Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2007 May 5

2040:(I even have a request for a completely free image in the pipeline), it's been expanded and sourced well enough so it will pass by a wide margin, but maybe someone will disagree. I do think it is substantially different from the deleted content, so it is not suitable for ; there are probably two unchanged sentences, and 80% of the content is brand new. But the absolute positive last thing that I want to do here is be accused of going against process, community consensus, or anything like that. Without discussion? I tried, I really did. Where should I have discussed? Honest, I tried! -- 1614:

seen its history. It had hundreds of members, and many were sad to see it go. I don't understand really why it was deleted because it wasn't useless. It's concept was amazing. So please can you consider this nomination and help restore it, binding the former projects back into one. I see no reason how this project was ever distracting the encyclopedia building on Knowledge (XXG). It was rather teaching editors to have pride and fun in editing wikipedia, and perhaps we could restore the project and "change" it, so it helps on the encyclopedia building too, aswell as helping editors.

3339:- this nomination is process for the sake of process. The list was a completely unsourced, BLP nightmare. The deleter had every right to delete on sight, even if the AfD hadn't been rapidly snowballing towards an inevitable delete. Keeping this much unsourced material is to the massive detriment of Knowledge (XXG). There is no reason why this cannot be recreated citing reliable sources, but reliable sources it must cite. It cited none! As someone else pointed out "alleged" is surely the utlimate weasel word, at any rate. 345:(repost of deleted content) as at least part of teh delte reason. but this was never deleted as a result of an AfD or other discussion-based process, so G4 clearly never applied. Admisn should rememeber that G4 simply is not to be used for cases where the previous deeltes were all speedy. As for A7, a stateent that ther is a record deal with a major label is clearly at least an assertion of notability. Whether this will pass an AfD I can't predict, but it is clearly not a proper speedy. 1909:. Just because an article was AfD'd does not mean the article can't be rewritten, and it wouldn't be a speedy candidate due to it being very different than the deleted version. If I were aware of the AfD, I likely would have brought it here anyway, because that was a really sad excuse for a discussion, but I think any perceived problems have been addressed at this point. Nothing against a new AfD once this concludes (or now if you withdrew this), but yeah. -- 2105:. So what if the old article was AfD'd in the past? Jeff hit it on the head -- the new article has popped up as a fully sourced article, completely different from the last time it was at AfD. Again, the deletion process is not meant to delete things permanently (well, sometimes, assuming there is zero chance for notability ever to be obtained); articles can come back and be recreated so long as they're fully sourced, which this is. 426:"This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate itself was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Knowledge (XXG) during the AfD debate. This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content." 3200:

chance to weigh in, it probably would have generated extremely lengthy discussion. Only the people who were online at the time saw it. While there are a lot of "deletes", there are also a lot of people (like me) watching that page, who would have come in and tried to keep it. The AfD was starting to show some good advice for cleaning the page up (like removing the redlinks).

1664:- Esperanza was nothing but a pointless bureaucracy and a bunch of good projects. Getting rid of Esperanza yet granting soverignity to the projects got rid of the bureaucracy and it let us keep the projects. Besides, you don't need an organization to promote goodwill. Just be nice and the favor will be returned! 667:; no consensus. Categories can coexist with templates. The analogy with Friday the 13th may not be strong, but neither is the one with the 3 precedents as they presumably had varying numbers of articles, albeit on the low, eponymously connected side, and whether it is that low should be determined by consensus. – 291:. The AfD is misleading, as the article was actually incorrectly speedied as an A7 - a major label deal is an assertion of notability. As the person requesting undeletion is suggesting there's more material to work with since the initial deletion, overturning the improper speedy is the best course of action. -- 3455:

Well, I won't IAR my own opinion, and since I've been around the block a few times by now with DRV, it's still my contention that it's misrepresented as a process review only, but until the time that it's also represented on the project page as reviewing articles themselves for content (i.e. a second

2757:

article should do the trick, and there's plenty more where that came from (New York Times, WSJ, Le Monde, etc. etc. etc.) He's the son of François Pinault, is engaged to Selma Hayek... this guy just reeks of notability, and there are hundreds upon hundreds of reliable sources to boot. If there were a

1722:

substantially different from the deleted one, and most importantly, it is vastly better sourced. If those sources require re-examination, consensus seems to be that a new AfD would be the way to go. Where concerns at AfD are not addressed by a new article, then re-deletion is often appropriate, but

599:

Comment neutral to the categories/topic under discussion - While I note that he at least removed some of the more perjorative text from his comment above, I'm seeing that this discussion (not just this sub-thread) seems to have been about more than just the categories in question, such as questioning

3363:

and letting the AfD run its course. Seems to me that some of these listings are probably sourceable via various news source archives, and the speedy delete seems to me to also be symptomatic of censorship, which of course everyone knows Wiki Admins don't do, so of course we should avoid looking like

2473:

And generally articles in mainspace are sourced and not spammy. What has developing an article in userspace or mainspace got to do with an assumption of good faith? There is absolutely nothing wrong with developing content in userspace and then having it moved into mainspace when up to scratch. That

2414:

and allow sole author to continue working on article for X number of days or overturn and start an AfD to give the author some time to do the work. There's other lower hanging fruit to delete, guys. If the primary/sole author's here and objects to the process/application of policy, can we not IAR in

1962:

I haven't dug into this article and all its sources very carefully, but it's worth mentioning that the rewrite is well-written and appears to be well-referenced. This is not, as it stands, an article that will bring Knowledge (XXG) into disrepute. We should think very carefully about deleting again,

1923:

There's a whole number of issues here 1) was the closure of the afd correct 2) if it was, are people allowed to tweek an article a bit and then reverse an AfD without any process (hey that's a dilemma for an inclusionist process wonk ;)) 3) Does it take a DRV to reverse an AfD, or can any admin just

1210:

Two people said delete, one said keep because of another category and one said keep because he doesn't see the logic in the nom. So that's two for deletion, one discounted otherstuffexists keep and one keep from someone who discounts unsupported opinions in other CFDs when it suits him but complains

261:

the same "Until June" we're talking about? Because if it is, I hardly see how being signed to a major label constitutes "not asserting notability" necessary for A7. In fact, it doesn't. Maybe the band didn't fulfill WP:MUSIC, but it certainly should not have been speedied... that is, if the userfied

3507:

website in an "external links" section. Apart from these, the list itself had no sources, and dozens of the listed names didn't have an accompanying article. Also, the criteria for inclusion on this list was unclear: "Alleged"? By whom? The situation would be complicated even if each allegation was

3199:

BLP says that negative comments about living people should be sourced. I said BLP doesn't apply when there are sources (meaning the exception is met). Some of the list was unsourced, and I agree it needed cleaning up. The AfD was not obvious, it was open less than 24 hours, certainly before I had a

2059:

I don't think that discussion beforehand was necessary, due to the extent of your rewrite. Were it less clear-cut, a note on the afd's talk page would probably be appropriate, since the participants are probably still watching it. (A note on the deleted article's talk page would be better, except

2011:

And yet, this is what I end up with. See, I didn't participate in the AFD, and didn't have the article on my watchlist, but I "knew" about it because it had a certain history. So I was surprised when a link to it went red. I tracked down the AFD after it closed, noticed the complaints were that the

2006:

See, I'm big on consensus, process, agreement, all that good stuff. I've got my official process-wonker society dues paid up in full, carry the "Good Will Towards Men" membership card, wear the "I'm OK You're OK" t-shirt. The last thing I want to do is be accused of wheel warring, going against the

2927:

makes a very good point. The deleted article as written says solely that the subject is the son of a billionaire and engaged to a movie actress. Even were we to ignore the long-standing principle that one cannot inherit notability, it is often the case that spouses or relatives of notable people

1943:

Well, 1) probably not, but because of 2), it doesn't matter much, because AfD wasn't really designed, I'd think to permanently make an article disappear into the nothingness. It's not as if this was a straight recreation, but the idea is that a bad AfD can be overturned through DRV, but DRV isn't

1613:

I do not see why this excellent project was ever deleted. It played a fine and delicate part to wikipedia, which helped us take pride in editing, and provided excellent building blocks to our community. As an editor, I edited anon since October and I seen the project but only took interest when I

430:

And since nearly all (though not entirely all) the endorse closure comments below were commenting about the content directly. "What is the point of a category for five movies when there is already a navigational template?" - Doesn't deal with the question of the closure at all, and several others

1369:

Radiant is not responsible for your or anyone else's misunderstanding of how Knowledge (XXG) works. But even if you felt that you couldn't comment in the CFD after it closed, you could still have commented on Radiant's talk page. All of this is irrelevant to the nomination, the deletion and this

2943:

not checking the article's history before speedy deletion, as administrators should do. If xe had done that, xe would have seen that the article had already been tagged for speedy deletion and rejected, back in March 2007. The proper procedure for such cases, if one wants the article deleted

3630:

fully applies. Per BLP unsourced material was deletable on sight, and that was virtually the entirety of the article, so even allowing it to go to AfD was more process than was due in the first place. This is the last place to be thinking about process for process's sake. False appearances on

3213:

had a reference. Statements like "Odeh, Mohammed Sadiq, convicted Embassy bomber" and "Tebourski, Adel, jailed for helping in the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood," when unaccompanied by a reliable source, are negative comments, and are exactly what BLP is meant to facilitate the nuking of.

2932:

notes that we aren't here to bring private individuals into the public eye, and specifies that biographical information must be rigidly held to our content policies, with editors being firm about high quality references. The only source that was cited in the article was a web log with no

1933:

My opinion: 1) it doesn't matter, because 2) yes, as long as at least some of the complaints in the AFD are addressed (which seems to be the case here) and 3) probably, but because the content here is substantially different (using 'substantially' in the legal sense) this doesn't apply.

3415:

On the other hand (thinking about this as I did the trash), given that aside from Rockstar915, I'm the only one who seems to disagree with otherwise full consensus, and my objections are purely rule-based, this might be (assuming no other overturns) a perfect time to use

3182:

come to any outcome besides deletion? I do not. There was a pretty obvious consensus to delete, and there is really no way that this would have shifted. Third, is there not some guideline somewhere which says to avoid the use of "alleged?" That is why I endorse deletion.

2914:

Yes, overturn. No, don't list. But there's absolutely no reason to vilify Pilotguy, as several users have done above; the article was in poor enough shape that I didn't see a better importance claim than "happens to be the son of a billionaire" on my first read either.

2585:

As the original author of the article, I am withdrawing the article. Please see my User Page for the reason (not the reason that the page was orginally deleted). I would also like some feedback and discussion on the criteria for notability - please respond on my page.

3295:

None of the individual listings cited a reliable source. None! The article just listed one dubious "external resource". The whole thing was an OR-violating BLP-violating mess. According to the deletion log, KFP looked for a BLP-compliant version and couldn't find one.

1300:

Those are a number of regular closings so I really fail what you're getting at, other than that you appear to be unfamiliar with how CFD works and how it's closed. Since the page was not protected, nothing barred people from responding either there or on my talk page.

1944:

required to do a recreation that addresses the issues at the AfD - otherwise, you're simply running the AfD again. Definitely chalk it up to the continued brokenness of DRV, for sure, but on an inclusionist process wonkery level, this seems to be on the up-and-up. --

1639:

per previous DRV. Restoring Esperanza is, effectively, mission impossible, without it turning into the bureaucracy it was before. Most of the beneficial projects of Esperanza were already divided into separate projects, so there's no need to restore the program

2396:

article is very prone to getting spam from (starting) companies and websites wanting to make some publicity for themselves. Without references from reliable sources, a wiki article on such a company is just that: spam. That makes them prime target for speedy

3631:

terrorist lists has caused enormous damage to the lives of real people. The encyclopedia has a responsibility to the public not to allow the publication of rumors to cause harm. It would be irresponsible to undelete a virtually unsourced list like this. --

1991:; the article is different substantially from the original so is fine. I see no need to list it at AFD, either, as I'm certain the article would pass: 13 different sources, most of which are mainstream media sources, are listed on this article now. 2049:

Yup, the correct procedure here beats me too. That's why I thought I'd open a discussion rather than do anything else. If this endorses you, then I'll know it is OK to undelete things and re-write them in future, If I wish. No worries. No criticism

2280:

Article useful but needs references. Also incomplete - additional information is forthcoming. This is a viable new technology with five patents pending. Not blatant advertising as the company or product pages were not linked to from the article

3178:, does, in fact, apply. The list discussed living people and is therefore within jurisdiction of that policy. Could you please elaborate on why you think it does not apply, as opposed to just saying so? Second, do you really think the AfD could 3135:

does not apply. Most of these people are on official terror watch lists or in Guantanamo. We may not agree the terror lists are right in every case but they do make a reliable source (a reliable source that someone is allegedly a terrorist.

175:

The sole reason for deletion was the fact that the band was non-notable. However, some time has passed since the deletion, and their songs have gotten good reviews & are in the press. There is enough literature to write about the band.

2433:

Why restore to mainspace an inappropriate article so someone can work on it? Why not userspace? There is also no reason why someone creating new content can't do so in userspace first (or in a suitable text editor on their computer).

1924:

use their own common sense (which is what I think happened here. Maybe the best thing to do, given the process conflicts, is to look at the article and see if we want to keep it. Stuff proper process, since we don't know what it is.--

3265:

there is no NPOV point to revert it to. But from what Nardman1 is saying, it looks like there was at least some cited info such that the unsourced material could have just been removed. Plus, "Baleete then Burninate" is not a vote.

2342:

That's awesome, but until it can be made viewable in some fashion by an admin, only admins can make a reasonable evaluation/have an opinion, and I think I understand correctly that ALL editors are supposed to participate in DRV.

896:

Sure, why not? Perhaps they're only "uncontroversial" because no one's looked at them yet. CFD isn't a vote and the reasons offered for keeping the category were weak, amounting to "Look at this category" and "I don't get it."

1117:

Ah, nice straw man. Accusing people of "deleting categories without consensus" is very much a personal attack, I'm sure you're aware of that. Also, you have indeed launched deletion reviews because I were the closer, such as

3456:

or de facto XfD, depending on when in the process the DRV is fired), I'll keep my own opinion as is (because that's my opinion), and the closing admin can definitely use IAR with my good wishes if it's the only overturn. --

3149:

While the AfD didn't run the full five days, there was unanimous consensus to delete, with a number of people calling for speedy. I think if such an article needs to exist at all, it should be as a cetegory, if anything.

2036:.) So what should I have done, asked each and every person who participated in the AFD? Put it up on DRV myself, even though I had no objection to the way the AFD was closed? I have no objection to another AFD; I think 3442:, and we don't really do rules for the sake of rules, or process for the sake of process. As you note, this is a good time to use IAR - quite apart from common sense. We might as well endorse the deletion here, with 1348:

to squelch further discussion, or is it designed to document a discussion which had reached a conclusion? To naive CFD readers such as myself, its use in this case gave the appearance of "getting in the last word".

1465:

Closers have and should have some range of judgement, but a 2/2 split with at least some arguemnts on each side simply is not consensus to delete, that is imposing the closer's judgement, in effect a speedy delete.

1103:

It is not a personal attack to describe your close as incorrect, so please cease with the straw men. It is completely false to say I have launched deletion reviews "because you were the closer". I suggest you read

1840: 1830: 1183:

comments above, I see opinion of how "we should categorise" - I don't see discussion about whether the admin operated within an admin's closure discretion. In other words, much of this discussion is pretty much

3128: 3118: 2379:

The article was unfinished - usually references and sources are added later. The article had just been started and had been on Knowledge (XXG) less than 9 hours before it and all references to it were deleted.

2092:

all the wikilawyerish exceptions in its wording. I don't think it particularly matters that AnonEMouse restored the article immediately before rewriting it, instead of restoring the history immediately after.

438:

comment in this way, obviously there are more who wish to "chime in" and discuss the category. So relisting for further discussion would seem to be the best way to attempt to truly determine consensus, and I

1400:

There was no consensus to delete. The closer erred in writing, "The result of the debate was delete" when that was not the result of the debate. The obvious choice was to close with "no consensus". (What

1891: 2131:

Why are we here? If I understand the discussion so far, the AfD closure is uncontested and nobody is saying the article should be deleted. If nobody, including Doc, wants this article to be deleted,

1192:"votes", rather than discussing policy and guidelines. I find this disappointing when there is so much rich material from the policies and guidelines which could be discussed in this DRV discussion. - 3504: 2738:, and surely passes notability criteria just for this. So I request undeletion of this article. Incidentally, his legal name is François Jean Henri Pinault,though he prefers "François-Henri" 878:

So a handful of deletion discussions overrule the uncontroversial existence of hundreds of similar categories when it comes to deciding consensus in a case where the votes are evenly split?

3592:

without prejudice to proper sourced recreation. I don't know whether a recreation (even if sourced) is a good idea, but it certainly would not fall under the scope of this recent AfD or

2837:, notability asserted (CEO of major index corporation) and therefore not a CSD A7 candidate. AfD optional but as said above unneeded. Probably just needs some expansion and sourcing. -- 1243:

As evidenced by the discussion here, even if deletion would have been the correct eventual decision, the action was taken before the community as a whole believes doing so was proper. (

729:- closing nominator acted within his discretion to determine that the comparison to another category is too weak to save this one. The existence of a category for Friday the 13th films 847: 795: 488: 1074:

Tim, cease your personal attacks on me. You have in the past nominated categories for deletion review with the sole reason that I was the closer. I suggest you stop your disruption.

3543:, and of course BLP applies here, as it would with any list or categorization involving living people, especially when the categorization is potentially contentious or harmful. 3075: 3070: 3079: 1839:

I could jump in and speedy this as a recreation, but though I'd better bring it here for discussion rather than jump in with the weapons. This was deleted just last week per

3104: 3062: 2315:

Deleted version was pretty spammy, not to mention unreferenced and having no reliable sources. Basicly just an ad for an upcoming product, with no encylopedic value.

1824: 553:

No, you're wrong. Deciding an arbitrary number would mean "keep all movie family categories that have at least four members", as some people have recently suggested.

544:

You said in the closing: "An important distinction with "Friday the 13th" is that there are way more of those." That's deciding on an arbitrary number of articles--

942:, per nom. Not even close. Is anyone keeping a record of what percentage of overturns a person suffers, with an eye to removing them if the percentage is high?-- 2451:

Because generally articles are in mainspace. Editor claims it was only up and about for 9 hours and the work was in progress. I'm assuming good faith. Are you? --

1119: 2966:

It was the sentence ordering and the similarity of the names of the subject and his father that made me overlook it at first glance—I thought it was saying his

1627:

I think we've been here before. Esperanza was shut down with overwhelming community consensus to do so. In all good faith, I don't think this DRV is necessary.

2675: 2670: 166: 2679: 48: 34: 3175: 2704: 2662: 515:

is not a valid argument. Also, "there is no logical argument not to categorize this" is a fallacy as the nominator gave a perfectly logical argument.

43: 2970:

was the CEO of PPR, not just the owner. (The last revision of the article is the same as the google cache except for deletion tags, by the way.) —

2929: 2718: 1561: 1556: 1015:

above, this decision may fit a pattern of overly speedy action. What was the harm in allowing the discussion to continue to a clearer consensus? (

1276:

I encourage careful reading of the entry in the nomination which starts, "The result of the debate was...", which is one of many changes made in

1604: 1565: 2007:

decision of the community, causing unnecessary conflict, or anything else that might threaten to besmirch the pristine cleanliness of my mop.

189:, there was no assertion of notability previously, resulting in its repeated deletion. Can you provide sources for its current notability? -- 1590: 1552: 2271: 39: 3499:

This list contained more than two hundred names of "alleged members", of which four had accompanying external links as sources and only

3596:. Though the article was not speedy-able, there was consensus for deletion at XfD and this was a relatively appropriate application of 2787:. List on AfD if someone really feels like it, but I don't think it's needed. This is what happens when everything is semi-automated. - 1344:" So you are right, "nothing barred people from responding there", except their desire to follow the stated process. Is that template 2228: 2223: 749:

needs to be deleted, but that doesn't mean that the one which happens to be nominated gets to be the deleted one, without consensus. -

3325: 3281: 2823: 2773: 2567: 2526: 2232: 2120: 1781: 1776: 715: 327: 277: 3465: 3429: 3404: 3373: 2905: 2460: 2424: 2352: 2303: 1855: 1785: 3643:

As said earlier, possibly recreation with more citations could make this viable for the future. For now though, doesn't cut it.

605: 21: 2257: 2215: 1867: 1810: 1768: 123: 118: 2954:

I dont think this is about complaining about pilotguy either. though the deleted article - at least the google cache version

2666: 3066: 2957:*does* specifically identify the guy as CEO of PPR (which is wikilinked),and not just a billionaire's son or Salma's beau. 1885: 1873: 195: 127: 74:– Deletion overturned; most recent version was different, asserted notability. Relisting at AfD is an editorial option. – 955: 730: 512: 2896:

that well and I can tell this was a bad decision. Sometimes automation exists to be ignored (referring to NPWatcher). --

2511:

the subject is notable enough to pass our standards, then it can be reinstated. Until then, it should just be userfied.

1861: 1440:

Nor is it relevant what anyone's opinion is about whether the categories themselves should have been kept or deleted. -

3658: 3179: 3041: 3001: 2641: 2601: 2194: 2150: 1747: 1689: 1531: 1487: 402: 362: 89: 17: 3058: 3022: 2753:

and don't even bother listing. How on earth did this article not assert notability? He's the CEO of PPR! I think this

1879: 312:

not fulfill WP:MUSIC (though I'm sure they do), but the page is definitely not speedyable as notability was asserted.

258: 152: 110: 463: 3487:

2) it was on AfD for a while, and there was agreement that it infringed WP:BLP 3) this is what categories are for.--

240: 2847: 1189: 3530: 3517: 2658: 2622: 1718:. Looking at the debate it seems that the motives of all concerned are pure and good, but in the end the article 775: 586:

I don't particularly like being talked to like that, so I'll just say "Fair enough" and we'll see what happens.--

3483:

1) this contained uncited negative material, and had no earlier version to revert to. Thus it is speediable per

2415:

a productive way and evaluate whether the article is useful/conforms to policy after it's had time to mature? --

2085:

on top, I doubt I'd even bother to comment as I removed the tag. This is precisely the sort of case that makes

454: 383: 2020:. I asked him, should I recreate it, or take it to DRV? He didn't answer, just complained about the sources. I 471: 190: 2868: 1949: 1914: 1201:

What Jc said. If fifteen people had voted delete and one had voted keep, I would never have brought this up.--

655: 495:

decided on an arbitrary number of articles that justify a category, and enforced it. I'd like to suggest that

296: 2754: 1179:- I think this nomination goes right to the heart of the question: "What is WP:DRV?" - As I read through the 3218: 3187: 2893: 2012:

assertion of notability was sketchy and largely unsourced, and that the complaints were reasonable, since

2079: 1667: 243: 2958: 2864: 2741: 2219: 1945: 1910: 1548: 1508: 651: 292: 3488: 2051: 1925: 1897: 1517: 1031:

What gives you the impression that the debate was closed early? It wasn't, it ran for the regular time.

3215: 3184: 3461: 3425: 3400: 3369: 3027: 2901: 2739: 2627: 2456: 2420: 2348: 2299: 1849: 827: 237: 2294:

Can this article text be made available somehow so non-admins can see it? cache is empty. Thanks. --

2211: 2171: 1185: 3647: 3635: 3618: 3606: 3584: 3563: 3549: 3535: 3491: 3469: 3450: 3433: 3408: 3390: 3377: 3343: 3331: 3300: 3287: 3248: 3221: 3204: 3190: 3169: 3140: 3030: 2990: 2974: 2961: 2948: 2919: 2909: 2884: 2872: 2855: 2829: 2796: 2779: 2744: 2630: 2590: 2573: 2546: 2532: 2499: 2482: 2464: 2438: 2428: 2401: 2384: 2369: 2356: 2334: 2307: 2285: 2183: 2139: 2126: 2097: 2064: 2060:

admins are too trigger-happy about deleting such even when it's obviously the wrong thing to do.) —

2054: 2044: 2032:. (Your friend and mine, Tony Sidaway, who responded that he was quite happy about the recreation, 1995: 1983: 1967: 1953: 1938: 1928: 1918: 1900: 1736: 1678: 1656: 1644: 1631: 1618: 1520: 1476: 1444: 1420: 1374: 1360: 1325: 1295: 1267: 1254: 1231: 1215: 1205: 1196: 1163: 1154: 1112: 1098: 1069: 1055: 1026: 999: 994: 982: 946: 934: 930: 926: 901: 891: 887: 883: 873: 842: 838: 834: 822: 790: 786: 782: 770: 758: 737: 721: 692: 671: 659: 640: 616: 590: 577: 548: 539: 503: 447: 391: 351: 333: 300: 283: 249: 220: 200: 180: 78: 1980: 1123: 679:. What is the point of a category for five movies when there is already a navigational template? 3544: 1772: 1474: 1406: 1302: 1202: 1131: 1075: 1032: 959: 850: 799: 587: 554: 545: 516: 500: 349: 2016:. I found a lot of good sources that I thought would satisfy the people asking for sources, and 1105: 609: 213: 3257:

for now, specifically because I don't know the nature of the situation. BLP states that admins

2024:. He still didn't answer. Two days went by. I recreated the article, with much better sources, 511:

No I didn't, what on earth gives you that idea? Don't put words in my mouth. The point is that

3632: 3602: 3244: 2971: 2916: 2792: 2543: 2392:

This is the kind of article where you want to get a secondary source before you write it. The

2366: 2094: 2061: 1672: 1284:. How can that be consistent with the goal of taking action only after consensus is reached? ( 754: 3597: 3395:

You know what? I think you're right. Good thing you made me go back and reread it. Thanks! --

3131:. Article consisted mostly of links to Knowledge (XXG) articles of alleged al-Qaeda members. 1513: 1280:

edit. The admin states an opinion in reply to one of the participants in the discussion, but

1263:

The community as a whole had the full length of a standard CFD to comment on the nomination.

1127: 3615: 3311: 3267: 2809: 2759: 2553: 2512: 2106: 767: 701: 313: 263: 246: 177: 3627: 3593: 3484: 3439: 3417: 3383: 3354: 3132: 2475: 2362: 2086: 1976: 1393: 440: 420: 342: 3644: 3457: 3421: 3396: 3365: 2897: 2452: 2416: 2344: 2295: 2041: 1844: 1415: 1355: 1290: 1249: 1228: 1021: 1012: 1008: 943: 668: 497:

a tie is not a statement by the community that the administrator can do whatever he wants.

114: 3111: 2711: 2264: 1817: 1597: 234: 228: 159: 3235:. I normally find it hard to support SNOW deletions, but when this many people call for 3151: 2987: 2844: 2805: 2316: 2136: 1653: 1615: 991: 922: 879: 830: 778: 217: 2955: 1405:

relevant to this discussion is my naivete regarding this process, nor is the closer's

209: 3579: 3573: 3526: 3514:"(there is a lot of controversy over whether or not he really is an Al-Qaeda member)" 3447: 3387: 3340: 3297: 3201: 3137: 2940: 2881: 2732: 2496: 2479: 2435: 2180: 2037: 1964: 1764: 1731: 1725: 1710: 1628: 1471: 1409:

pattern of closing discussions in ways that others feel are erroneously assertive.) (

1371: 1264: 1212: 898: 734: 687: 681: 601: 346: 2474:

method has been used by many editors and certainly isn't anything to be ashamed of.

3559: 3240: 2945: 2924: 2788: 2495:

Endorse deletion, userfy if editor wants to work on bringing it up to standards. --

1641: 750: 636: 492: 3096: 2696: 2249: 1802: 1582: 921:, there's no broader consensus on this issue to support deletion of the category. 262:

page I linked to is the same band we're talking about. Any admin care to confirm?

144: 1398:"Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly." 491:: two votes to delete, two votes to keep, and no violation of format or context. 2587: 2507:. Obviously I can't see the deleted article, but I do trust that it was spammy. 2398: 2393: 2381: 2282: 2176: 1992: 1935: 1652:- I have a point, and Esperanza is worthful. It helped our community. So don't. 766:

this is not how we treat prequels and sequels on wikipedia. Good call by admin.

419:- Several "votes" below are discounted due to the following reason (copied from 231: 3127:

Article met no speedy deletion criteria and an afd has just been started on it

2727:

Not really a good article when it was deleted, but the subject is the CEO of a

604:'s neutrality in administrative discernment (including CfD closures). Perhaps 1410: 1350: 1338:

The template that was transcluded to close the discussion includes the text: "

1285: 1244: 1016: 106: 75: 70: 308:

per my own comment above and Jeff. The band is signed to a major label. They

208:- It would be most helpful if the nominator would provide sources to help us 2839: 1441: 1193: 1160: 1109: 1066: 613: 444: 388: 3521: 1211:

when his unsupported opinion is discounted. Not seeing the problem here.

2538:

Sure you can—that was the whole point of temp-undeleting the history.

2072: 1841:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Air Force Amy (second nomination)

3503:

of these links actually worked. Additionally, there was a link to the

2728: 3508:

backed up by a reliable source. The list entries had comments like

2736: 608:

might be a good next step, to at least provide a place to discuss

3239:

deletion, it's really hard to say that it should be overturned. -

2478:

isn't an exemption from articles meeting ou r basic standards. --

954:

per above. CFD is not a vote count, but a weighing of arguments.

2361:

Done. Endorse; the article reads as advertising copy. No real

612:. And to hopefully not sidetrack this discussion any further. - 990:

per Guy. CFD is not a vote, and this was overcategorization. --

2880:- didn't this guy have lunch with the FT today? He's notable. 3382:

It's a list of people, not a list of cats or dogs. Of course

3359:

The AfD was interrupted in the middle (bad form) I recommend

2071:

Status quo is plenty ok. If I found the current revision in

1896:"Restoring, rewritten, and with better sources)". What now?-- 2001:

See, now this is exactly what I was trying so hard to avoid.

1065:

Radiant! should stop deleting categories without consensus.

3505:

National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism

2933:

identifiable author or publisher. We should be demanding

3438:

Thank you! The other thing worth bearing in mind is that

1723:

here the rewrite does indeed seem to fix the problem. –

1282:

does not give that participant an opportunity to respond

3092: 3088: 3084: 2692: 2688: 2684: 2539: 2245: 2241: 2237: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2021: 2017: 2013: 1798: 1794: 1790: 1578: 1574: 1570: 1277: 1159:

There was no mention of the closer in that nomination.

479: 475: 467: 459: 140: 136: 132: 1227:

no consensus or not, deletion was the smart move here

3444:

no prejudice against recreation from reliable sources

2542:

a direct link to the last revision before deletion. —

1122:, or had you forgotten that one? I suggest you read 700:. I agree with Guy. No need for overcategorization. 2552:Oh, drr. Thanks for the link. Okay, my vote sits. 1843:. It has now been restored without discussion by 443:that's the goal of the CfD in the first place. - 3516:. These are not acceptable, and we already have 3510:"convicted of terrorism and fraud (or was he?)" 634:- There's already a template linking them all. 3310:. Just took a look at the Google cache. Ouch. 1963:because the article is pretty good right now. 341:This was several tiems deleted with a cite to 2735:(formerly known as Pinault-Printemps-Redoute) 1979:... AFD is more appropriate than DRV here. -- 1512:– No happening, clear consensus. Closing per 8: 2808:. On no grounds can this be a justified A7. 3040:The following is an archived debate of the 2930:Knowledge (XXG):Biography of living persons 2640:The following is an archived debate of the 2193:The following is an archived debate of the 1975:it's simply not a recreation as defined by 1746:The following is an archived debate of the 1530:The following is an archived debate of the 401:The following is an archived debate of the 212:the statement that the band would now meet 88:The following is an archived debate of the 3015: 2626:– Deletion overturned, article restored – 2615: 2164: 2009:(Wait; aren't mops supposed to get dirty?) 1703: 1501: 376: 63: 2944:onesself, is to take the article to AFD. 2863:, don't list. Horribly poor decision. -- 2804:. The cached speedied page can be found 2758:"speedy undelete" vote I would cast it. 2018:went to the admin closing the discussion 3657:The above is an archived debate of the 3000:The above is an archived debate of the 2600:The above is an archived debate of the 2149:The above is an archived debate of the 1688:The above is an archived debate of the 1486:The above is an archived debate of the 1011:above, there was no consensus. And per 361:The above is an archived debate of the 650:, no consensus in either direction. -- 3209:Some? I'd give a quick estimate that 2890:Overturn, undelete, don't list at AfD 2878:Overturn, undelete, don't list at AfD 7: 3614:"alleged" is the word that makes it 3440:Knowledge (XXG) is not a bureaucracy 2363:claim of importance or significance 2026:gave a courtesy notification to him 606:Knowledge (XXG):Request for comment 28: 3353:This is barely in the purview of 1392:This conversation is relevant to 487:There was no consensus to delete 3059:List of alleged al-Qaeda members 3023:List of alleged al-Qaeda members 2986:per just about everyone else. 2135:and speedily close this thing. 18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review 2928:are private individuals. Our 2030:to the guy who started the AFD 1: 3571:. "Alleged". Enough said. 3557:, lawsuit waiting to happen. 3351:Proper process not followed. 3211:less than one in twenty names 3176:Biographies of living persons 1670:, your friendly neighborhood 2935:far better sources than that 2038:since it now looks like this 1177:Comment neutral to the topic 2004:(How's that for a summary?) 733:a category for these films. 434:However, since those below 431:agreed with that comment. 227:Here's a response to both: 3684: 2894:Knowledge (XXG):Notability 455:Category:Scary Movie films 384:Category:Scary Movie films 3518:Category:Al-Qaeda members 1549:Knowledge (XXG):Esperanza 1509:Knowledge (XXG):Esperanza 958:is a very poor argument. 3664:Please do not modify it. 3047:Please do not modify it. 3031:00:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC) 3007:Please do not modify it. 2939:The only error here was 2647:Please do not modify it. 2631:00:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC) 2607:Please do not modify it. 2200:Please do not modify it. 2156:Please do not modify it. 1753:Please do not modify it. 1695:Please do not modify it. 1537:Please do not modify it. 1493:Please do not modify it. 1341:Please do not modify it. 448:00:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC) 408:Please do not modify it. 392:00:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC) 387:– Overturn and Relist – 368:Please do not modify it. 95:Please do not modify it. 79:15:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC) 40:Deletion review archives 3648:14:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 3636:06:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 3619:21:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 3607:00:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 3585:23:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 3564:20:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 3550:19:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 3536:15:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 3492:12:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 3470:12:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 3451:12:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 3434:11:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 3409:11:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 3391:11:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 3378:11:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 3344:09:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 3332:23:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 3301:10:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 3288:05:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 3249:04:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 3222:04:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 3205:03:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 3191:03:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 3170:01:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 3141:00:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 2991:05:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 2975:22:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 2962:22:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 2949:13:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 2920:12:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 2910:11:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 2885:09:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 2873:06:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 2856:05:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 2830:05:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 2797:04:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 2780:04:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 2745:02:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 2591:03:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 2574:23:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 2547:23:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 2533:23:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 2500:19:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 2483:20:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 2465:19:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 2439:19:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 2429:14:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 2402:16:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 2385:12:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 2370:12:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 2357:12:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 2335:12:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 2308:12:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 2286:11:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 2184:09:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 2140:07:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 2127:23:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 2103:Endorse the new article 2098:23:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 2065:23:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 2055:17:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 2045:16:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1996:15:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1984:15:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1968:14:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1954:18:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1939:15:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1929:14:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1919:14:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1901:13:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1737:11:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 1679:14:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1657:14:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1645:14:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1632:14:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1619:14:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1521:14:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1477:22:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC) 1445:08:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC) 1421:05:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC) 1375:04:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC) 1361:02:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC) 1326:08:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC) 1296:03:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC) 1268:00:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC) 1255:23:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 1232:13:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 1216:19:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 1206:15:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 1197:12:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 1164:10:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 1155:10:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 1113:10:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 1099:10:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 1070:10:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 1056:10:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 1027:10:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 1000:08:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 983:08:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 947:01:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 935:23:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 902:20:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC) 892:19:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC) 874:08:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC) 843:22:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 823:08:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 791:23:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 771:21:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 759:04:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 738:00:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 722:23:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 693:23:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 672:23:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 660:20:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 641:20:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 617:08:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC) 591:06:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC) 578:08:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC) 549:15:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 540:08:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 504:19:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 352:22:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC) 334:02:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC) 301:13:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 284:23:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 250:22:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 221:22:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 201:22:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 181:22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 3661:of the article above. 3044:of the article above. 3026:– Deletion endorsed – 3004:of the article above. 2659:François-Henri Pinault 2644:of the article above. 2623:François-Henri Pinault 2604:of the article above. 2197:of the article above. 2153:of the article above. 1750:of the article above. 1716:Keep rewritten article 1692:of the article above. 1534:of the article above. 1490:of the article above. 405:of the article above. 365:of the article above. 92:of the article above. 3233:Weak endorse deletion 3261:speedy delete pages 745:. One of the things 2014:it looked like this 1470:no need to relist. 1005:Overturn and relist 956:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 665:Overturn and relist 513:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 191:Consumed Crustacean 3420:to good effect. -- 2892:I don't even know 2842: 2175:– Withdrawn - see 2133:let's stop talking 1989:Endorse status quo 1650:Don't speedy close 3671: 3670: 3583: 3548: 3534: 3468: 3432: 3407: 3376: 3329: 3285: 3247: 3014: 3013: 2908: 2871: 2840: 2827: 2795: 2777: 2614: 2613: 2571: 2549: 2530: 2463: 2427: 2355: 2306: 2163: 2162: 2124: 2010: 2005: 1952: 1917: 1735: 1702: 1701: 1500: 1499: 1126:, not to mention 757: 719: 691: 658: 375: 374: 331: 299: 281: 199: 3675: 3666: 3624:Endorse deletion 3612:Endorse deletion 3590:Endorse deletion 3577: 3569:Endorse deletion 3547: 3541:Endorse deletion 3524: 3481:Endorse deletion 3460: 3424: 3399: 3368: 3357:as it is a list. 3337:Endorse deletion 3322: 3319: 3316: 3308:Endorse deletion 3278: 3275: 3272: 3243: 3167: 3164: 3161: 3158: 3147:Endorse deletion 3114: 3100: 3082: 3049: 3016: 3009: 2900: 2867: 2854: 2820: 2817: 2814: 2791: 2770: 2767: 2764: 2714: 2700: 2682: 2649: 2616: 2609: 2564: 2561: 2558: 2537: 2523: 2520: 2517: 2505:Endorse deletion 2455: 2419: 2347: 2332: 2329: 2326: 2323: 2313:Endorse deletion 2298: 2267: 2253: 2235: 2202: 2165: 2158: 2117: 2114: 2111: 2084: 2078: 2008: 2003: 1948: 1913: 1895: 1820: 1806: 1788: 1755: 1729: 1704: 1697: 1677: 1600: 1586: 1568: 1539: 1502: 1495: 1343: 1322: 1320: 1318: 1316: 1314: 1225:Endorse deletion 1181:Endorse deletion 1151: 1149: 1147: 1145: 1143: 1095: 1093: 1091: 1089: 1087: 1052: 1050: 1048: 1046: 1044: 997: 988:Endorse deletion 979: 977: 975: 973: 971: 870: 868: 866: 864: 862: 819: 817: 815: 813: 811: 764:Endorse deletion 753: 731:does not mandate 727:Endorse deletion 712: 709: 706: 685: 654: 574: 572: 570: 568: 566: 536: 534: 532: 530: 528: 484: 483: 410: 377: 370: 324: 321: 318: 295: 274: 271: 268: 193: 162: 148: 130: 97: 64: 53: 33: 3683: 3682: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3662: 3659:deletion review 3328: 3317: 3312: 3290: 3284: 3273: 3268: 3165: 3162: 3159: 3156: 3123: 3117: 3110: 3109: 3103: 3073: 3057: 3045: 3042:deletion review 3028:trialsanderrors 3005: 3002:deletion review 2852: 2838: 2826: 2815: 2810: 2776: 2765: 2760: 2723: 2717: 2710: 2709: 2703: 2673: 2657: 2645: 2642:deletion review 2628:trialsanderrors 2605: 2602:deletion review 2570: 2559: 2554: 2529: 2518: 2513: 2330: 2327: 2324: 2321: 2276: 2270: 2263: 2262: 2256: 2226: 2210: 2198: 2195:deletion review 2154: 2151:deletion review 2123: 2112: 2107: 2082: 2076: 2022:asked him again 1907:Endorse rewrite 1847: 1835: 1829: 1823: 1816: 1815: 1809: 1779: 1763: 1751: 1748:deletion review 1693: 1690:deletion review 1665: 1609: 1603: 1596: 1595: 1589: 1559: 1547: 1535: 1532:deletion review 1491: 1488:deletion review 1339: 1312: 1310: 1308: 1306: 1304: 1190:WP:IDON'TLIKEIT 1141: 1139: 1137: 1135: 1133: 1085: 1083: 1081: 1079: 1077: 1063:Strong overturn 1042: 1040: 1038: 1036: 1034: 995: 969: 967: 965: 963: 961: 860: 858: 856: 854: 852: 809: 807: 805: 803: 801: 718: 707: 702: 564: 562: 560: 558: 556: 526: 524: 522: 520: 518: 457: 453: 406: 403:deletion review 366: 363:deletion review 330: 319: 314: 280: 269: 264: 171: 165: 158: 157: 151: 121: 105: 93: 90:deletion review 62: 55: 54: 51: 46: 37: 31: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 3681: 3679: 3669: 3668: 3653: 3652: 3651: 3650: 3638: 3621: 3609: 3587: 3566: 3552: 3538: 3494: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3346: 3334: 3324: 3304: 3303: 3292: 3291: 3280: 3253: 3251: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3194: 3193: 3174:First of all, 3172: 3152:Andrew Lenahan 3125: 3124: 3121: 3115: 3107: 3101: 3052: 3051: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3012: 3011: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2959:88.110.177.242 2922: 2912: 2887: 2875: 2865:badlydrawnjeff 2858: 2848: 2832: 2822: 2799: 2782: 2772: 2742:88.110.189.203 2725: 2724: 2721: 2715: 2707: 2701: 2652: 2651: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2612: 2611: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2566: 2525: 2502: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2468: 2467: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2317:Andrew Lenahan 2310: 2278: 2277: 2274: 2268: 2260: 2254: 2212:L3_Internet_TV 2205: 2204: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2172:L3_Internet_TV 2161: 2160: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2129: 2119: 2100: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2057: 2034:bless his soul 1998: 1986: 1970: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1946:badlydrawnjeff 1941: 1911:badlydrawnjeff 1837: 1836: 1833: 1827: 1821: 1813: 1807: 1758: 1757: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1700: 1699: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1659: 1647: 1634: 1623: 1611: 1610: 1607: 1601: 1593: 1587: 1542: 1541: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1498: 1497: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1394:WP:DRV#Purpose 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1364: 1363: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1271: 1270: 1258: 1257: 1235: 1234: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1002: 985: 949: 937: 916: 915: 914: 913: 912: 911: 910: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 761: 740: 724: 714: 695: 674: 662: 652:badlydrawnjeff 644: 643: 629: 628: 627: 626: 625: 624: 623: 622: 621: 620: 619: 594: 593: 581: 580: 452: 428: 427: 413: 412: 397: 396: 395: 394: 373: 372: 357: 356: 355: 354: 336: 326: 303: 293:badlydrawnjeff 286: 276: 254: 253: 224: 223: 203: 173: 172: 169: 163: 155: 149: 100: 99: 84: 83: 82: 81: 61: 56: 47: 38: 30: 29: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3680: 3667: 3665: 3660: 3655: 3654: 3649: 3646: 3642: 3639: 3637: 3634: 3629: 3625: 3622: 3620: 3617: 3613: 3610: 3608: 3605: 3604: 3599: 3595: 3591: 3588: 3586: 3581: 3576: 3575: 3570: 3567: 3565: 3562: 3561: 3556: 3553: 3551: 3546: 3545:Seraphimblade 3542: 3539: 3537: 3532: 3528: 3523: 3519: 3515: 3511: 3506: 3502: 3498: 3495: 3493: 3490: 3486: 3482: 3479: 3471: 3467: 3463: 3459: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3449: 3445: 3441: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3431: 3427: 3423: 3419: 3414: 3410: 3406: 3402: 3398: 3394: 3393: 3392: 3389: 3385: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3375: 3371: 3367: 3362: 3358: 3356: 3350: 3347: 3345: 3342: 3338: 3335: 3333: 3327: 3320: 3315: 3309: 3306: 3305: 3302: 3299: 3294: 3293: 3289: 3283: 3276: 3271: 3264: 3260: 3256: 3252: 3250: 3246: 3242: 3238: 3234: 3231: 3230: 3223: 3220: 3217: 3212: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3203: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3195: 3192: 3189: 3186: 3181: 3177: 3173: 3171: 3168: 3153: 3148: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3139: 3134: 3130: 3120: 3113: 3106: 3098: 3094: 3090: 3086: 3081: 3077: 3072: 3068: 3064: 3060: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3050: 3048: 3043: 3038: 3037: 3032: 3029: 3025: 3024: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3010: 3008: 3003: 2998: 2997: 2992: 2989: 2985: 2982: 2976: 2973: 2969: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2960: 2956: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2947: 2942: 2936: 2931: 2926: 2923: 2921: 2918: 2913: 2911: 2907: 2903: 2899: 2895: 2891: 2888: 2886: 2883: 2879: 2876: 2874: 2870: 2866: 2862: 2859: 2857: 2853: 2851: 2845: 2843: 2836: 2833: 2831: 2825: 2818: 2813: 2807: 2803: 2800: 2798: 2794: 2790: 2786: 2783: 2781: 2775: 2768: 2763: 2756: 2755:Time Magazine 2752: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2743: 2740: 2737: 2734: 2733:PPR (company) 2730: 2720: 2713: 2706: 2698: 2694: 2690: 2686: 2681: 2677: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2660: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2650: 2648: 2643: 2638: 2637: 2632: 2629: 2625: 2624: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2610: 2608: 2603: 2598: 2597: 2592: 2589: 2584: 2581: 2575: 2569: 2562: 2557: 2551: 2550: 2548: 2545: 2541: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2528: 2521: 2516: 2510: 2506: 2503: 2501: 2498: 2494: 2493: 2484: 2481: 2477: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2466: 2462: 2458: 2454: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2440: 2437: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2426: 2422: 2418: 2413: 2409: 2403: 2400: 2395: 2391: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2383: 2378: 2375: 2371: 2368: 2364: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2354: 2350: 2346: 2341: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2333: 2318: 2314: 2311: 2309: 2305: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2284: 2273: 2266: 2259: 2251: 2247: 2243: 2239: 2234: 2230: 2225: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2203: 2201: 2196: 2191: 2190: 2185: 2182: 2178: 2174: 2173: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2159: 2157: 2152: 2147: 2146: 2141: 2138: 2134: 2130: 2128: 2122: 2115: 2110: 2104: 2101: 2099: 2096: 2091: 2088: 2081: 2074: 2070: 2066: 2063: 2058: 2056: 2053: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2043: 2039: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2002: 1999: 1997: 1994: 1990: 1987: 1985: 1982: 1978: 1974: 1971: 1969: 1966: 1961: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1942: 1940: 1937: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1927: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1899: 1893: 1890: 1887: 1884: 1881: 1878: 1875: 1872: 1869: 1866: 1863: 1860: 1857: 1854: 1851: 1846: 1842: 1832: 1826: 1819: 1812: 1804: 1800: 1796: 1792: 1787: 1783: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1766: 1765:Air Force Amy 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1756: 1754: 1749: 1744: 1743: 1738: 1733: 1728: 1727: 1721: 1717: 1713: 1712: 1711:Air Force Amy 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1698: 1696: 1691: 1686: 1685: 1680: 1675: 1674: 1669: 1663: 1660: 1658: 1655: 1651: 1648: 1646: 1643: 1638: 1635: 1633: 1630: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1621: 1620: 1617: 1606: 1599: 1592: 1584: 1580: 1576: 1572: 1567: 1563: 1558: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1540: 1538: 1533: 1528: 1527: 1522: 1519: 1515: 1511: 1510: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1496: 1494: 1489: 1484: 1483: 1478: 1475: 1473: 1469: 1464: 1463: 1446: 1443: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1418: 1417: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1399: 1395: 1376: 1373: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1362: 1358: 1357: 1352: 1347: 1342: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1327: 1324: 1323: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1293: 1292: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1269: 1266: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1256: 1252: 1251: 1246: 1242: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1233: 1230: 1226: 1223: 1217: 1214: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1204: 1203:Mike Selinker 1200: 1199: 1198: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1182: 1178: 1175: 1165: 1162: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1153: 1152: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1111: 1107: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1097: 1096: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1068: 1064: 1061: 1057: 1054: 1053: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1024: 1023: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1003: 1001: 998: 993: 989: 986: 984: 981: 980: 957: 953: 950: 948: 945: 941: 938: 936: 932: 928: 924: 920: 917: 903: 900: 895: 894: 893: 889: 885: 881: 877: 876: 875: 872: 871: 849: 846: 845: 844: 840: 836: 832: 829: 826: 825: 824: 821: 820: 797: 794: 793: 792: 788: 784: 780: 777: 774: 773: 772: 769: 765: 762: 760: 756: 752: 748: 744: 741: 739: 736: 732: 728: 725: 723: 717: 710: 705: 699: 696: 694: 689: 684: 683: 678: 675: 673: 670: 666: 663: 661: 657: 653: 649: 646: 645: 642: 639: 638: 633: 630: 618: 615: 611: 607: 603: 602:User:Radiant! 598: 597: 596: 595: 592: 589: 588:Mike Selinker 585: 584: 583: 582: 579: 576: 575: 552: 551: 550: 547: 546:Mike Selinker 543: 542: 541: 538: 537: 514: 510: 509: 508: 507: 506: 505: 502: 501:Mike Selinker 498: 494: 490: 485: 481: 477: 473: 469: 465: 461: 456: 450: 449: 446: 442: 437: 432: 425: 424: 422: 418: 415: 414: 411: 409: 404: 399: 398: 393: 390: 386: 385: 381: 380: 379: 378: 371: 369: 364: 359: 358: 353: 350: 348: 344: 340: 337: 335: 329: 322: 317: 311: 307: 304: 302: 298: 294: 290: 287: 285: 279: 272: 267: 260: 256: 255: 251: 248: 244: 241: 238: 235: 232: 229: 226: 225: 222: 219: 215: 211: 207: 204: 202: 197: 192: 188: 185: 184: 183: 182: 179: 168: 161: 154: 146: 142: 138: 134: 129: 125: 120: 116: 112: 108: 104: 103: 102: 101: 98: 96: 91: 86: 85: 80: 77: 73: 72: 68: 67: 66: 65: 60: 57: 50: 45: 41: 36: 23: 19: 3663: 3656: 3640: 3633:Shirahadasha 3623: 3611: 3603:Black Falcon 3601: 3589: 3572: 3568: 3558: 3554: 3540: 3513: 3509: 3500: 3496: 3480: 3443: 3360: 3352: 3348: 3336: 3313: 3307: 3269: 3262: 3258: 3254: 3236: 3232: 3210: 3155: 3146: 3126: 3046: 3039: 3021: 3006: 2999: 2983: 2967: 2938: 2934: 2889: 2877: 2860: 2849: 2834: 2811: 2801: 2784: 2761: 2750: 2726: 2646: 2639: 2621: 2606: 2599: 2582: 2555: 2514: 2508: 2504: 2411: 2389: 2376: 2339: 2320: 2312: 2291: 2279: 2199: 2192: 2170: 2155: 2148: 2132: 2108: 2102: 2089: 2000: 1988: 1972: 1906: 1888: 1882: 1876: 1870: 1864: 1858: 1852: 1838: 1752: 1745: 1724: 1719: 1715: 1709: 1694: 1687: 1673:MessedRocker 1671: 1662:Keep Deleted 1661: 1649: 1637:Speedy close 1636: 1622: 1612: 1536: 1529: 1507: 1492: 1485: 1467: 1414: 1402: 1397: 1391: 1370:discussion. 1354: 1345: 1340: 1303: 1289: 1281: 1248: 1240: 1224: 1180: 1176: 1132: 1076: 1062: 1033: 1020: 1004: 987: 960: 952:Endorse self 951: 939: 918: 851: 800: 763: 746: 742: 726: 703: 697: 680: 676: 664: 647: 635: 632:Weak endorse 631: 555: 517: 496: 493:User:radiant 486: 451: 435: 433: 429: 416: 407: 400: 382: 367: 360: 338: 315: 309: 305: 288: 265: 205: 186: 174: 94: 87: 69: 58: 3616:Sleep On It 2397:deletion.-- 2394:Internet TV 2365:, either. — 2177:User:Agupte 2080:deleteagain 2050:intended.-- 1973:List at AFD 1868:protections 768:Sleep On It 247:Wikimachine 216:standards. 178:Wikimachine 3645:Bulldog123 3458:MalcolmGin 3446:. Cheers, 3422:MalcolmGin 3397:MalcolmGin 3366:MalcolmGin 3361:undeleting 2898:MalcolmGin 2453:MalcolmGin 2417:MalcolmGin 2345:MalcolmGin 2296:MalcolmGin 2042:AnonEMouse 1880:page moves 1845:AnonEMouse 1229:Bulldog123 1186:WP:ILIKEIT 1013:Epeefleche 944:Epeefleche 747:definitely 107:Until_June 71:Until_June 59:5 May 2007 49:2007 May 6 35:2007 May 4 3594:WP:CSD#G4 3386:applies. 3364:we do. -- 2988:RFerreira 2731:company, 2583:Withdraw: 2087:WP:CSD#G4 1874:deletions 1654:Eaomatrix 1640:itself.-- 1616:Eaomatrix 1124:WP:HONEST 923:Night Gyr 880:Night Gyr 848:YES WAI!! 831:Night Gyr 779:Night Gyr 343:WP:CSD#G4 242:, & 218:FCYTravis 3531:contribs 3448:Moreschi 3388:Moreschi 3349:Overturn 3341:Moreschi 3298:Moreschi 3216:Picaroon 3202:Nardman1 3185:Picaroon 3180:possibly 3138:Nardman1 2984:Undelete 2941:Pilotguy 2882:Moreschi 2861:Overturn 2835:Undelete 2785:Undelete 2751:Undelete 2412:Overturn 2137:Kla'quot 1965:Moreschi 1856:contribs 1629:Moreschi 1468:Overturn 1407:apparent 1396:item 2: 1372:Otto4711 1346:designed 1265:Otto4711 1241:Comment: 1213:Otto4711 1106:WP:WORLD 940:Overturn 919:Overturn 899:Otto4711 743:Overturn 735:Otto4711 648:Overturn 417:Comments 339:Overturn 306:Overturn 289:Overturn 257:Erm, is 214:WP:MUSIC 187:Question 44:2007 May 20:‎ | 3641:Endorse 3598:WP:SNOW 3555:Endorse 3497:Comment 3255:Neutral 3241:Amarkov 3105:restore 3076:protect 3071:history 2972:Cryptic 2946:Uncle G 2925:Cryptic 2917:Cryptic 2802:Comment 2789:Amarkov 2705:restore 2676:protect 2671:history 2544:Cryptic 2410:Either 2390:Comment 2377:Comment 2367:Cryptic 2340:Comment 2292:Comment 2258:restore 2229:protect 2224:history 2095:Cryptic 2075:with a 2073:CAT:CSD 2062:Cryptic 1981:W.marsh 1811:restore 1782:protect 1777:history 1642:WaltCip 1591:restore 1562:protect 1557:history 1514:WP:SNOW 1128:WP:DICK 828:NO WAI! 751:Amarkov 698:Endorse 677:Endorse 610:civilly 468:history 441:presume 206:Comment 153:restore 124:protect 119:history 3626:Agree 3485:WP:BLP 3418:WP:IAR 3384:WP:BLP 3355:WP:BLP 3237:speedy 3219:(Talk) 3188:(Talk) 3133:WP:BLP 3080:delete 2968:father 2729:CAC 40 2680:delete 2588:Agupte 2540:Here's 2476:WP:AGF 2399:Boffob 2382:Agupte 2283:Agupte 2233:delete 2028:, and 1993:JulesH 1977:WP:CSD 1936:JulesH 1886:rights 1862:blocks 1786:delete 1668:Signed 1566:delete 1555:| ] | 1007:- per 796:YA RLY 776:O RLY? 421:WP:DRV 210:verify 128:delete 3600:. -- 3580:Help! 3466:Conts 3430:Conts 3405:Conts 3374:Conts 3112:cache 3097:views 3089:watch 3085:links 2906:Conts 2712:cache 2697:views 2689:watch 2685:links 2461:Conts 2425:Conts 2353:Conts 2304:Conts 2265:cache 2250:views 2242:watch 2238:links 1831:AfD 2 1818:cache 1803:views 1795:watch 1791:links 1732:Help! 1598:cache 1583:views 1575:watch 1571:links 1411:Sdsds 1403:isn't 1351:Sdsds 1305:: --> 1286:Sdsds 1245:Sdsds 1134:: --> 1078:: --> 1035:: --> 1017:Sdsds 1009:Pomte 996:desat 962:: --> 853:: --> 802:: --> 688:Help! 669:Pomte 557:: --> 519:: --> 476:watch 472:links 310:might 160:cache 145:views 137:watch 133:links 76:Xoloz 52:: --> 16:< 3560:Will 3527:talk 3520:. -- 3512:and 3462:Talk 3426:Talk 3401:Talk 3370:Talk 3318:star 3314:Rock 3274:star 3270:Rock 3245:moo! 3129:here 3093:logs 3067:talk 3063:edit 2902:Talk 2869:talk 2841:Kinu 2816:star 2812:Rock 2806:here 2793:moo! 2766:star 2762:Rock 2693:logs 2667:talk 2663:edit 2560:star 2556:Rock 2519:star 2515:Rock 2457:Talk 2421:Talk 2349:Talk 2300:Talk 2246:logs 2220:talk 2216:edit 2113:star 2109:Rock 2090:need 1950:talk 1915:talk 1850:talk 1799:logs 1773:talk 1769:edit 1579:logs 1553:edit 1442:jc37 1416:Talk 1356:Talk 1321:< 1291:Talk 1278:this 1250:Talk 1194:jc37 1161:Tim! 1150:< 1120:here 1110:Tim! 1094:< 1067:Tim! 1051:< 1022:Talk 992:Core 978:< 927:talk 884:talk 869:< 835:talk 818:< 783:talk 755:moo! 708:star 704:Rock 656:talk 637:Will 614:jc37 573:< 535:< 489:here 480:logs 464:talk 460:edit 445:jc37 389:jc37 320:star 316:Rock 297:talk 270:star 266:Rock 259:this 196:talk 141:logs 115:talk 111:edit 32:< 3628:BLP 3574:Guy 3522:KFP 3501:one 3489:Doc 3259:can 3163:bli 3119:AfD 2719:AfD 2497:pgk 2480:pgk 2436:pgk 2328:bli 2272:AfD 2181:pgk 2052:Doc 1926:Doc 1898:Doc 1892:RfA 1825:AfD 1726:Guy 1605:AfD 1518:Doc 1472:DES 682:Guy 436:did 423:): 347:DES 245:. ( 167:AfD 22:Log 3529:| 3464:/ 3428:/ 3403:/ 3372:/ 3330:) 3286:) 3263:if 3166:nd 3160:ar 3157:St 3154:- 3095:| 3091:| 3087:| 3083:| 3078:| 3074:| 3069:| 3065:| 2904:/ 2828:) 2778:) 2695:| 2691:| 2687:| 2683:| 2678:| 2674:| 2669:| 2665:| 2572:) 2531:) 2509:If 2459:/ 2434:-- 2423:/ 2351:/ 2343:-- 2331:nd 2325:ar 2322:St 2319:- 2302:/ 2248:| 2244:| 2240:| 2236:| 2231:| 2227:| 2222:| 2218:| 2179:– 2125:) 2083:}} 2077:{{ 1801:| 1797:| 1793:| 1789:| 1784:| 1780:| 1775:| 1771:| 1720:is 1714:– 1581:| 1577:| 1573:| 1569:| 1564:| 1560:| 1516:– 1419:) 1413:- 1359:) 1353:- 1294:) 1288:- 1253:) 1247:- 1130:. 1108:. 1025:) 1019:- 933:) 931:Oy 890:) 888:Oy 841:) 839:Oy 798:. 789:) 787:Oy 720:) 499:-- 478:| 474:| 470:| 466:| 462:| 332:) 282:) 239:, 236:, 233:, 230:, 143:| 139:| 135:| 131:| 126:| 122:| 117:| 113:| 42:: 3582:) 3578:( 3533:) 3525:( 3326:C 3323:/ 3321:( 3282:C 3279:/ 3277:( 3122:) 3116:| 3108:| 3102:( 3099:) 3061:( 2937:. 2915:— 2850:c 2846:/ 2824:C 2821:/ 2819:( 2774:C 2771:/ 2769:( 2722:) 2716:| 2708:| 2702:( 2699:) 2661:( 2568:C 2565:/ 2563:( 2527:C 2524:/ 2522:( 2275:) 2269:| 2261:| 2255:( 2252:) 2214:( 2121:C 2118:/ 2116:( 2093:— 1894:) 1889:· 1883:· 1877:· 1871:· 1865:· 1859:· 1853:· 1848:( 1834:) 1828:| 1822:| 1814:| 1808:( 1805:) 1767:( 1734:) 1730:( 1676:. 1666:— 1608:) 1602:| 1594:| 1588:( 1585:) 1551:( 1349:( 1319:t 1317:n 1315:a 1313:i 1311:d 1309:a 1307:R 1188:/ 1148:t 1146:n 1144:a 1142:i 1140:d 1138:a 1136:R 1092:t 1090:n 1088:a 1086:i 1084:d 1082:a 1080:R 1049:t 1047:n 1045:a 1043:i 1041:d 1039:a 1037:R 976:t 974:n 972:a 970:i 968:d 966:a 964:R 929:/ 925:( 886:/ 882:( 867:t 865:n 863:a 861:i 859:d 857:a 855:R 837:/ 833:( 816:t 814:n 812:a 810:i 808:d 806:a 804:R 785:/ 781:( 716:C 713:/ 711:( 690:) 686:( 571:t 569:n 567:a 565:i 563:d 561:a 559:R 533:t 531:n 529:a 527:i 525:d 523:a 521:R 482:) 458:( 328:C 325:/ 323:( 278:C 275:/ 273:( 252:) 198:) 194:( 170:) 164:| 156:| 150:( 147:) 109:(

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 5 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index