4942:01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 4917:01:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 4862:a major independent label. 4736:21:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 4696:20:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 4681:14:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 4661:19:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 4647:03:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 4627:04:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 4593:20:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 4578:17:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 4566:16:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 4546:12:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 4529:09:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 4506:18:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 4483:17:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 4471:16:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 4407:04:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 4390:03:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 4367:19:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 4358:16:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 4344:16:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 4311:03:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 4198:21:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 4153:16:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 4118:15:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 4095:13:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 4044:11:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 3942:16:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 3902:16:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 3883:12:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 3862:22:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 3840:03:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 3831:20:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 3815:19:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 3803:15:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 3771:14:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 3759:13:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 3734:12:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 3633:21:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 3593:20:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 3562:23:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 3514:20:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 3496:17:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 3484:16:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 3464:13:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 3424:14:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 3414:19:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 3398:09:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 3373:01:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 3309:21:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 3295:15:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 3261:15:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 3172:15:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 3159:15:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 3132:15:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 3114:14:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 3093:14:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 3070:15:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 3034:13:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 2910:20:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 2870:17:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 2858:16:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 2838:11:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 2821:06:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 2804:01:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 2788:21:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 2772:15:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 2724:14:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 2701:14:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 2693:Right end state, wrong close 2687:13:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 2569:20:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 2529:15:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 2512:16:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 2487:17:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 2474:16:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 2454:11:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 2435:11:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 2417:01:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 2397:23:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 2385:22:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 2368:21:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 2350:19:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 2338:15:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 2290:14:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 2237:14:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 2218:Right end state, wrong close 2212:13:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 2094:20:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 2054:10:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 2042:03:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 2023:10:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 2006:17:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 1988:16:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 1968:11:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 1948:00:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 1935:22:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 1914:22:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 1896:07:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 1887:20:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 1838:00:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 1817:18:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 1788:18:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 1751:16:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 1737:15:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 1708:15:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 1694:15:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 1665:15:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 1650:14:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 1509:20:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 1452:19:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 1348:19:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 1308:23:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 1264:15:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 1247:13:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 1231:11:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 1198:19:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 1180:12:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 1169:01:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 1160:00:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 1144:23:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 1131:22:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 1122:22:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 1107:22:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 1094:22:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 1079:21:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 1062:21:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 1044:21:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 1028:20:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 1006:20:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 989:20:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 982: 978: 972: 928:20:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 915:19:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 812:16:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 766:16:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 740:16:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 690:21:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 659:03:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 645:03:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 628:02:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 605:01:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 581:23:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 556:04:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 543:00:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 531:23:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 511:17:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 489:New Scientist August 4, 2007 447:New York Times June 20, 2006 412:17:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 395:15:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 374:13:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 346:00:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 328:23:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 318: 312:11:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 295:07:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 283:04:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 269:01:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 260:00:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 240:21:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 215:21:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 202:21:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 88:19:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 5029:The closer interpreted the 4601:ethnic-American lists, see 440:The Times, December 3, 2005 429:The Times, December 3, 2005 5639: 4998:It actually was the same. 4609:was recently restored per 3491:per my discussions above. 2865:as per my comments above. 2421:Just don't do it again :) 2252:isn't a consensus whether 1997:Argumentation and Advocacy 5374:Toronto Star May 20, 2004 5366:my post on your talk page 4966:- WP:CSD overrides WP:N. 4226:List of English Americans 4185:List of English Americans 3338:Justine Ezarik#References 3082:endorse the close of AFD1 1868:is sufficiently covered. 1083:"Has the potential" is a 5619:Please do not modify it. 5202:Please do not modify it. 5162:Please do not modify it. 4752:Please do not modify it. 4712:Please do not modify it. 4607:List of German Americans 4449:list membership criteria 4434:list membership criteria 4303:List of German Americans 4214:Please do not modify it. 4169:Please do not modify it. 3958:Please do not modify it. 3918:Please do not modify it. 3649:Please do not modify it. 3609:Please do not modify it. 3320:states that "A topic is 2926:Please do not modify it. 2886:Please do not modify it. 2585:Please do not modify it. 2545:Please do not modify it. 2110:Please do not modify it. 2070:Please do not modify it. 1525:Please do not modify it. 1467:Please do not modify it. 1364:Please do not modify it. 1324:Please do not modify it. 1252:Non-admin closer comment 828:Please do not modify it. 783:Please do not modify it. 104:Please do not modify it. 40:Deletion review archives 4123:Endorse speedy deletion 2710:. See the reasoning at 5616:of the article above. 5199:of the article above. 4749:of the article above. 4211:of the article above. 4166:of the article above. 3955:of the article above. 3646:of the article above. 2923:of the article above. 2582:of the article above. 2521:Close, edit, and keep. 2107:of the article above. 1522:of the article above. 1464:of the article above. 1361:of the article above. 1055:Postpone consideration 825:of the article above. 101:of the article above. 5074:- Even though T-Rock 4615:consensus is changing 4299:Overturn and undelete 3752:articles about people 3489:Overturn & delete 3025:WP:DRV#Jennifer_Moore 2843:Mark as non-consensus 2678:WP:DRV#Jennifer_Moore 2459:Mark as non-consensus 2203:WP:DRV#Jennifer_Moore 1085:speculative statement 220:Endorse close of AFD3 5108:I would prefer that 4887:All Music Guide page 4881:and an affiliate of 4872:Hypnotize Camp Posse 3189:User:Dr Tobias Funke 3086:good enough for AFD2 2779:per my reasoning in 678:are non-negotiable. 664:Endorse (my) closure 475:The Mercury (Hobart) 5563:Overturn and relist 5491:Overturn and relist 5064:T-Rock da Rockafela 4445:categories vs. list 4378:Endorse my deletion 4102:Overturn and userfy 3847:Endorse my deletion 3536:Wall Street Journal 3102:this AfD's closure. 2863:Overturn and delete 2479:Overturn and delete 2442:Overturn and delete 1993:Overturn and delete 1919:Overturn and delete 5068:Prince of the Park 5052:Antonio Washington 4896:To show he was on 4858:, all released on 4843:Choices: The Album 4636:overturned per DRV 4106:Google Scholar hit 4084:Userfy or overturn 3332:of the subject." 3314:Endorse my closure 2793:Endorse my closure 2597:Chanel Petro-Nixon 2561:Chanel Petro-Nixon 2402:Endorse my closure 1187:John Hinckley, Jr. 116:List of snowclones 71:List of snowclones 5626: 5625: 5556: 5169: 5168: 4877:. 6: Was part of 4840:. 5: Was part of 4719: 4718: 4501:commenting here. 4190:English Americans 4176: 4175: 3925: 3924: 3824:Adrienne Clarkson 3616: 3615: 3560: 2893: 2892: 2552: 2551: 2077: 2076: 1493:strictest reading 1474: 1473: 1331: 1330: 1191:Lee Harvey Oswald 790: 789: 768: 752:comment added by 724: 710:comment added by 620:original research 5630: 5621: 5546: 5398: 5392: 5387: 5269: 5255: 5237: 5204: 5171: 5164: 5134:Endorse deletion 5126: 5117: 5098: 5092: 5087: 5027:Endorse and salt 4956: 4947:Endorse deletion 4914: 4905: 4819: 4805: 4787: 4754: 4721: 4714: 4670:in and of itself 4526: 4521: 4496:English American 4468: 4462: 4457: 4427:purpose of lists 4387: 4341: 4335: 4330: 4281: 4267: 4249: 4216: 4178: 4171: 4150: 4144: 4139: 4116: 4025: 4011: 3993: 3960: 3927: 3920: 3859: 3800: 3794: 3789: 3764:Endorse deletion 3740:Endorse deletion 3716: 3702: 3684: 3651: 3618: 3611: 3542: 3532: 3526: 3509: 3461: 3437:My reevaluation: 3411: 3326:reliable sources 3292: 3286: 3281: 3258: 3169: 3156: 3153: 3150: 3147: 3129: 3127: 3109: 3067: 3061: 3056: 3031: 2993: 2979: 2961: 2928: 2895: 2888: 2818: 2769: 2763: 2758: 2722: 2684: 2652: 2638: 2620: 2587: 2554: 2547: 2382: 2335: 2329: 2324: 2288: 2209: 2177: 2163: 2145: 2112: 2079: 2072: 1932: 1830: 1814: 1808: 1803: 1734: 1728: 1723: 1691: 1685: 1680: 1647: 1641: 1636: 1605:The Dale Hample 1592: 1578: 1560: 1527: 1476: 1469: 1431: 1417: 1399: 1366: 1333: 1326: 1304: 1295: 1284: 1283: 1261: 984: 980: 977: 974: 895: 881: 863: 830: 809: 792: 785: 747: 737: 732: 723: 704: 687: 682: 637: 601: 599: 597: 577: 568: 523: 508: 502: 497: 371: 338: 325: 320: 252: 171: 157: 139: 106: 64: 53: 33: 5638: 5637: 5633: 5632: 5631: 5629: 5628: 5627: 5617: 5614:deletion review 5544:Lord Sesshomaru 5396: 5390: 5383: 5278: 5272: 5265: 5264: 5258: 5228: 5212: 5200: 5197:deletion review 5160: 5157:deletion review 5096: 5090: 5083: 4893:More album info 4875:charted as well 4864:Rock Solid/4:20 4860:Hypnotize Minds 4855:Rock Solid/4:20 4832: 4822: 4815: 4814: 4808: 4778: 4762: 4750: 4747:deletion review 4710: 4707:deletion review 4620:deletion policy 4573:correct close. 4524: 4519: 4466: 4460: 4453: 4395:Strong overturn 4339: 4333: 4326: 4294: 4284: 4277: 4276: 4270: 4240: 4224: 4212: 4209:deletion review 4167: 4164:deletion review 4148: 4142: 4135: 4112: 4073:didn't apply. 4034: 4028: 4021: 4020: 4014: 3984: 3968: 3956: 3953:deletion review 3916: 3913:deletion review 3798: 3792: 3785: 3748:reliable source 3731:Whitmorewolveyr 3725: 3719: 3712: 3711: 3705: 3675: 3661:Adrian Clarkson 3659: 3647: 3644:deletion review 3625:Adrian Clarkson 3607: 3604:deletion review 3530: 3524: 3507: 3457: 3409: 3380:-- What is the 3302:Re-evaluate AfD 3290: 3284: 3277: 3256: 3167: 3154: 3151: 3148: 3145: 3120:Re-evaluate AfD 3107: 3065: 3059: 3052: 3029: 3008: 3002: 2996: 2989: 2988: 2982: 2952: 2936: 2924: 2921:deletion review 2884: 2881:deletion review 2767: 2761: 2754: 2745:WP:NOT#MEMORIAL 2718: 2682: 2661: 2655: 2648: 2647: 2641: 2611: 2595: 2583: 2580:deletion review 2543: 2540:deletion review 2390:Endorse closure 2333: 2327: 2320: 2311:WP:NOT#MEMORIAL 2284: 2258:WP:NOT#MEMORIAL 2230:WP:NOT#MEMORIAL 2226:WP:NOT#MEMORIAL 2207: 2186: 2180: 2173: 2172: 2166: 2136: 2120: 2108: 2105:deletion review 2068: 2065:deletion review 2051:Espresso Addict 2047:Endorse closure 2030:Endorse closure 2020:Espresso Addict 1956:endorse closure 1903:Endorse closure 1849:Endorse closure 1836: 1826: 1812: 1806: 1799: 1781:Endorse closure 1732: 1726: 1719: 1689: 1683: 1676: 1645: 1639: 1632: 1601: 1595: 1588: 1587: 1581: 1551: 1535: 1523: 1520:deletion review 1465: 1462:deletion review 1440: 1434: 1427: 1426: 1420: 1390: 1374: 1362: 1359:deletion review 1322: 1319:deletion review 1306: 1259: 1128:trialsanderrors 1104:trialsanderrors 1076:trialsanderrors 1067:Endorse closure 1019:too broadly. -- 904: 898: 891: 890: 884: 854: 838: 826: 823:deletion review 781: 778:deletion review 735: 730: 705: 685: 680: 643: 633: 579: 529: 519: 506: 500: 493: 367: 355:Strong endorse. 344: 334: 280:trialsanderrors 258: 248: 192: 186: 180: 174: 167: 166: 160: 130: 114: 102: 99:deletion review 62: 59:24 October 2007 55: 54: 51: 49:2007 October 25 46: 37: 35:2007 October 23 31: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 5636: 5634: 5624: 5623: 5608: 5607: 5606: 5605: 5572: 5560: 5537: 5517: 5505: 5488: 5487: 5486: 5468: 5467: 5466: 5465: 5464: 5463: 5462: 5461: 5460: 5403: 5355: 5328: 5307: 5280: 5279: 5276: 5270: 5262: 5256: 5207: 5206: 5191: 5190: 5189: 5188: 5167: 5166: 5151: 5150: 5149: 5148: 5131: 5103: 5076:is trademarked 5056:Mr. Washington 5024: 5011: 5010: 5009: 5008: 5007: 4961: 4944: 4933:due to editor 4834: 4833: 4830: 4820: 4812: 4806: 4757: 4756: 4741: 4740: 4739: 4738: 4717: 4716: 4701: 4700: 4699: 4698: 4683: 4663: 4651: 4650: 4649: 4605:. The similar 4595: 4587:Angus McLellan 4580: 4575:Carlossuarez46 4568: 4548: 4531: 4511: 4510: 4509: 4508: 4486: 4485: 4473: 4409: 4392: 4374: 4373: 4372: 4371: 4370: 4369: 4360: 4296: 4295: 4292: 4282: 4274: 4268: 4219: 4218: 4203: 4202: 4201: 4200: 4174: 4173: 4158: 4157: 4156: 4155: 4120: 4098: 4097: 4036: 4035: 4032: 4026: 4018: 4012: 3963: 3962: 3947: 3946: 3945: 3944: 3923: 3922: 3907: 3906: 3905: 3904: 3885: 3864: 3844: 3843: 3842: 3817: 3805: 3773: 3761: 3727: 3726: 3723: 3717: 3709: 3703: 3654: 3653: 3638: 3637: 3636: 3635: 3614: 3613: 3598: 3597: 3596: 3595: 3564: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3493:Carlossuarez46 3486: 3466: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3375: 3359:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 3355:Justine Ezarik 3334:Justine Ezarik 3311: 3298: 3297: 3264: 3263: 3257:Lawrence Cohen 3239: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3184: 3183: 3179:Mofidy closure 3175: 3174: 3168:Lawrence Cohen 3162: 3161: 3141:Andrew Lenahan 3134: 3117: 3095: 3073: 3072: 3010: 3009: 3006: 3000: 2994: 2986: 2980: 2938:Justine Ezarik 2931: 2930: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2902:Justine Ezarik 2891: 2890: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2867:Carlossuarez46 2860: 2840: 2823: 2806: 2790: 2774: 2726: 2704: 2703: 2663: 2662: 2659: 2653: 2645: 2639: 2590: 2589: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2550: 2549: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2490: 2489: 2484:Carlossuarez46 2476: 2456: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2399: 2387: 2370: 2353: 2352: 2340: 2292: 2239: 2188: 2187: 2184: 2178: 2170: 2164: 2115: 2114: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2075: 2074: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2044: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2003:Carlossuarez46 1990: 1970: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1916: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1832: 1820: 1819: 1791: 1790: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1740: 1739: 1711: 1710: 1697: 1696: 1668: 1667: 1603: 1602: 1599: 1593: 1585: 1579: 1530: 1529: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1472: 1471: 1456: 1455: 1442: 1441: 1438: 1432: 1424: 1418: 1376:Jamie Chandler 1369: 1368: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1340:Jamie Chandler 1329: 1328: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1298: 1285: 1266: 1249: 1233: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1133: 1064: 1046: 1030: 1010: 1009: 1008: 930: 906: 905: 902: 896: 888: 882: 833: 832: 817: 816: 815: 814: 788: 787: 772: 771: 770: 769: 744: 743: 742: 692: 661: 649: 648: 647: 639: 607: 583: 571: 558: 545: 533: 525: 513: 435:article. See, 414: 409:Carlossuarez46 397: 376: 352: 351: 350: 349: 348: 340: 297: 285: 273: 272: 271: 254: 242: 217: 194: 193: 190: 184: 178: 172: 164: 158: 109: 108: 93: 92: 91: 90: 61: 56: 47: 38: 30: 29: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5635: 5622: 5620: 5615: 5610: 5609: 5604: 5601: 5597: 5593: 5589: 5585: 5581: 5576: 5573: 5571: 5568: 5565:per W.marsh. 5564: 5561: 5559: 5554: 5550: 5545: 5541: 5538: 5536: 5532: 5528: 5527: 5521: 5518: 5516: 5513: 5509: 5506: 5504: 5500: 5496: 5492: 5489: 5485: 5481: 5477: 5473: 5469: 5459: 5456: 5452: 5451: 5450: 5447: 5442: 5441: 5440: 5437: 5433: 5432: 5431: 5428: 5423: 5422: 5421: 5418: 5414: 5413: 5412: 5409: 5404: 5402: 5399: 5393: 5388: 5386: 5379: 5375: 5371: 5367: 5363: 5359: 5356: 5354: 5351: 5347: 5343: 5339: 5335: 5332: 5329: 5327: 5324: 5320: 5315: 5311: 5308: 5306: 5303: 5299: 5295: 5292: 5291: 5290: 5289: 5286: 5275: 5268: 5261: 5253: 5249: 5245: 5241: 5236: 5232: 5227: 5223: 5219: 5215: 5214:Joey Shabadoo 5211: 5210: 5209: 5208: 5205: 5203: 5198: 5193: 5192: 5187: 5184: 5180: 5179: 5178:Joey Shabadoo 5175: 5174: 5173: 5172: 5165: 5163: 5158: 5153: 5152: 5147: 5143: 5139: 5135: 5132: 5130: 5127: 5125: 5119: 5118: 5111: 5107: 5104: 5102: 5099: 5093: 5088: 5086: 5080: 5077: 5073: 5069: 5065: 5061: 5057: 5053: 5049: 5045: 5040: 5036: 5032: 5028: 5025: 5023: 5020: 5015: 5012: 5006: 5003: 5002: 4997: 4996: 4995: 4992: 4989: 4984: 4980: 4976: 4975: 4974: 4971: 4970: 4965: 4962: 4960: 4957: 4952: 4948: 4945: 4943: 4940: 4936: 4932: 4928: 4924: 4921: 4920: 4919: 4918: 4915: 4913: 4907: 4906: 4900: 4899: 4894: 4891: 4888: 4884: 4883:Three 6 Mafia 4880: 4879:Prophet Posse 4876: 4873: 4869: 4865: 4861: 4857: 4856: 4851: 4850: 4845: 4844: 4839: 4829: 4825: 4818: 4811: 4803: 4799: 4795: 4791: 4786: 4782: 4777: 4773: 4769: 4765: 4761: 4760: 4759: 4758: 4755: 4753: 4748: 4743: 4742: 4737: 4734: 4730: 4729: 4725: 4724: 4723: 4722: 4715: 4713: 4708: 4703: 4702: 4697: 4694: 4693: 4687: 4686:Weak overturn 4684: 4682: 4679: 4675: 4671: 4667: 4664: 4662: 4659: 4655: 4652: 4648: 4645: 4641: 4637: 4633: 4630: 4629: 4628: 4625: 4621: 4616: 4612: 4608: 4604: 4599: 4596: 4594: 4591: 4588: 4584: 4581: 4579: 4576: 4572: 4569: 4567: 4563: 4559: 4558: 4552: 4549: 4547: 4543: 4539: 4535: 4532: 4530: 4527: 4522: 4516: 4513: 4512: 4507: 4504: 4500: 4497: 4493: 4490: 4489: 4488: 4487: 4484: 4481: 4477: 4474: 4472: 4469: 4463: 4458: 4456: 4450: 4446: 4443: 4439: 4435: 4432: 4428: 4425: 4421: 4418: 4413: 4410: 4408: 4405: 4400: 4396: 4393: 4391: 4388: 4383: 4379: 4376: 4375: 4368: 4365: 4361: 4359: 4356: 4352: 4349: 4348: 4347: 4346: 4345: 4342: 4336: 4331: 4329: 4322: 4318: 4315: 4314: 4313: 4312: 4309: 4304: 4300: 4291: 4287: 4280: 4273: 4265: 4261: 4257: 4253: 4248: 4244: 4239: 4235: 4231: 4227: 4223: 4222: 4221: 4220: 4217: 4215: 4210: 4205: 4204: 4199: 4196: 4191: 4187: 4186: 4182: 4181: 4180: 4179: 4172: 4170: 4165: 4160: 4159: 4154: 4151: 4145: 4140: 4138: 4132: 4128: 4124: 4121: 4119: 4115: 4111: 4107: 4103: 4100: 4099: 4096: 4093: 4089: 4085: 4080: 4076: 4072: 4068: 4064: 4060: 4056: 4052: 4048: 4047: 4046: 4045: 4042: 4031: 4024: 4017: 4009: 4005: 4001: 3997: 3992: 3988: 3983: 3979: 3975: 3971: 3967: 3966: 3965: 3964: 3961: 3959: 3954: 3949: 3948: 3943: 3940: 3936: 3935: 3931: 3930: 3929: 3928: 3921: 3919: 3914: 3909: 3908: 3903: 3899: 3895: 3894: 3889: 3886: 3884: 3880: 3876: 3872: 3868: 3865: 3863: 3860: 3855: 3851: 3848: 3845: 3841: 3838: 3834: 3833: 3832: 3829: 3825: 3821: 3818: 3816: 3813: 3809: 3806: 3804: 3801: 3795: 3790: 3788: 3781: 3777: 3774: 3772: 3769: 3765: 3762: 3760: 3757: 3753: 3749: 3745: 3741: 3738: 3737: 3736: 3735: 3732: 3722: 3715: 3708: 3700: 3696: 3692: 3688: 3683: 3679: 3674: 3670: 3666: 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: 3590: 3585: 3581: 3577: 3573: 3568: 3565: 3563: 3558: 3554: 3550: 3546: 3541: 3537: 3529: 3522: 3519: 3515: 3511: 3510: 3503: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3494: 3490: 3487: 3485: 3481: 3477: 3476: 3470: 3467: 3465: 3462: 3460: 3455: 3451: 3447: 3443: 3438: 3434: 3431: 3425: 3422: 3417: 3416: 3415: 3412: 3405: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3396: 3392: 3388: 3383: 3379: 3376: 3374: 3371: 3367: 3363: 3360: 3356: 3351: 3347: 3343: 3339: 3335: 3331: 3327: 3323: 3319: 3315: 3312: 3310: 3307: 3303: 3300: 3299: 3296: 3293: 3287: 3282: 3280: 3273: 3269: 3266: 3265: 3262: 3259: 3253: 3249: 3245: 3240: 3234: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3218: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3202: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3194: 3190: 3186: 3185: 3180: 3177: 3176: 3173: 3170: 3164: 3163: 3160: 3157: 3142: 3138: 3135: 3133: 3130: 3121: 3118: 3116: 3115: 3111: 3110: 3101: 3096: 3094: 3091: 3087: 3083: 3079: 3075: 3074: 3071: 3068: 3062: 3057: 3055: 3049: 3045: 3041: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3032: 3026: 3022: 3018: 3014: 3005: 2999: 2992: 2985: 2977: 2973: 2969: 2965: 2960: 2956: 2951: 2947: 2943: 2939: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2929: 2927: 2922: 2917: 2916: 2911: 2908: 2904: 2903: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2889: 2887: 2882: 2877: 2876: 2871: 2868: 2864: 2861: 2859: 2855: 2851: 2850: 2844: 2841: 2839: 2835: 2831: 2827: 2824: 2822: 2819: 2814: 2810: 2807: 2805: 2802: 2798: 2794: 2791: 2789: 2786: 2782: 2781:#Ramona Moore 2778: 2775: 2773: 2770: 2764: 2759: 2757: 2751: 2746: 2742: 2737: 2733: 2730: 2727: 2725: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2712:#Ramona Moore 2709: 2706: 2705: 2702: 2699: 2694: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2685: 2679: 2675: 2671: 2667: 2658: 2651: 2644: 2636: 2632: 2628: 2624: 2619: 2615: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2588: 2586: 2581: 2576: 2575: 2570: 2567: 2563: 2562: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2548: 2546: 2541: 2536: 2535: 2530: 2527: 2522: 2519: 2518: 2513: 2509: 2505: 2504: 2499: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2488: 2485: 2480: 2477: 2475: 2471: 2467: 2466: 2460: 2457: 2455: 2451: 2447: 2443: 2440: 2436: 2432: 2428: 2424: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2415: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2400: 2398: 2395: 2391: 2388: 2386: 2383: 2378: 2374: 2371: 2369: 2366: 2362: 2358: 2355: 2354: 2351: 2348: 2344: 2341: 2339: 2336: 2330: 2325: 2323: 2317: 2312: 2308: 2303: 2299: 2296: 2293: 2291: 2287: 2283: 2279: 2275: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2245: 2240: 2238: 2235: 2231: 2227: 2223: 2219: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2210: 2204: 2200: 2196: 2192: 2183: 2176: 2169: 2161: 2157: 2153: 2149: 2144: 2140: 2135: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2113: 2111: 2106: 2101: 2100: 2095: 2092: 2088: 2087: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2073: 2071: 2066: 2061: 2060: 2055: 2052: 2048: 2045: 2043: 2040: 2035: 2031: 2028: 2024: 2021: 2018: 2015: 2012: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2004: 2000: 1998: 1994: 1991: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1980: 1974: 1971: 1969: 1965: 1961: 1957: 1953: 1949: 1946: 1941: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1933: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1917: 1915: 1912: 1908: 1904: 1901: 1897: 1894: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1885: 1881: 1876: 1871: 1867: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1847: 1846: 1839: 1835: 1829: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1818: 1815: 1809: 1804: 1802: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1789: 1786: 1782: 1777: 1772: 1768: 1764: 1763: 1752: 1749: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1738: 1735: 1729: 1724: 1722: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1709: 1706: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1695: 1692: 1686: 1681: 1679: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1666: 1663: 1658: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1648: 1642: 1637: 1635: 1629: 1625: 1624:verifiability 1621: 1620:verifiability 1616: 1615:verifiability 1612: 1608: 1598: 1591: 1584: 1576: 1572: 1568: 1564: 1559: 1555: 1550: 1546: 1542: 1538: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1528: 1526: 1521: 1516: 1515: 1510: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1494: 1489: 1485: 1484: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1470: 1468: 1463: 1458: 1457: 1454: 1453: 1450: 1447: 1437: 1430: 1423: 1415: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1398: 1394: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1367: 1365: 1360: 1355: 1354: 1349: 1346: 1342: 1341: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1327: 1325: 1320: 1315: 1314: 1309: 1305: 1303: 1297: 1296: 1289: 1286: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1267: 1265: 1262: 1257: 1253: 1250: 1248: 1245: 1241: 1237: 1234: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1217: 1199: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1178: 1177: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1167: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1158: 1157: 1151: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1132: 1129: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1120: 1119: 1114: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1092: 1091: 1086: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1077: 1072: 1068: 1065: 1063: 1060: 1056: 1051: 1047: 1045: 1042: 1038: 1037:the Telegraph 1034: 1031: 1029: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1014: 1011: 1007: 1004: 1000: 999:Steve Bartman 996: 993:What part of 992: 991: 990: 987: 986: 985: 967: 963: 959: 955: 951: 948:and violates 947: 943: 939: 935: 931: 929: 926: 922: 919: 918: 917: 916: 913: 912: 901: 894: 887: 879: 875: 871: 867: 862: 858: 853: 849: 845: 841: 837: 836: 835: 834: 831: 829: 824: 819: 818: 813: 810: 805: 801: 800: 796: 795: 794: 793: 786: 784: 779: 774: 773: 767: 763: 759: 755: 751: 745: 741: 738: 733: 726: 725: 721: 717: 713: 709: 702: 700: 698: 696: 693: 691: 688: 683: 677: 673: 669: 665: 662: 660: 657: 653: 650: 646: 642: 636: 631: 630: 629: 626: 622: 621: 615: 611: 608: 606: 603: 602: 587: 584: 582: 578: 576: 570: 569: 562: 559: 557: 554: 549: 546: 544: 541: 537: 534: 532: 528: 522: 517: 514: 512: 509: 503: 498: 496: 490: 487: 483: 480: 476: 473: 469: 466: 462: 459: 455: 452: 448: 445: 441: 438: 434: 430: 426: 422: 418: 415: 413: 410: 406: 401: 398: 396: 392: 388: 387: 381: 377: 375: 372: 370: 365: 361: 356: 353: 347: 343: 337: 331: 330: 329: 326: 321: 315: 314: 313: 309: 305: 301: 298: 296: 293: 289: 286: 284: 281: 277: 274: 270: 267: 263: 262: 261: 257: 251: 246: 243: 241: 238: 233: 229: 225: 221: 218: 216: 213: 209: 206: 205: 204: 203: 200: 189: 183: 177: 170: 163: 155: 151: 147: 143: 138: 134: 129: 125: 121: 117: 113: 112: 111: 110: 107: 105: 100: 95: 94: 89: 86: 82: 77: 73: 72: 68: 67: 66: 65: 60: 57: 50: 45: 41: 36: 23: 19: 5618: 5611: 5574: 5562: 5539: 5524: 5519: 5507: 5490: 5384: 5369: 5357: 5341: 5337: 5330: 5313: 5309: 5293: 5281: 5201: 5194: 5176: 5161: 5154: 5133: 5123: 5114: 5105: 5084: 5071: 5026: 5013: 4999: 4987: 4982: 4978: 4967: 4963: 4946: 4935:User:L-Burna 4922: 4911: 4902: 4897: 4871: 4863: 4853: 4847: 4841: 4835: 4751: 4744: 4726: 4711: 4704: 4692:Black Falcon 4690: 4685: 4669: 4665: 4653: 4639: 4631: 4597: 4582: 4570: 4555: 4550: 4533: 4514: 4498: 4491: 4475: 4454: 4441: 4437: 4430: 4423: 4416: 4411: 4394: 4377: 4350: 4327: 4319:- I created 4316: 4298: 4297: 4213: 4206: 4183: 4168: 4161: 4136: 4122: 4101: 4083: 4037: 3957: 3950: 3932: 3917: 3910: 3891: 3887: 3866: 3849: 3846: 3819: 3807: 3786: 3775: 3763: 3739: 3728: 3648: 3641: 3623: 3608: 3601: 3589:Black Falcon 3587: 3583: 3566: 3540:TonyTheTiger 3520: 3505: 3488: 3473: 3468: 3458: 3449: 3436: 3432: 3377: 3349:somebody..." 3321: 3313: 3306:Craigtalbert 3301: 3278: 3267: 3243: 3231: 3215: 3200: 3178: 3144: 3136: 3119: 3105: 3103: 3099: 3085: 3081: 3053: 3039: 3011: 2925: 2918: 2900: 2885: 2878: 2862: 2847: 2842: 2825: 2808: 2792: 2785:TonyBallioni 2776: 2755: 2728: 2707: 2692: 2664: 2584: 2577: 2559: 2544: 2537: 2520: 2501: 2497: 2478: 2463: 2458: 2441: 2401: 2389: 2372: 2356: 2347:TonyBallioni 2342: 2321: 2294: 2269: 2266:no consensus 2265: 2249: 2241: 2222:no consensus 2221: 2217: 2189: 2122:Ramona Moore 2109: 2102: 2086:Ramona Moore 2084: 2069: 2062: 2046: 2029: 1996: 1992: 1977: 1972: 1955: 1945:TonyBallioni 1939: 1918: 1911:TonyBallioni 1902: 1865: 1848: 1800: 1780: 1720: 1677: 1656: 1633: 1627: 1604: 1524: 1517: 1501: 1497: 1492: 1487: 1481: 1466: 1459: 1449:Sunderland06 1443: 1363: 1356: 1338: 1323: 1316: 1301: 1292: 1287: 1268: 1251: 1235: 1218: 1174: 1154: 1149: 1116: 1088: 1066: 1054: 1036: 1032: 1012: 970: 969: 966:WP:BIGNUMBER 941: 934:"I like it"! 920: 909: 907: 827: 820: 797: 782: 775: 706:— Preceding 694: 663: 656:IronGargoyle 651: 618:avoid being 617: 609: 589: 585: 574: 565: 560: 547: 535: 515: 494: 485: 478: 471: 464: 457: 450: 443: 436: 416: 399: 384: 379: 368: 354: 299: 287: 275: 244: 227: 219: 207: 195: 103: 96: 80: 75: 69: 58: 44:2007 October 5472:Jimbo Wales 5183:Chick Bowen 5060:Young David 4640:unanimously 3837:Chick Bowen 3744:independent 3528:oldafdmulti 3446:WP:NOT#NEWS 3330:independent 3137:Re-evaluate 2750:Trout whack 2736:WP:NOT#NEWS 2316:Trout whack 2302:WP:NOT#NEWS 2278:WP:NOTAGAIN 2254:WP:NOT#NEWS 1537:Dale Hample 1483:Dale Hample 1277:Google news 1273:WP:NOT#NEWS 1256:Computerjoe 1100:WP:NOT#NEWS 1071:WP:NOT#NEWS 1050:WP:NOT#NEWS 1017:WP:NOT#NEWS 748:—Preceding 553:Wickethewok 5512:Smashville 5436:Smashville 5417:Smashville 4977:Actually, 4898:Body Parts 4890:Album info 4075:WP:CSD#G11 4063:WP:CSD#G11 4041:Biscuittin 3812:Smashville 3780:AfD debate 2423:WP:DPR#NAC 2246:to John254 1771:WP:SELFPUB 1294:Dachannien 1195:Smashville 1166:Smashville 1141:Smashville 1137:WP:CRYSTAL 1003:Smashville 925:Smashville 567:Dachannien 433:Snowclones 425:Snowclones 421:Snowclones 266:Smashville 212:Smashville 5600:Isotope23 5385:Jreferee 5342:steamroll 5085:Jreferee 4503:Badagnani 4455:Jreferee 4404:Badagnani 4355:Badagnani 4328:Jreferee 4137:Jreferee 4131:WP:CSD#A7 4079:WP:CSD#A7 4071:WP:CSD#A3 4067:WP:CSD#A1 4059:WP:CSD#A7 4055:WP:CSD#A3 4051:WP:CSD#A1 3871:protected 3787:Jreferee 3404:WP:POINTy 3328:that are 3279:Jreferee 3054:Jreferee 2756:Jreferee 2322:Jreferee 2250:obviously 2032:-- While 1801:Jreferee 1721:Jreferee 1678:Jreferee 1634:Jreferee 1240:WP:POINTs 495:Jreferee 405:WP:DELETE 360:Snowclone 76:compelled 5319:WP:TROUT 5039:WP:MUSIC 4981:content 4838:WP:MUSIC 4672:because 4666:Overturn 4658:Wikidemo 4654:Overturn 4598:Overturn 4399:WP:POINT 4364:Wikidemo 3580:WP:POINT 3576:WP:CIVIL 3450:assuming 3382:WP:POINT 3322:presumed 3248:WP:BLP1E 3078:WP:TROUT 3013:This AFD 2797:Jreferee 2666:This AFD 2498:multiple 2406:Jreferee 2361:Dhartung 2248:. There 2244:WP:TROUT 2191:This AFD 1880:Dhartung 1828:xDanielx 1244:Wikidemo 1219:Overturn 1021:Dhartung 942:Overturn 762:contribs 750:unsigned 720:contribs 708:unsigned 695:Overturn 652:Overturn 635:xDanielx 586:Overturn 561:Overturn 536:Overturn 521:xDanielx 336:xDanielx 300:Overturn 250:xDanielx 245:Overturn 20:‎ | 5370:Comment 5350:W.marsh 5338:plowing 5336:is for 5334:WP:SNOW 5323:GRBerry 5302:Caknuck 5298:WP:SNOW 5260:restore 5231:protect 5226:history 5106:Comment 5072:Comment 5048:T-Rock® 5019:GRBerry 5014:Comment 4991:Spartaz 4988:Endorse 4964:Endorse 4939:Caknuck 4931:T-Rock® 4923:Comment 4828:2nd AfD 4824:1st AfD 4810:restore 4781:protect 4776:history 4678:Dhaluza 4644:DHowell 4632:Comment 4624:DHowell 4583:Endorse 4571:Endorse 4534:Endorse 4515:Endorse 4492:Comment 4412:Comment 4351:Comment 4272:restore 4243:protect 4238:history 4092:GRBerry 4088:WP:CORP 4016:restore 3987:protect 3982:history 3939:Spartaz 3888:Endorse 3867:Endorse 3828:Caknuck 3820:Endorse 3808:Endorse 3776:Endorse 3768:W.marsh 3756:GRBerry 3707:restore 3678:protect 3673:history 3567:Endorse 3521:Endorse 3508:pd_THOR 3469:endorse 3433:Endorse 3421:Dhaluza 3395:Dhaluza 3378:Endorse 3370:John254 3268:Endorse 3108:pd_THOR 3100:endorse 3090:GRBerry 3017:John254 2984:restore 2955:protect 2950:history 2801:John254 2729:Endorse 2714:above. 2698:GRBerry 2670:John254 2643:restore 2614:protect 2609:history 2526:Kayobee 2414:John254 2295:Endorse 2234:GRBerry 2195:John254 2168:restore 2139:protect 2134:history 2039:John254 1973:Endorse 1940:Comment 1907:WP:PROF 1893:Spartaz 1875:WP:PROF 1785:GRBerry 1776:WP:PROF 1748:Spartaz 1705:Spartaz 1662:Spartaz 1628:delete. 1583:restore 1554:protect 1549:history 1488:sourced 1422:restore 1393:protect 1388:history 1345:GRBerry 1302:Contrib 1288:Endorse 1269:Endorse 1260:'s talk 1236:Endorse 1059:GRBerry 1041:Caknuck 1033:Endorse 1013:Endorse 950:WP:NEWS 921:Endorse 886:restore 857:protect 852:history 754:Rafff18 712:Rafff18 625:GRBerry 610:Comment 575:Contrib 516:Comment 417:Endorse 400:Endorse 380:Comment 292:Spartaz 288:Endorse 276:Endorse 237:GRBerry 208:Endorse 199:Rafff18 162:restore 133:protect 128:history 5596:WP:AGF 5588:WP:NEO 5584:WP:NOR 5575:Relist 5540:Relist 5520:Relist 5508:Relist 5495:Stifle 5476:Stifle 5446:JJJ999 5444:point. 5427:JJJ999 5408:JJJ999 5362:JJJ999 5358:Relist 5331:Relist 5310:Relist 5294:Relist 5285:JJJ999 5235:delete 5138:Stifle 5110:T-Rock 5066:, and 5044:T-Rock 5035:CSD A4 4983:always 4927:T-Rock 4785:delete 4764:T-Rock 4728:T-Rock 4590:(Talk) 4551:Relist 4538:Stifle 4499:before 4476:Delete 4308:Hmains 4247:delete 3991:delete 3970:DLM AG 3934:DLM AG 3875:Stifle 3850:unless 3682:delete 3578:, and 3572:WP:BLP 3391:WP:BIO 3233:(UTC)" 3193:WP:BLP 2959:delete 2830:Stifle 2783:above 2741:WP:BLP 2618:delete 2446:Stifle 2427:Stifle 2307:WP:BLP 2143:delete 1960:Stifle 1866:policy 1767:WP:SPS 1558:delete 1397:delete 1223:Stifle 962:WP:POV 954:WP:ATA 861:delete 304:Stifle 232:WP:NOR 224:WP:NOR 137:delete 5592:WP:RS 5567:Sarah 5553:edits 5314:never 5267:cache 5252:views 5244:watch 5240:links 5116:T Rex 5031:AfD#2 4955:desat 4904:T Rex 4866:also 4817:cache 4802:views 4794:watch 4790:links 4733:Xoloz 4386:desat 4290:AfD#2 4286:AfD#1 4279:cache 4264:views 4256:watch 4252:links 4195:Xoloz 4127:Swiss 4023:cache 4008:views 4000:watch 3996:links 3858:desat 3714:cache 3699:views 3691:watch 3687:links 3630:Xoloz 3459:juice 3454:Mango 3048:AfD#2 3044:AfD#1 2991:cache 2976:views 2968:watch 2964:links 2907:Xoloz 2817:desat 2650:cache 2635:views 2627:watch 2623:links 2566:Xoloz 2410:Samir 2394:Samir 2381:desat 2300:, so 2260:beat 2175:cache 2160:views 2152:watch 2148:links 2091:Xoloz 1931:desat 1590:cache 1575:views 1567:watch 1563:links 1506:Xoloz 1429:cache 1414:views 1406:watch 1402:links 893:cache 878:views 870:watch 866:links 808:desat 672:WP:OR 540:Kizor 491:. -- 369:juice 364:Mango 169:cache 154:views 146:watch 142:links 85:Xoloz 52:: --> 16:< 5580:WP:V 5549:talk 5531:talk 5499:talk 5480:talk 5248:logs 5222:talk 5218:edit 5142:talk 5124:talk 5001:Will 4979:good 4969:Will 4951:Core 4929:and 4912:talk 4852:and 4798:logs 4772:talk 4768:edit 4562:talk 4542:talk 4520:Neil 4480:Alun 4382:Core 4317:NOTE 4260:logs 4234:talk 4230:edit 4110:Duja 4069:and 4061:and 4004:logs 3978:talk 3974:edit 3898:talk 3879:talk 3854:Core 3695:logs 3669:talk 3665:edit 3584:keep 3480:talk 3442:WP:N 3410:shoy 3389:and 3387:WP:N 3254:? • 3252:WP:N 3040:NOTE 3030:shoy 3021:here 3004:AFD2 2972:logs 2946:talk 2942:edit 2854:talk 2834:talk 2813:Core 2795:per 2716:Duja 2683:shoy 2674:here 2631:logs 2605:talk 2601:edit 2508:talk 2470:talk 2450:talk 2431:talk 2408:and 2404:per 2377:Core 2365:Talk 2282:Duja 2276:and 2270:keep 2268:and 2256:and 2208:shoy 2199:here 2156:logs 2130:talk 2126:edit 1984:talk 1964:talk 1927:Core 1923:WP:N 1884:Talk 1870:WP:N 1861:WP:V 1857:WP:N 1855:and 1853:WP:V 1769:and 1657:Meh! 1571:logs 1545:talk 1541:edit 1410:logs 1384:talk 1380:edit 1227:talk 1176:Will 1156:Will 1148:No, 1118:Will 1090:Will 1025:Talk 995:WP:N 958:WP:N 946:WP:N 911:Will 874:logs 848:talk 844:edit 840:OiNK 804:Core 799:OiNK 758:talk 731:Neil 716:talk 681:Neil 676:WP:V 674:and 391:talk 324:ecis 308:talk 188:AFD3 182:AFD2 150:logs 124:talk 120:edit 32:< 5598:.-- 5526:DGG 5274:AfD 4611:DRV 4557:DGG 4442:(5) 4438:(4) 4431:(3) 4424:(2) 4417:(1) 4086:. 4030:AfD 3893:DGG 3754:. 3721:AfD 3553:bio 3538:.-- 3475:DGG 3316:-- 3152:bli 3088:. 3027:.) 2998:AfD 2849:DGG 2680:.) 2657:AfD 2503:DGG 2465:DGG 2205:.) 2182:AfD 1979:DGG 1783:. 1630:-- 1607:AfD 1597:AfD 1502:all 1436:AfD 1150:all 1113:AfD 1057:. 981:Fan 936:or 900:AfD 670:. 600:ari 598:hik 486:(8) 479:(7) 472:(6) 465:(5) 458:(4) 451:(3) 444:(2) 437:(1) 386:DGG 228:not 176:AfD 81:was 22:Log 5590:, 5586:, 5582:, 5551:• 5533:) 5501:) 5482:) 5455:DS 5368:. 5250:| 5246:| 5242:| 5238:| 5233:| 5229:| 5224:| 5220:| 5144:) 5120:| 5070:. 5062:, 5058:, 5054:, 5050:, 5046:, 4908:| 4870:. 4846:, 4800:| 4796:| 4792:| 4788:| 4783:| 4779:| 4774:| 4770:| 4638:, 4564:) 4544:) 4436:, 4429:, 4422:, 4262:| 4258:| 4254:| 4250:| 4245:| 4241:| 4236:| 4232:| 4057:, 4053:, 4006:| 4002:| 3998:| 3994:| 3989:| 3985:| 3980:| 3976:| 3900:) 3881:) 3697:| 3693:| 3689:| 3685:| 3680:| 3676:| 3671:| 3667:| 3574:, 3559:) 3531:}} 3525:{{ 3512:| 3482:) 3435:/ 3368:. 3244:22 3155:nd 3149:ar 3146:St 3143:- 3123:-- 3112:| 3042:- 2974:| 2970:| 2966:| 2962:| 2957:| 2953:| 2948:| 2944:| 2856:) 2836:) 2799:. 2633:| 2629:| 2625:| 2621:| 2616:| 2612:| 2607:| 2603:| 2510:) 2472:) 2452:) 2433:) 2412:. 2363:| 2280:. 2158:| 2154:| 2150:| 2146:| 2141:| 2137:| 2132:| 2128:| 1986:) 1966:) 1882:| 1573:| 1569:| 1565:| 1561:| 1556:| 1552:| 1547:| 1543:| 1498:do 1412:| 1408:| 1404:| 1400:| 1395:| 1391:| 1386:| 1382:| 1229:) 1115:. 1023:| 983:24 979:AR 976:SC 973:NA 876:| 872:| 868:| 864:| 859:| 855:| 850:| 846:| 764:) 760:• 722:) 718:• 596:•S 594:rk 592:Da 484:' 470:; 463:; 456:; 449:; 442:; 393:) 310:) 152:| 148:| 144:| 140:| 135:| 131:| 126:| 122:| 42:: 5555:) 5547:( 5529:( 5497:( 5478:( 5397:c 5394:/ 5391:t 5277:) 5271:| 5263:| 5257:( 5254:) 5216:( 5140:( 5097:c 5094:/ 5091:t 4831:) 4826:| 4821:| 4813:| 4807:( 4804:) 4766:( 4560:( 4540:( 4525:☎ 4467:c 4464:/ 4461:t 4340:c 4337:/ 4334:t 4293:) 4288:| 4283:| 4275:| 4269:( 4266:) 4228:( 4149:c 4146:/ 4143:t 4114:► 4033:) 4027:| 4019:| 4013:( 4010:) 3972:( 3896:( 3877:( 3799:c 3796:/ 3793:t 3724:) 3718:| 3710:| 3704:( 3701:) 3663:( 3555:/ 3551:/ 3549:c 3547:/ 3545:t 3543:( 3478:( 3291:c 3288:/ 3285:t 3126:w 3066:c 3063:/ 3060:t 3007:) 3001:| 2995:| 2987:| 2981:( 2978:) 2940:( 2852:( 2832:( 2768:c 2765:/ 2762:t 2720:► 2660:) 2654:| 2646:| 2640:( 2637:) 2599:( 2506:( 2468:( 2448:( 2429:( 2334:c 2331:/ 2328:t 2286:► 2185:) 2179:| 2171:| 2165:( 2162:) 2124:( 2013:, 1982:( 1962:( 1834:C 1831:/ 1813:c 1810:/ 1807:t 1733:c 1730:/ 1727:t 1690:c 1687:/ 1684:t 1646:c 1643:/ 1640:t 1600:) 1594:| 1586:| 1580:( 1577:) 1539:( 1439:) 1433:| 1425:| 1419:( 1416:) 1378:( 1225:( 903:) 897:| 889:| 883:( 880:) 842:( 756:( 736:☎ 714:( 686:☎ 641:C 638:/ 527:C 524:/ 507:c 504:/ 501:t 389:( 378:' 342:C 339:/ 319:A 306:( 256:C 253:/ 191:) 185:| 179:| 173:| 165:| 159:( 156:) 118:(

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 24 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index