Knowledge (XXG)

:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 15 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

613:. The delete reasoning gave no reason at CFD as to why the category was not defining, so it was error to not give less weight to the deletion arguments in the close. As for the keep arguments related to defining characteristics, they argued strong feelings about infanticide and established defining characteristic in the real world through an existing Knowledge (XXG) category. In addition to not providing reasons as to why the category was not a defining characteristic, the delete arguments never rebutted these keep assertions about defining characteristics. I don't think the keep reasons related to defining characteristics should have been given less weight in the close. -- 403:
one word "delete" and no supporting justification. As pointed out above, procedures for recreation of articles seem to utterly fail in the topsy turvy CfD world, in which every effort at recreation is met with knee-jerk delete votes, regardless of any changes made to the category, and no mechanism exists to address these concerns on recreation even where they might be legitimate. The current size of the category is no obstacle for future expansion and no justification has been offered to show that
509:- Unpopulated categories that have been unpopulated for at least four days is a speedy delete basis. The fact that no one sought speedy delete for this category and that there is a very strong likelihood of populating this newly created category makes underpopulation a very weak CFD argument for this category. "A defining characteristic, and to mirror the real world cat of 1079:) 01:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Please add the page i created to wiki. It was a page recreated from a deleted page a few months ago. this actor now has much more notability as he has appeared in 4 feature films and tv series. He has recently completed filming the starring role in a film to be released next year worldwide. 1259:
There probably is other material, but his common name, particular with that of another more popular actor, makes it hard to find soruces. Since the last AfD was on 13 March 2007 and new source material has been generated since then, I think allowing recreation and another AfD might bring out enought
788:
Because it's highly unlikely that the first edit made by a unique editor at a particular IP address would be a relatively obscure discussion at DRV. How long were you a user before you even figured out DRV existed? It could just be a user who is usually logged in but failed to do so this time, or it
402:
Despite a repeated pattern of controversial CfD closes, Kbdank71 has offered no policy justification for why consensus should be interpreted per his insistence. XfD closes where there is a clear policy argument for retention and a strong consensus supporting that case should never be closed with the
535:
for that day, you'll see numerous fictional categories up for deletion essentially raising the same "all fictional categories have problems" and "you can't apply Knowledge (XXG):Categorization to them" because they are not real. What this comes down to is strength of arguments. The delete reasoning
369:
Technically, it would be easier. Since it is a catagory, you would just make a simple list on your user page or subpage. There really isn't any text to a category other than wikilinks, after all. My main concern here is still that I don't see a concensus to delete in the deletion discussion. To
262:
as closer. I gave less weight to the "defining characteristic" argument, as there was no reasoning or backup for that statement. As such, the "per 'defining characteristic' argument" also received less weight. In addition, there was questions on whether or not one of the two articles should have
1282:
that someone will be notable when, .... , and almost impossible to refute. Second, more frequent with athletes but also in all fields, to what extent notability in what amounts to a junior league is notability. Basic questions, and not really helpful to discuss one at a time with erratic results.
1281:
Two frequently recurring situations. First, as often with performers, but in other contexts also: he is not quite notable now, but after some work in progress is released he probably will be. It seems a little pedantic to delete the article at this point, but on the other hand it's too easy to say
638:
as No Consensus. I don't dabble in CFD, but it looks like here there was more discussion to be had about this category and whether or not it was appropriate...I certainly didn't see any sort of consensus on anything. I say overturn, have that discussion, and re-nominate if it becomes necessary.
349:
for articles, there is a way of proceeding even after a deletion review has been unsuccessful, which is to rewrite in user space a much improved article that answers all the objections and ask people to look again--and we frequently accept articles where that has been done. But I don't see any
214:
is that a review of the actual deletion discussion makes it very clear that there was no concensus to delete (even !votes on both sides of the issue as well). The closing admin didn't give a reason for the deletion, so it is difficult to determine what their reasons were. To be honest, the
175:
The CfD was closed as delete, but I feel no such consensus was reached. Apart from the nominator, there were 2 people !voting to delete, 2 !voting to keep, the category creator commenting, and one other person commenting. If the closer wished to delete even though consensus was lacking, an
517:
1. All fictional categories have problems because "we are referring to something from the age of myth here." 2. Fictional parents who killed their children" is a fictional category. 3. Since fictional parents who killed their children is a fictional category, it should be deleted. and
1578:, page, this article is referenced. It was deleted for the reason of "non-encyclopedic topic". I fail to see how this is non-encyclopedic. It is one of the major subsets of the warez scene (which is considered a valid topic), and is not given much detail on the general warez pages. 690:
Would creating a deletion sorting that focused on relisted discussions be a possibility? (That'd require CfDs to be transcluded and relisted, however) (I'm referring to relisting as in an admin deciding to extend the time of discussion, not as in something coming back after DRV)
604:
The nominator argued that killing "someone" is not a defining characteristic and another editor argued that a "choice or preference" to kill someone is not a defining characteristic. Neither of these had anything to do with the actual category for an
530:
should be given less weight. The first approach justifies deleting all fictional categories and the second approach removes a need for the closer to give any weight to the keep arguments. Both of thse approaches are entirely wrong. If you look at
1330:. Doesn't yet seem be yet ready for another AfD. Requester is invited work on a draft in userspace, explore whether inside Knowledge (XXG) there are other areas of interest for him and should stick to one account in any case. -- 536:
failed to apply a deletion standard that would justify deleting this particular fictional category while keeping other fictional categories. The keep arguments were strong in logic and policy. The close should be overturned. --
673:
A reasonable category, and no consensus to delete it. There needs to be a way of calling those few CfDs worth a more general discussion to sufficient attention. This was not a sufficient discussion to warrant deletion .
1545: 1345:
below are a few websites which hopefully will get the article on him published on wiki. he really does deserve inclusion, especially if you look at some other actors listed, who have not done much work in the business.
156: 88:
on this aspect of categorisation, and that guidance, conveniently summarised below by JzG, determined the outcome.For the record, CfD discussions are relisted, not as often as AfD ones, but they are all the same. –
1042: 563:
I'd be more than happy to provide sources, but reliable and verifiable sources have not been accepted at CfD. Tell me how many sources you need to convince you and I'll do my best to get them for you.
532: 199: 169: 760:
No other edits by this particular IP address have been made (I haven't checked if any related IP addresses have made contributions, though). I hope no more incidents like this occur.
486:
I did not say a single CfD-style argument in this DRV request. I feel that the first comment in this discussion that turned it into CfD deux was Kbdank71's endorse as closer comment.
1505: 202:(the nom text didn't parse the address). I am not personally in favor of categories that have only TWO articles listed in them, but it was only two weeks old and was split off of 1224:
Calvin Dean, who is just finishing his second year of a BA degree course at the Mountview Performing Arts Academy in London, has been given a full scholarship for his final year.
1539: 81: 473: 1036: 51: 37: 1002: 46: 450:, closer is not required to close with more than a one-word decision, though it may be helpful. It's certainly not a good reason to overturn the decision. 710:
per the closer's rationale, reiterated above, which I agree with. This falls easily within the reasonable boundaries of discretion for the closing admin.
267:, there was discussion about the size of the category, and in the month from creation to deletion, there were as mentioned only two articles added. -- 806:(sock or meat), an IP user's opinion shouldn't be treated any differently than anyone else's. It shouldn't matter how many other edits they have. -- 1469: 1464: 1473: 140: 425:
The reason his closes seem "controversial" may have something to do with the number of them that you've brought to DRV recently. Just a thought.
132: 1497: 1456: 123: 76: 42: 749: 728: 1371:
Those don't seem to be independent, reliable sources. I would be looking for newspapers, academic journals, books, TV programmes, etc.
774:
Why is this an "incident". While this would likely be discounted, it does appear to represent a sincerely held view on this situation.
753: 1560: 1527: 577:
DRV is not to continue the CFD. There was no reason at the CFD why it's defining, so it was given less weight in the close. --
510: 203: 21: 966: 961: 85: 970: 206:, leaving the original category as non-fictional. Not enough time has been given for it to develop and the idea of breaking 513:" as a way of not mixing fiction and nonfiction is a strong keep argument. The delete arguments amounted to two approaches. 1057: 656:
per Alan and Suntag. I simply cannot see this as being plausibly backed up by either policy or the consensus discussion.
447: 1227: 1213: 1024: 994: 953: 1586: 1436: 1391: 933: 884: 107: 17: 1521: 527: 523: 407:
issues could never be addressed. One whole month is not exactly the last opportunity to add entries to a category.
1517: 1460: 1179: 1018: 526:
to fictional categories because the cannot be couched in real world terms. 2. Thus, keep arguments citing to
1567: 1421: 1376: 1156: 1139: 745: 732: 250: 93: 210:
off as a separate category seems to make both categories more accurate (and useful to boot). What matters
1452: 1425: 1412: 1380: 1365: 1339: 1322: 1293: 1273: 1195: 1171: 1160: 1143: 1115: 1088: 922: 873: 848: 815: 797: 783: 769: 736: 719: 700: 685: 665: 648: 626: 595: 581: 572: 558: 549: 495: 481: 466: 454: 434: 416: 392: 361: 341: 318: 302: 286: 271: 254: 233: 189: 96: 446:. No misinterpretation by closer has occurred, as demonstrated by his explanation of the rationale used. 1301:. Userfy or allow recreation in userspace, but do not move to article space, or even list at AfD until 1175: 1014: 741: 471:
Note: since "CfD 2" has apparently become a common theme in some recent DRVs, I ask the closer to take
1361: 1357: 1302: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1072: 918: 910: 332:- no procedural errors in the close and the deletion was well within the closing admin's discretion. 295:
Ugh. Why is the category in question showing up at the bottom of the DRV page? Can someone fix that?
857: 263:
even been in the category, which would have left one article. While nobody came right out and said
1553: 1318: 1064: 1050: 844: 811: 794: 644: 591: 462:- per otherendorsers above. (No need to re-type the presumably obvious.) And DRV isn't CfD deux. - 451: 296: 280: 1533: 1351: 176:
explanation would have been helpful, but this was not done in the discussion or in response to my
1335: 1242: 779: 715: 586:
This is not a court of appeals. We're allowed to take new facts into account if they show up. --
568: 430: 412: 384: 337: 225: 177: 90: 554:"A defining characteristic" with no reason why is not a strong argument in logic or policy. -- 661: 1123: 803: 1575: 1264: 1233: 1218: 1204: 1186: 1106: 957: 765: 696: 617: 540: 491: 185: 1306: 790: 374:, wouldn't that be the same as a second deletion article? (ie: second bite at the cherry) 242: 1254: 914: 789:
could be a case of sockpuppetry. We don't immediately assume it's sockpuppetry because of
1501: 1127: 1030: 998: 404: 264: 160: 1314: 840: 807: 640: 587: 1310: 1131: 1331: 1289: 868: 862: 775: 711: 681: 578: 564: 555: 426: 408: 375: 357: 333: 315: 268: 216: 657: 370:
me, that trumps the content. If we sit here and decide the fate purely on content
1490: 987: 1417: 1372: 1347: 1261: 1183: 1152: 1135: 1103: 949: 905: 761: 692: 614: 537: 487: 246: 215:
discussion wasn't exactly full of informative policy remarks from either side.
181: 1208: 1182:(17 June 2008) previously were noticed regarding deletions of this topic. -- 478: 463: 860:
reasons to keep; a tiny category based on a random intersection of ideas.
350:
equivalent for a category, nor--unfortunately-- can I easily imagine one.
1284: 839:. Bad close. The discussion does not reflect a consensus to delete. -- 676: 352: 727:. Obvious lack of consensus to delete, should have been closed as keep. 1099: 1095: 1350:
this is from the producers website for the upcoming film 'Tormented'.
241:: Doesn't seem to be any consensus, but the category seems to violate 1203:- The last AfD was on 13 March 2007. Calvin Dean is popular with the 793:, but it certainly is at least "suspect"or "weird", you might say. 84:
says to weigh the strength of arguments, not count heads. There is
1352:
http://www.britfilms.com/britishfilms/inprogress/?&skip=120
1260:
sources (or establish that not enought material exists). --
1354:
half way down the page lists calvin as being in the film
1305:
or someone else can justify inclusion with reference to
913:
if you would like the content userfied for more work. –
1486: 1482: 1478: 983: 979: 975: 477:
into consideration if/when weighing such discussion. -
311: 148: 144: 136: 128: 1552: 1049: 1229:. A non trivial article entirely about Calvin is at 124:
Category:Fictional parents who killed their children
77:
Category:Fictional parents who killed their children
1566: 1231:"Polruan actor's movie role with Hollywood stars". 1063: 279:per Kbdank71. Overly small and narrow category. 1416:– Automatically restored as a contested PROD – 1211:article that mention him. Here's a trivial one 1214:"Theatre club celebrates birthday at Gallants" 1348:http://www.slingshot-studios.com/blog/page/3/ 8: 1435:The following is an archived debate of the 932:The following is an archived debate of the 106:The following is an archived debate of the 1405: 898: 511:Category:Parents who killed their children 204:Category:Parents who killed their children 69: 1094:This DRV is about National Youth Theatre 856:. Policy reasons for deletion outweigh 41: 50: 1250: 1240: 33: 1151:due to lack of non-trivial coverage. 7: 198:I am guessing you are talking about 1589:of the page listed in the heading. 1394:of the page listed in the heading. 887:of the page listed in the heading. 28: 1201:Allow recreation and list at AfD 1585:The above is an archive of the 1390:The above is an archive of the 883:The above is an archive of the 18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review 1126:some sources (which should be 528:Knowledge (XXG):Categorization 524:Knowledge (XXG):Categorization 180:on Kbdank71's user talk page. 1: 30: 1426:08:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC) 1381:08:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC) 1366:22:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC) 1340:09:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC) 1323:11:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC) 1294:19:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC) 1274:15:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC) 1196:15:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC) 1161:13:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC) 1144:08:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC) 1116:15:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC) 1089:01:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC) 923:18:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC) 874:11:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC) 849:09:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC) 816:07:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC) 798:06:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC) 784:00:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC) 770:00:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC) 737:13:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC) 720:21:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC) 701:00:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC) 686:01:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC) 666:16:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC) 649:15:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC) 627:22:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC) 596:15:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC) 582:15:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC) 573:15:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC) 559:15:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC) 550:14:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC) 496:21:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC) 482:17:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC) 467:12:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC) 455:02:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC) 435:03:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC) 417:01:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC) 393:19:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC) 362:18:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC) 342:17:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC) 319:14:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC) 303:14:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC) 287:14:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC) 272:13:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC) 255:13:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC) 234:12:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC) 190:11:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC) 97:23:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC) 1207:, as there are about eight 802:Unless there's evidence of 1612: 1237:. January 30, 2008. p. 7. 1178:(23 September 2007), and 178:request for clarification 1592:Please do not modify it. 1442:Please do not modify it. 1397:Please do not modify it. 1222:. June 22, 2006. p. 12. 939:Please do not modify it. 890:Please do not modify it. 196:Overturn as no concensus 113:Please do not modify it. 80:– Deletion is endorsed. 43:Deletion review archives 1439:of the article above. 936:of the article above. 110:of the article above. 754:few or no other edits 1453:Zero day information 1413:Zero_day_information 1174:(19 February 2007), 1071:UNDELETE_NOTABILITY 756:outside this topic. 522:1. You cannot apply 448:Per current practice 1134:the above claims? 388: 380: 301:and his otters • 285:and his otters • 229: 221: 1599: 1598: 1574:Reading from the 1404: 1403: 897: 896: 872: 757: 389: 386: 381: 378: 230: 227: 222: 219: 200:this conversation 60: 59: 1603: 1594: 1576:Standard_(warez) 1571: 1570: 1556: 1509: 1494: 1476: 1444: 1406: 1399: 1269: 1258: 1252: 1248: 1246: 1238: 1234:Cornish Guardian 1226: 1219:Cornish Guardian 1209:Cornish Guardian 1205:Cornish Guardian 1191: 1111: 1096:Calvin Dean (II) 1068: 1067: 1053: 1006: 991: 973: 941: 899: 892: 866: 739: 622: 545: 385: 377: 299: 298:Ten Pound Hammer 283: 282:Ten Pound Hammer 226: 218: 164: 153: 152: 115: 70: 56: 36: 31: 1611: 1610: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1590: 1587:deletion review 1513: 1495: 1467: 1451: 1440: 1437:deletion review 1395: 1392:deletion review 1270: 1267: 1249: 1239: 1230: 1212: 1192: 1189: 1122:Can you please 1112: 1109: 1100:Calvin Dean (I) 1010: 992: 964: 948: 937: 934:deletion review 888: 885:deletion review 795:Good Ol’factory 623: 620: 546: 543: 452:Good Ol’factory 297: 281: 245:. I'm neutral. 154: 126: 122: 111: 108:deletion review 68: 65:15 October 2008 61: 54: 34: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 1609: 1607: 1597: 1596: 1581: 1580: 1512: 1447: 1446: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1402: 1401: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1343: 1342: 1325: 1296: 1276: 1266: 1198: 1188: 1180:David crozer08 1165: 1164: 1163: 1119: 1118: 1108: 1009: 944: 943: 928: 927: 926: 925: 895: 894: 879: 878: 877: 876: 851: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 819: 818: 722: 705: 704: 703: 668: 651: 633: 632: 631: 630: 629: 619: 602: 601: 600: 599: 598: 542: 503: 502: 501: 500: 499: 498: 457: 440: 439: 438: 437: 420: 419: 397: 396: 395: 344: 326: 325: 324: 323: 322: 321: 306: 305: 290: 289: 274: 257: 236: 167: 118: 117: 102: 101: 100: 99: 91:Angus McLellan 67: 62: 58: 57: 49: 40: 29: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1608: 1595: 1593: 1588: 1583: 1582: 1579: 1577: 1572: 1569: 1565: 1562: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1544: 1541: 1538: 1535: 1532: 1529: 1526: 1523: 1519: 1516: 1515:Find sources: 1510: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1492: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1475: 1471: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1449: 1448: 1445: 1443: 1438: 1433: 1432: 1427: 1423: 1419: 1415: 1414: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1400: 1398: 1393: 1388: 1387: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1353: 1349: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1326: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1300: 1297: 1295: 1291: 1287: 1286: 1280: 1277: 1275: 1272: 1271: 1263: 1256: 1244: 1236: 1235: 1228: 1225: 1221: 1220: 1215: 1210: 1206: 1202: 1199: 1197: 1194: 1193: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1120: 1117: 1114: 1113: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1074: 1069: 1066: 1062: 1059: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1041: 1038: 1035: 1032: 1029: 1026: 1023: 1020: 1016: 1013: 1012:Find sources: 1007: 1004: 1000: 996: 989: 985: 981: 977: 972: 968: 963: 959: 955: 951: 946: 945: 942: 940: 935: 930: 929: 924: 920: 916: 912: 908: 907: 903: 902: 901: 900: 893: 891: 886: 881: 880: 875: 870: 865: 864: 859: 855: 852: 850: 846: 842: 838: 834: 830: 827: 817: 813: 809: 805: 801: 800: 799: 796: 792: 787: 786: 785: 781: 777: 773: 772: 771: 767: 763: 759: 758: 755: 751: 747: 743: 742:71.235.38.171 738: 734: 730: 729:71.235.38.171 726: 723: 721: 717: 713: 709: 706: 702: 698: 694: 689: 688: 687: 683: 679: 678: 672: 669: 667: 663: 659: 655: 652: 650: 646: 642: 637: 634: 628: 625: 624: 616: 612: 609:of killing a 608: 603: 597: 593: 589: 585: 584: 583: 580: 576: 575: 574: 570: 566: 562: 561: 560: 557: 553: 552: 551: 548: 547: 539: 534: 529: 525: 521: 516: 512: 508: 505: 504: 497: 493: 489: 485: 484: 483: 480: 476: 475: 470: 469: 468: 465: 461: 458: 456: 453: 449: 445: 442: 441: 436: 432: 428: 424: 423: 422: 421: 418: 414: 410: 406: 401: 398: 394: 390: 382: 373: 368: 365: 364: 363: 359: 355: 354: 348: 345: 343: 339: 335: 331: 328: 327: 320: 317: 313: 310: 309: 308: 307: 304: 300: 294: 293: 292: 291: 288: 284: 278: 275: 273: 270: 266: 261: 258: 256: 252: 248: 244: 240: 237: 235: 231: 223: 213: 209: 205: 201: 197: 194: 193: 192: 191: 187: 183: 179: 173: 171: 165: 162: 158: 150: 146: 142: 138: 134: 130: 125: 120: 119: 116: 114: 109: 104: 103: 98: 95: 92: 87: 83: 79: 78: 74: 73: 72: 71: 66: 63: 53: 48: 44: 39: 32: 23: 19: 1591: 1584: 1573: 1563: 1557: 1549: 1542: 1536: 1530: 1524: 1514: 1450: 1441: 1434: 1411: 1396: 1389: 1356: 1344: 1327: 1298: 1283: 1278: 1265: 1232: 1223: 1217: 1200: 1187: 1172:David crozer 1167: 1148: 1107: 1070: 1060: 1054: 1046: 1039: 1033: 1027: 1021: 1011: 947: 938: 931: 904: 889: 882: 861: 853: 836: 833:no consensus 832: 828: 724: 707: 675: 670: 653: 635: 618: 610: 606: 541: 519: 514: 506: 472: 459: 443: 399: 371: 366: 351: 346: 329: 276: 259: 238: 211: 207: 195: 174: 121: 112: 105: 75: 64: 47:2008 October 1540:free images 1176:Mountview07 1037:free images 950:Calvin Dean 906:Calvin Dean 752:) has made 405:WP:OC#SMALL 265:WP:OC#SMALL 1358:David19856 1303:David19856 1081:David19856 1073:David19856 915:Eluchil404 858:WP:ILIKEIT 474:this essay 82:The manual 52:October 16 38:October 14 1315:SmokeyJoe 1253:ignored ( 1251:|section= 1243:cite news 841:SmokeyJoe 808:UsaSatsui 641:UsaSatsui 588:UsaSatsui 367:My Answer 208:Fictional 1332:Tikiwont 1128:reliable 829:Overturn 804:puppetry 776:Alansohn 750:contribs 725:Overturn 712:Eusebeus 671:Overturn 654:overturn 636:Overturn 579:Kbdank71 565:Alansohn 556:Kbdank71 507:Overturn 427:Otto4711 409:Alansohn 400:Overturn 347:Question 334:Otto4711 316:Kbdank71 269:Kbdank71 86:guidance 20:‎ | 1546:WP refs 1534:scholar 1498:restore 1470:protect 1465:history 1328:Endorse 1299:Endorse 1279:Comment 1168:Comment 1149:Endorse 1043:WP refs 1031:scholar 995:restore 967:protect 962:history 854:Endorse 708:Endorse 658:JoshuaZ 533:the log 460:Endorse 444:Endorse 379:HARMBOY 330:Endorse 277:Endorse 260:Endorse 239:Comment 220:HARMBOY 157:restore 137:history 1518:Google 1474:delete 1418:Stifle 1373:Stifle 1307:WP:BIO 1262:Suntag 1184:Suntag 1153:Stifle 1136:Stifle 1132:verify 1104:Suntag 1098:, not 1015:Google 971:delete 837:relist 791:WP:AGF 762:Andjam 693:Andjam 615:Suntag 607:action 538:Suntag 520:Second 488:Andjam 247:Stifle 243:WP:NOR 182:Andjam 94:(Talk) 1561:JSTOR 1522:books 1502:cache 1491:views 1483:watch 1479:links 1313:. -- 1130:) to 1102:. -- 1058:JSTOR 1019:books 999:cache 988:views 980:watch 976:links 869:Help! 611:child 515:First 312:fixed 161:cache 145:watch 141:links 55:: --> 16:< 1554:FENS 1528:news 1487:logs 1461:talk 1457:edit 1422:talk 1377:talk 1362:talk 1336:talk 1319:talk 1311:WP:N 1290:talk 1255:help 1157:talk 1140:talk 1124:cite 1085:talk 1077:talk 1051:FENS 1025:news 984:logs 958:talk 954:edit 919:talk 845:talk 812:talk 780:talk 766:talk 746:talk 733:talk 716:talk 697:talk 682:talk 662:talk 645:talk 592:talk 569:talk 492:talk 479:jc37 464:jc37 431:talk 413:talk 387:TALK 372:here 358:talk 338:talk 314:. -- 251:talk 228:TALK 212:most 186:talk 149:logs 133:talk 129:edit 35:< 1568:TWL 1506:AfD 1309:or 1285:DGG 1065:TWL 1003:AfD 911:Ask 863:Guy 835:or 831:as 677:DGG 353:DGG 170:CFD 22:Log 1548:) 1504:| 1500:| 1489:| 1485:| 1481:| 1477:| 1472:| 1468:| 1463:| 1459:| 1424:) 1379:) 1364:) 1338:) 1321:) 1292:) 1247:: 1245:}} 1241:{{ 1216:. 1170:- 1159:) 1142:) 1087:) 1045:) 1001:| 997:| 986:| 982:| 978:| 974:| 969:| 965:| 960:| 956:| 921:) 909:– 847:) 814:) 782:) 768:) 748:• 740:— 735:) 718:) 699:) 684:) 664:) 647:) 639:-- 594:) 571:) 494:) 433:) 415:) 391:) 360:) 340:) 253:) 232:) 188:) 172:) 159:| 147:| 143:| 139:| 135:| 131:| 45:: 1564:· 1558:· 1550:· 1543:· 1537:· 1531:· 1525:· 1520:( 1511:) 1508:) 1496:( 1493:) 1455:( 1420:( 1375:( 1360:( 1334:( 1317:( 1288:( 1268:☼ 1257:) 1190:☼ 1155:( 1138:( 1110:☼ 1083:( 1075:( 1061:· 1055:· 1047:· 1040:· 1034:· 1028:· 1022:· 1017:( 1008:) 1005:) 993:( 990:) 952:( 917:( 871:) 867:( 843:( 810:( 778:( 764:( 744:( 731:( 714:( 695:( 680:( 660:( 643:( 621:☼ 590:( 567:( 544:☼ 490:( 429:( 411:( 383:( 376:P 356:( 336:( 249:( 224:( 217:P 184:( 168:( 166:) 163:) 155:( 151:) 127:(

Index

Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
Log
October 14
Deletion review archives
2008 October
October 16
15 October 2008
Category:Fictional parents who killed their children
The manual
guidance
Angus McLellan
(Talk)
23:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
deletion review
Category:Fictional parents who killed their children
edit
talk
history
links
watch
logs
restore
cache
CFD
request for clarification
Andjam
talk
11:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
this conversation
Category:Parents who killed their children

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