1463:
carreer, so I think it's clear that BLP1E is intended for exactly that sort of events. And, again, the AfDs had no sources at all that said that Iseman was a public and political figure outside of the context of this event or that she had received other than trivial coverage before or after the event outside of the event context, or that she was famous, lobbyist or not. (have you seen *any* source that talked of her lobbyist activities that she has done *after* the event?!). Provide sources that show otherwise or stop arguing the point. We are supposed to be having a discussion based on actual arguments, not on a personal idea of how very famous all lobbyists are and how they don't have right to privacy, or on how BLP1E should not be used for the purpose it was created for. If you can't show with sources that she is a public figure outside of the context of the event, then she is *not* a public figure and she *does* have right to privacy --
88:. In a correct application of said doctrine, the outcome should be a balance of positive and negative information concerning the subject; at the very least there should not be an overwhelming preponderance of negative information. To quote the policy: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." At present the sole coverage of Iseman is in the context of the alleged controversy, which seems a perverse result. A clear majority of editors below believe that BLP1E has been satisfied (or, rather, that it does not apply here); said editors also point to the existence of pre-2008 sources on Iseman and the existence of information outside the campaign controversy. Given the non-libelous state of the article prior to its deletion and the lack of a complaint from the subject the result is to
956:". Neither AfD not AfD2 provided *any* sources that Iseman had independient notability *before* that event or any sources that covered Iseman out of the context of that event. So, AfD2 was correct on applying BLP1E, and this DRV should endorse that decision (and, of course, if Iseman has no independient notability, then she has as much right of privacy as any other living person that hasn't independient notability). Notice that BLP1E gives no weight to the fact that the person has asked for the article to be removed or not, and, actually, it does not even mention it. So, now, can you point us at any source that indicates independient notability and that the AfDs ignored so that we can overturn the deletion? Actually, right now, I would be happy to be pointed at *any* source that indicates indenpendient notability, independently of whether it appeared at the AfDs or not. --
2065:. A closing rationale would have been helpful, but the obvious fact is that this is a fictional element with no evidence of impact outside the fictional universe. The primary source was starwars.yahoo.com, far from being a reliable source, and I have to say that the term "Techno Union" is entirely unfamiliar to me as a parent of teenage boys who are all over Star Wars (to say nothing of having myself grown up with Star Wars as probably the most significant movie franchise of my formative years). Star Wars is notable, the droids are notable, that does not mean that every element of fanon related to battle droids is notable by inheritance. What's the Star Wars equivalent of Memory Alpha? That's where this belongs.
927:
of privacy" for private individuals. Powerful
Washington lobbyists who are closely associated with one of the most currently notable persons in the world is not in any manner a "private individual". The silly Daniel Brandt comparison has nothing to do with this as the notability and secondary sources coverage of him were nothing as compared to this person. As memory serves, Mr. Brandt lobbied very passionately to have his article removed for privacy reasons and used his case as a cause célèbre to demonstrate how Knowledge infringes on the privacy of private individuals. There is no such request from Ms. Iseman and likely there never will be as this is not a private individual. --
1442:
privacy, and the part of BLP which does apply is that there can be no unsourced negative material. Lobbying in the US in a major part of legislative life & no lobbyist can reasonably expect privacy. This is directly and immediately related not just to his honesty but to hers. Second, by defining the rest of someone's career as trivial coverage, one can make a great many things into oneevent. Third, any event however lowprofile becomes significant when one of the people involved is running for presidential office. That's the way presidential politics work. Anyone';s even private relationship with him or her is now a public matter.
634:
happened over a long period of time (and many years ago). After the controversy sections were removed (pretty early in the editing process, if memory serves), this article's inoffensive content put frequent BLP defenders in an awkward position: no material which was uncited or objectionable. (Of course, this was the entire reason for excising the controversy stuff.) This may have been why Doc and Tony seemed more dedicated to redirecting the page than deleting it (taking liberty to characterize).
2246:
is some urgency before he reconsideres the outcome, though. Always better to have a chance to say "ooops, I goofed" when there is a big audience and a spotlight on ya! This is really, really stinky. Once again, I refuse to participate in this review because the instructions were not followed, and I believe in process. Noting that the requester is not a newbiee, so I am not biting a newbiee, as the requester is an admin, and ought to know the instructions for this venue.
1084:, both of them trivial coverage. No articles dedicated to her, no analysis of her activities, no news article at all about any of her lobbying activities. So, a low profile person, a run-of-the-mill lobyist. Since they were no sources indicating that she was really a high profile lobbyist at all, then the claim of privacy does apply. She could have passed the rest of her life getting only trivial mentions on lists of lobbyists.
1052:
refers to stories like "Harrisburg man accidentally cuts off foot with lawnmower," which of course is one event about an "essentially low profile person," not an ongoing major controversy about a major
Washington lobbyist and her connections with one of the most notable persons on earth, which you are so desperately trying to label as "one event." WP:BLP was specifically created for privacy reasons and accuracy. This is
1280:
their privacy or are inaccurate and possibly slanderous can adversely affect their (living) lives. The secondary "in the context of one event" clause you keep repeating was created for those protections of private individuals. While I respect your opinion that this person is not "essentially low profile", the overwhelming reality of the situation contradicts that. If you want a living example equivalent,
1892:– Pretty moot. The delete+redirect outcome does not find support here. I have restored the deleted history, as I cannot see why it should be deleted being harmless as it is. Arguments are finally made in the DRV that there may be policy-based reasons to do other than retain the article as it stands, but they do not cut the flow of this debate, and did not cut the flow the first time around (and
2161:
published literature on Star Wars should produce some specific references. Please note that just yesterday I redirected a government article with respect to a less notable fiction to the main article instead of prodded it--see my talk page. Flexibility and compromise are the keys to handling this problem; those with extreme positions on both sides are not likely to convince each other.
457:? Iseman's become a historically significant figure mainly as a result of the recent controversy; such events naturally receive more attention in the week immediately following than they do two and a half months later. By the numbers this could have reasonably been closed in either direction, but I really think the case for deletion is tenuous. —
1162:. They are not talking about the lobbying activities, or about corruption. If they talk about corruption then they talk about McCain, and they make a passing mention to Vicky Iseman involvement. And it's one event because the real "event" that launched her to fame was the publication of the relationship on the NYT. Btw, I didn't actually check
1827:", that he wouldn't oppose re-creation as a redirect, and that he would be happy to userfy. Where exactly do you see any doubt? Also, the closer appears to think that there was consensus, or, at least, a non-overhelming majority to delete or merge. On what do you base your afirmation of no consensus? Strenght of argument? Number of votes? --
2394:". Also, the !keeps at the AfD were not giving any source that established enough real world notability of Techno Union for an article of its own, and the !overturn votes here aren't giving any source either, so the closure was correctly assesing not enough notability based on current information at both AfD and article. Also, per
1309:. That means coverage that explains Hickley's insanity and what lead to it, treating the assesination attempt as a culmination of the insanity, and not as the only reason to create the article, since his insanity was notable of his own and caused legislation changes on persons that claimed insanity like he did on his trial.
2139:- Note that there were actually two calls for a redirect (one was "redirect or delete"), but that's irrelevant. A single policy-based argument overrides hundreds of non-policy-based ones. In this case, DGG had the only Keep that was policy based. The rest were Delete or Redirect based on notability and
2160:
but I'm not sure if any action at all is needed here; a redirect is not a deletion, and anyone can revert it and start a discussion of it on the talk page until consensus is reached there. The notability of fictional elements depends on the importance of the fiction, among other things, and the large
682:
The commenters on the second AfD said that she didn't meet them. I can't see the deleted article, but no one at the AfD provided *any* source stating notability beyond this one event or pointed at any source already on the article, so we have no reason to overturn the AfD decision since they appeared
2376:
per
Spartaz: no real world notability outside of being a plot element on Starwars universe, so it should be inside the main Starwars articles that actually have real world relevance. Per Guy: ThechnoUnion is not really notable by itself and the only references are from the starwars guide. Obviously,
926:
argument to refute mine. All you're doing is pointing to my "through no action of their own" statement and refuting that (which I concede, btw) and suggesting that negates the rest of my argument. Even if her "actions were her own," BLP1E still doesn't apply as it was created for the "assumption
903:
Saying that we should apply BLP1E to McCartney is fallacious since he launched several notable records while being a member of the
Beatles and after that (aka multiple events). In comparison, a singer who has only released one famous record could have BLP1E applied to him and his article merged into
714:
per DGG. There was no consensus to delete this and WP:BLP1E is intended for private individuals who through no action of their own became a news event (accident victim, for example). A major
Washington lobbyist who is very strongly connected to one of the most notable people on earth currently and
633:
This has been a learning experience for me, I've conceded long ago. I hope others are learning something as well. For my part, through prior processes on this subject I've held that "one event" doesn't apply to a situation where the "event" is a newspaper article describing a series of actions which
2245:
I have a new, radical, and possibly outright crazy idea... what if we discussed AfD closures with deleting admins BEFORE listing a review at DRV? I wonder what that would be like? Could that even work??? It's probably better for the admin to see 8 or more opinions from others and feel like there
1369:
Now, seriously, show sources that give biographical coverage of Iseman outside of the context of the improper relationship scandal. On the AfDs there were no sources that showed non-trivial coverage of her only because of her lobbying activity or for anything outside the scandal. Start showing some
1331:
without making any references to why he was judged (the assesination attempt) so that can count as a separate event. Compare with Iseman's case, where the scandal of the improper relationship has had no repercusions other than affect the political carreer of John McCain, and nobody has shown on the
1216:
You've completely missed the point of BLP1E. It is a mechanism to preserve the privacy of private individuals, or, as BLP1E states very clearly, "essentially low profile" persons. This isn't a private "low profile" person or an "everyday lobbyist" but one very closely connected to one of the most
480:
I do not see a consensus to delete, & even the closer expressed some hesitation, saying this did not have the usual BLP provision against re-creation or userification. ONEEVENT was intend only to cover unfortunate or accidental news coverage for things unrelated to any real notability, such as
1384:
Hickley became notable by himself for his defence at the trial, which is treated as a different event by several reliable sources who totally pay no attention at all to the event that caused the trial (the assesination attempt) and which give extensive coverage of all his life on details that have
1279:
Thank you for informing us that Lee Harvey Oswald is dead. It probably wasn't your intent, but by pointing that out you actually confirmed the core intent and the reasons why BLP1E was created, for the privacy and accuracy protections of living people. If they're alive, articles that infringe on
1051:
Two things. First you're choosing to ignore the main point of WP:BLP1E and why it was created; for the protection of private individuals (have a browse of its history if you don't believe me). That's why WP:BLP1E clearly states it's for "essentially low profile" persons. Secondly, "one event"
1462:
however lowprofile becomes significant"(emphasis added). It's the event that is important here, not Vicky Iseman herself. If you think that BLP1E should not apply to events on professional life, then you should notice that Daniel Bradt case, which spawned BLP1E, was totally about his professional
1645:
has 716, by way of comparison. And it's not at all clear that she became notable because of her own actions, as also has been asserted, since no reliable source has offered any evidence to support the "close relationship" claim in the NYT article. Ordinary everyday lobbyists are not notable, and
1420:
that gave her all that coverage, so all this coverage needs to be on the scandal page, per BLP1E. If someone has some proof that she is notable for something not on the context of that scandal, then show it now. The AfDs had no such information, so their application of BLP1E was correct. Get new
1441:
First, even BLP1E does not & should not when the events are in context of their professional lives. The relationship with MCCain was while she was actively engaged in lobbying and is directly relating to he professional career. Public figures and political ones especially have no right of
503:
See long discussion below about BLP1E having nothing to do with fortune or accidents. Also see arguments about the fame of this person coming from one event, being that event the publication of the improper relationship, and the non-notability of the person before that event. Nothing to do with
2221:. There was no consensus for redirection whatsoever. The published literature of the Star Wars universe should be more than sufficient referencing to create a reasonably-sized article on the subject. The redirect to battle droid was simply inane, as that is roughly equivalent to redirecting
1350:
You've completely missed the point. That is the purpose of BLP1E is the protect of the privacy of "essentially low profile" living persons. That is the reason that it BLP stands for "Biography of Living People." All you did was give reasons why John
Hinkley iss notable even though he became
837:
when Daniel was famous for only one bad event, and he didn't want to have an article on wikipedia. I think that at the end they moved all information about this person to the article about the event and deleted his article, and BLP1E was created. The relevant discussions at WP:BLP appear to be
2109:
close. That said, the solution here that makes the most sense to me is to create some article about minor organizations and such in Star Wars, then redirect the article there. I'm aware no one thought of this at the AfD, but it's a better way to deal with the article than redirecting to
1217:
notable persons on earth and extremely high profile. Despite this being an ongoing controversy, your emphasis on BLP1E's "one event" is secondary to the extremely high profile this person has. Even if you insist on labeling her notability to "one event" there are degrees of "events" (
348:
violation, since it removes almost all of our well sourced favorable information concerning Vicki Iseman, with the result that we only describe Vicki Iseman in the context of the scandal in which she was involved, thereby producing the very sort of negatively-biased coverage that our
1624:
as per BLP1E process. The only source that did not discuss Iseman in relation to her alleged involvement with McCain was a brief mention of her speaking before a local school board, 50 paragraphs into the story. Her identity is irrelevant to the primary issue, which is covered in
1032:
the one event is when it was published that she had an improper relationship with John McCain. Do you have any sources showing that she was a high profile person before that? Any sources making whole articles about her that are not on the context of that improper relationship?
2322:. No policy based reasons for redirect or deletion then nor are there any now. Notable element of notable franchise that can be verified in reliable sources. I do nevertheless believe Jerry, who has always been nice with me, acted in good faith with his closure. Best, --
866:
explains a bit the arbcom case situation (I found no link to the actual case). Basically, no source has made a bibliography of Iseman as a notable person by herself, they only talk about her because of that event, so this is the same case as Brandt, and BLP1E *does* apply.
2268:
Jerry, you're absolutely right, and I apologize. I should have discussed this with you first; taking this directly here was indeed too hasty. However, I don't feel that we should close it, as there's been substantial input now. I want you to know that I'm sorry, though.
1754:
the article met criteria of BLP1E. Beside the fact that delete voters basically said the same materials exist elsewhere in other event articles (which is false), they also seemed unable to reply to any keep arguments that emerged in the debate. This isn't a
1780:. Well, deletion was a slightly better option than redirecting her name to a controversy, but I don't think consensus supported a deletion. The article is neutral, and focuses on Iseman's career as a lobbyist, and as such she has had political influence.
1351:
notable in the "context of one event." All the non-McCain biographical details in Ms. Iseman's article came from reliable sources. Those reliable sources aren't magically unreliable because those sources also report on the McCain relationship. --
1749:
bad close. A major portion of materials in the deleted article and the sources is entirely unrelated to the controversy; it's surprising WP:BLP1E was applied. Lack of rationale on the side of (more than a half of) delete voters, no clear explanation
1506:
per
Oakshade. The public sphere activities of this individual are significant and notable. If BLP1E requires us to assume privacy in the case of a powerful lobbyist's relationship (whatever that may be) with a powerful politician, it is backwards.
270:
is designed to effectuate the removal of articles concerning events in the news which masquerade as biographies of the participants, thereby giving massively undue weight to the events in our description of the subjects lives, and violating
481:
being involved in an accident. When the event is related to the persons profession and has national political implications, its being used wrong if it applies to this. Its time we started interpreting NOTCENSORED as including politics.
2391:
Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently
1078:
1896:
claims they did). Therefore, since this was just a redirect and does not really need DRV at all, the editorial points can be dealt with separately and do not require deletion review's input (save for the history repair).
527:
per DGG and the nominator. BLP1E is not meant for this sort of situation. BLP1E is meant for accident victims or silly internet memes or similar junk not for individuals whose actions involve politics of large countries.
1124:
another is a blog post with a "vicky iseman" tag that brings to a blog post about corruption on politics that has a link called "who is vicky iseman?" that brings to a page called "Vicki Iseman: Who Is McCain
Scandal
683:
to have decided correctly on the available information. Please feel free to provide any sources that the AfD may have missed and that assert her notability and that this assertion is not based on this one event. --
1578:
Good close based on strength of BLP1E arguments. Much of the above discussion is a misplaced AfD part3; the fact remains that the case for deletion was compelling and majoritarian. Close was fully in process.
1151:. The AfDs had no such sources, so their assessment of non-notability was correct. If nobody can't still provide any sources, then their assessment that Iseman is a non-notable figure with right to privacy is
1284:
is notable solely "in the context of one event", was never notable before the assassination attempt, as far as I know he's still alive and the amount of secondary coverage of him warrants an article of him.
1411:
I think that I have already shown that she was a low-profile lobbyist that had only trivial coverage before the scandal with the publication of the improper relationship on the NYT (which is one event).
830:
1100:
354:
259:
197:
2398:, this is just a detailed summary of plot elements, with no real word relevance of its own, and notability is not inherited, so claims about the importance of Starwars films are not relevant. --
2044:
There was no consensus for redirection and no significant policy argument made for such action. The argument seemed equally divided beween various options and so the proper conclusion was
998:(Short indent for readability.) First of all, she's not notable for just "one event" but an ongoing major controversy that has currently major and potentially historic ramifications. The
2448:, but there was decidedly no consensus for redirection in the debate, especially considering that the delete/redirect votes came before the article was cleaned up with two refs added. --
1221:
was only notable in the "context of one event") and to say "She might be a high profile person, but she's notable because of only one event" and ignoring the purpose of BPL1E is simply
2105:
to I don't know what. I do know, however, that with only a single editor advocating redirect and no reason for it stated, that the redirect was improper. I personally lean towards a
863:
859:
855:
851:
847:
843:
839:
454:
2305:
might be a more apt target -- but the lack of citations to reliable sources coupled with an unencyclopedic treatment seem sufficient grounds not to maintain this content. --
1477:
That case didn't start BLP1E. Brandt was considered notable for a variety of different accomplishments. BLP1E was never the issue there. Let's not rewrite history, mmm kay?
970:
Yeah, I got a bit derailed with "no actions of their own" thing. I'm happy that you conceded so I won't have to search for the arbcom link and read that boring thing :D --
2032:
Sourcing was not adequate. Please provide evidence of real world notability. AFD consensus gets closed by measuring arguments against policy/guidelines not headcount.
1191:
outside of the improper relationship event, *then* we could overturn the AfD based on that she is notable on more than one event (so no "only one event", and no BPL1E)
1198:
With the current sources, the AfD2 decision was a totally correct application of BLP1E. We need to show that there were sources that were not taken into account. --
594:
article to its own pagespace, in accordance with talk consensus at the time, in order to leave the start-class bio with the controversy mention only in the intro.
1097:
1082:
1646:
being thrust into the spotlight with questionable justification does not make one a public figure. The lobbyist controversy article is relevant, but this is not.
1184:
that didn't appear at the AfD *then* we could overturn it on the basis that she is a public figure outside of the event (so no claims to privacy and no BLP1E)
1993:
1087:
On the other hand, they gave about 7-8 sources showing coverage of Iseman and McCain. They also showed how google news shows several results for Vicky Iseman
370:
191:
366:
2385:
non-independient sources. Per Kesh: the admin took into account those arguments that were actually based on policy, so it was a proper closure based on
2359:, very problematic closure. I can't see any consensus for redirection, not to mention that redirecting Techno Union to Battle droid was an absurd idea.
1599:
the BLP3 part does not apply here, for since this was deleted as a BLP, coming here is the only mechanism for getting permission to remake the article.
1077:
I assure you that I'm not ignoring it. You see, on the two AfDs only two sources were provided where she was mentioned outside the context of the event
381:
Indeed, there might well have been a numerical majority favoring retention of the article, had this issue been raised immediately after the nomination.
807:
because he became notable due to his own actions." It's the grand significance of this person's associations and actions which makes her notable. --
1014:(underline added by me). This is not by any manner an "essentially low profile" person as which are the people WP:BLP1E clearly states applies to. --
834:
2423:
where the different factions can be covered. I'm quite sure that the redirect can be changed to a better target without overturning the deletion. --
1322:
The assassination attempt won him notoriety and media attention, and also led to legislation limiting the use of the insanity plea in several states
51:
37:
648:
Heh, actually, the newspaper thing does look like "one event" to me :) Once that was removed, I assume that the article just failed notability per
1093:, and you only get one result from 2008 (after the event) and it makes a passing mention to Iseman as someone that would not make publicity tours.
668:
The situation is slightly more complicated than that. She met PEOPLE/BIO but it was unclear if the coverage meeting that was due to the ONEEVENT.
350:
267:
210:
2177:
For reasons I don't fully understand the closer deleted and then redirected rather than just redirecting so the redirect can't just be reverted.
1169:
So, there are no sources asserting notability before the publication of the event, and there are tons of sources asserting notability of Iseman
1107:
46:
1710:
for great injustice. BLP1E is too frequently abused and misinterpreted as an excuse for deletion and this out-of-process close fits the bill.
276:
1629:, and the issue does not appear to be "ongoing", as asserted above by one of the posters, since Google news shows a total of 11 hits for
2007:
1173:. So, no I don't agree with you and I still think that BLP1E can perfectly be applied given the information available at the AfDs. Now
950:
If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted.
284:
2324:
1850:
1261:
be stretched for cases where there is stress for familiars of a not-very-notable dead person, but this is not the case of Oswald. --
803:
argument. Because someone became notable due to their own actions doesn't suddenly mean BLP1E applies. That's like saying "Delete
42:
262:, on the sole grounds of the claim that Vicki Iseman was notable for only one event, and that deletion was therefore justified per
827:
WP:BLP1E is intended for private individuals who through no action of their own became a news event (accident victim, for example)
1950:
1945:
1823:
I don't see that the closer had any doubts. He only stated that he knew that his closure would be controversial, that there was "
1626:
1147:
So, you say that Iseman was a high-profile lobiyist that was notable for reasons not related to the improper relationship. Cool,
620:
problem? Perhaps this is why editors supporting deletion have offered no better arguments than repeatedly invoking the letter of
587:
569:
565:
314:
309:
232:
227:
148:
143:
1633:, all of which are blogs/non-reliable sources or passing mentions. If this were an ongoing issue, there would be far more hits.
1091:
612:
removes our well-sourced information concerning her career, and leaves us with just a controversy fork -- think that might be a
1954:
1110:
318:
236:
152:
2419:
covers the droids manufactured by Techno Union. There were better targets, as other commenters point out, and I would suggest
2126:
467:
406:
2420:
1979:
1937:
738:
301:
219:
177:
135:
21:
1090:(14 results right now) and every single result is related to McCain. Actually try to search the same words without McCain
376:
the spirit of WP:BLP (i.e. do no harm) is better served with retention of the article than a "...Controversy" fork alone.
1532:
549:
2006:; plays a large role in the first three movies and also has appearances in Star Wars video games and cartoons. It has
420:. The majority of the opinions were clearly that the page should not be retained. Happy with Philippe's closure here.
1728:
can you explain how the closure was of process and how was BLP1E abused and misinterpreted i this particular case? --
80:– The operative question in both this deletion review and the deletion discussion which provoked it was how to apply
1848:
and restore article per clear lack of consensus to delete this article concerning a verfiable person. Sincerely, --
450:
1797:. There was no consensus and the closer himself seemed to have doubts. In such cases, the emphatic guideline of
283:, as it was comprised almost entirely of unfavorable material concerning Crystal Gail Mangum's involvement in the
2468:
2386:
1916:
1867:
1329:
1144:. Can you explain me where you do you any notability of Vicky Iseman that is not associated to the McCain affair?
114:
17:
2283:
There are lots of admins that I would bypass and go directly to DRV. Some people just can't be reasoned with.
743:
only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election,
568:. Iseman has no claim to notability other than this event, so BLP1E clearly applies. At most make a redirect to
2053:
1810:
2229:. There's no content available on the subject in that article, so it was an extremely poor choice of place.
1332:
AfDs any sources giving biographical details of Iseman (if the article had any, then please point to them). --
2301:
redirect -- or override just for flat-out deletion. I agree that the redirect destination is a little odd --
545:, fair closure, not out of step with the general premise of the policy or the opinions expressed in the AFD.
2205:
546:
425:
353:
is designed to prevent. While considerations of this nature were raised by myself and other editors at the
2342:. I saw no consensus to redirect in that AFD and how do you even get "battle droid" from "Techno Union"? --
1307:
344:
in a manner manifestly contrary to its purpose. Indeed, the deletion of this article itself constitutes a
1306:, and even analysis explaining the influence of a film on the ideas that brought him to the assesination
2428:
2403:
1832:
1733:
1694:
1549:
1468:
1426:
1390:
1375:
1337:
1266:
1203:
1088:
1038:
975:
961:
909:
872:
786:
750:
688:
657:
577:
509:
1130:
2302:
2274:
2019:
1655:
1113:
2457:
2432:
2407:
2368:
2351:
2347:
2330:
2314:
2291:
2278:
2263:
2237:
2209:
2186:
2172:
2152:
2131:
2095:
2078:
2057:
2049:
2036:
2023:
1905:
1856:
1836:
1814:
1806:
1789:
1784:
1772:
1737:
1719:
1698:
1680:
1659:
1610:
1588:
1570:
1553:
1536:
1515:
1486:
1472:
1453:
1430:
1394:
1379:
1360:
1341:
1303:
Yeah, but
Hinkley has extensive coverage explaining his whole life, including biographical details
1294:
1270:
1234:
1207:
1065:
1042:
1023:
1008:"Where a person is mentioned by name in a Knowledge article about a larger subject, but remains of
979:
965:
936:
913:
876:
816:
790:
772:
754:
724:
692:
677:
661:
643:
628:
603:
581:
552:
537:
513:
492:
472:
441:
429:
411:
385:
340:
was such a biography, deleted on the basis of vote-counting and a purely mechanical application of
103:
100:
1416:, her lobbiying activities never got her anything other than trivial coverage, it was the scandal
1414:
She was already connected to notable persons before that publication but she wasn't notable at all
1137:
295:
was never intended to destroy legitimate biographies which are well-sourced, fair, and balanced.
2289:
2235:
2122:
1715:
1584:
1512:
1356:
1328:, and Hickley's defence on the trial is pointed as directly responsible of changes insanity plea
1290:
1230:
1061:
1019:
932:
858:. A discussion that says that biographies should not be done until enough notability is found at
812:
768:
720:
402:
358:
288:
213:
is intended to ensure that our descriptions of living persons are accurate, fair, and balanced.
1304:
2010:
from several articles, and was sourced appropriately before deletion. Further, the redirect to
2453:
2382:
2182:
1941:
1768:
1482:
1421:
sources and we can overturn it on the basis that it was done with unsufficient information. --
1246:
1218:
1134:
923:
800:
673:
639:
599:
533:
305:
223:
139:
1317:
source that shows that Iseman has any notoriety outside of the improper relationship scandal.
2424:
2399:
2259:
1902:
1828:
1729:
1690:
1545:
1528:
1464:
1422:
1386:
1371:
1333:
1262:
1222:
1199:
1034:
971:
957:
905:
868:
782:
746:
684:
653:
649:
573:
505:
2364:
2310:
2270:
2255:
2015:
1648:
1566:
1003:
945:
825:
No, BLP1E applies because she is famous for one event: the John McCain scandal. You said "
621:
560:
The event that made her famous is already covered on other articles. The event was famous
341:
292:
280:
263:
85:
1986:
1160:
every single source at the AfD talks exclusively about the improper personal relationship
184:
1133:
then you have two pages with the same photo making a parody of the McCain-Iseman affair
268:
Knowledge:Biographies_of_living_persons#Articles_about_people_notable_only_for_one_event
2395:
2343:
2148:
2140:
2091:
1798:
1781:
804:
781:
But they are actions of their own, right? Same as Eisman's actions, so BLP1E applies --
613:
272:
97:
2284:
2230:
2168:
2115:
2073:
2067:
1711:
1675:
1669:
1606:
1580:
1508:
1449:
1352:
1286:
1226:
1117:
1057:
1015:
928:
808:
764:
716:
617:
488:
458:
395:
362:
357:, neither the statement by the closing administrator at the time, nor his subsequent
345:
206:
81:
1141:
365:
rationale for the retention of this article. However, the administrator who closed
2449:
2445:
2441:
2416:
2178:
2111:
2033:
2011:
1933:
1888:
1764:
1478:
1281:
1120:, another is an empty thechnorati page with photos that bear the tag "Vicky Iseman"
669:
635:
625:
609:
595:
591:
529:
438:
382:
297:
215:
209:, our policies should be construed in a manner consistent with their purpose. Our
131:
76:
1971:
335:
253:
169:
2226:
2201:
2083:
1898:
1524:
1121:
715:
who's connection has major national ramifications does not fit that category. --
421:
2360:
2306:
2248:
1562:
1325:
2222:
2144:
2087:
2003:
449:. It seems the bar is being set unrealistically high here. Do we hear about
1126:
564:
because of John McCain's implication, and the event is already covered on
2163:
1601:
1444:
483:
1311:
I have yet to see any source that talks about Iseman's life on that way
952:" No such source was given, aka BLP1E applies. The next sentence says "
1099:
and trying to reduce all appeareances of McCain you only get 287 hits
829:" but this is not correct. I think that it was brought up because of
1096:
Let's have fun with raw google hits, +"Vicky Iseman" gets 6890 hits
1166:
source, so I could be wrong there, altought I doubt it very much :P
1074:(sorry for extremely long comments, but I like playing with google)
954:
Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability (...)
763:
Neither of those examples apply to this person. Not even close. --
1012:
themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them."
1825:
the majority (though not overwhelming) support deletion or merge
831:
Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Brandt_(14th_nomination)
739:
Knowledge:Notability_(people)#People_notable_only_for_one_event
1155:
correct, and the closing admin has to endorse this assessment.
1385:
nothing to do with Reagan, so he is *not* a case of BLP1E. --
355:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Vicki Iseman (2nd nomination)
260:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Vicki Iseman (2nd nomination)
2114:, which does not contain content about the Union at all. --
1140:
and then another empty photo page with the vicky iseman tag
590:
was created by removing all controversy material from the
1967:
1963:
1959:
1637:(which is not an ongoing issue either) has 91 hits and
1180:
if you had some sources asserting notability of Iseman
455:
Cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generators
377:
331:
327:
323:
279:
is architypical of articles legitimately deletable per
249:
245:
241:
165:
161:
157:
1320:
Also notice that
Hickley spawned new legislation ("
1187:if you had sources asserting notability of Iseman
2381:in depth, but that's just uncritical coverage by
1245:lol, I hadn't noticed the fallacious argument:
1129:, another empty page with a "vicky iseman" tag
361:of this decision substantively respond to the
2421:Galactic_Republic_(Star_Wars)#Galactic_Senate
8:
1458:Yeah, DGG, you are right, I quote you: "any
1915:The following is an archived debate of the
1056:an "essentially low profile" individual. --
113:The following is an archived debate of the
1881:
69:
835:Knowledge:Deletion_review/Daniel_Brandt_2
862:. Well, there are more discussions, but
41:
1544:. Closing admin made the right call.
1102:, and on the first page of results you
50:
1370:sources and I'll change my opinion. --
453:every evening on national television?
205:In accordance with the principle that
33:
745:". Those are actions of their own. --
737:that BLP1E was intended for that? On
7:
586:I should point out that the article
351:biographies of living persons policy
277:Special:Undelete/Crystal Gail Mangum
211:biographies of living persons policy
2471:of the page listed in the heading.
2444:is a relevant destination page for
1870:of the page listed in the heading.
1006:(you only quoted the 2nd) states,
285:2006 Duke University lacrosse case
28:
2417:Battle_droid#Super_battle_droids
2415:it was not *that* bad given how
1627:John McCain lobbyist controversy
1149:find some sources that show this
1106:get three pages about the event
922:You're still only throwing up a
588:John_McCain_lobbyist_controversy
570:John_McCain_lobbyist_controversy
566:John_McCain_lobbyist_controversy
2467:The above is an archive of the
1866:The above is an archive of the
608:So, basically, the deletion of
2379:every single irrelevant detail
207:Knowledge is not a bureaucracy
1:
1158:Also, about being one event,
799:You've delved into a classic
30:
2326:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
2200:, because there wasn't any.
2014:was completely nonsensical.
1852:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
1641:(another old story) has 34.
1313:. You still have to provide
394:Added link to second AfD. --
373:concurred with my arguments:
2002:Notable plot element in an
1803:When in doubt, don't delete
1171:on the context of the event
451:monoamine neurotransmitters
258:was deleted as a result of
2494:
2377:the starwars guide treats
287:, and served largely as a
1523:per Oakshade and others.
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
2474:Please do not modify it.
2458:12:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
2433:05:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
2408:05:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
2004:extremely notable series
1922:Please do not modify it.
1906:19:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
1873:Please do not modify it.
1857:15:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
1837:04:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
1815:21:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
1790:07:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
1759:for deletion, this is a
1561:, per DGG and Oakshade.
1487:16:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
1473:08:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
1395:04:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
1380:04:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
1361:00:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
1342:08:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
1257:persons. BLP1E probably
904:the record's article. --
371:the first AFD discussion
120:Please do not modify it.
104:20:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
43:Deletion review archives
2369:03:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
2352:15:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
2331:05:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
2315:01:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
2292:11:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
2279:05:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
2264:03:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
2238:02:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
2210:21:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
2187:17:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
2173:16:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
2153:16:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
2132:14:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
2096:11:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
2079:11:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
2058:10:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
2037:06:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
2024:04:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
1773:14:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
1738:07:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
1720:05:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
1699:07:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
1681:23:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
1660:18:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
1611:13:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
1589:13:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
1571:03:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
1554:11:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
1537:20:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
1516:18:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
1454:16:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
1431:07:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
1295:21:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
1271:07:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
1235:04:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
1208:19:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
1066:17:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
1043:07:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
1024:04:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
1010:essentially low profile
980:04:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
966:04:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
937:06:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
914:05:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
877:05:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
817:03:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
791:02:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
773:23:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
755:19:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
725:17:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
693:19:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
678:13:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
662:04:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
644:04:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
629:03:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
604:03:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
582:02:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
553:02:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
538:00:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
514:15:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
493:00:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
473:00:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
442:21:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
430:21:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
412:20:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
386:18:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
1919:of the article above.
1689:explain it a bit :P --
1525:Matthew Brown (Morven)
380:
117:of the article above.
374:
2303:Attack of the Clones
1667:for great justice.
1418:and only the scandal
1182:outside of the event
733:Sorry, but, are you
2413:Comment on redirect
367:the deletion review
92:the AfD instead of
2387:WP:Rough consensus
2086:. Seriously. :) -
1635:Clinton Whitewater
547:Christopher Parham
437:Reasonable close.
2481:
2480:
2367:
2262:
2130:
2077:
1880:
1879:
1787:
1679:
1658:
1569:
1324:") including the
1247:Lee Harvey Oswald
1219:Lee Harvey Oswald
1189:on several events
1116:, one I'm unsure
414:
410:
60:
59:
2485:
2476:
2440:I don't know if
2383:WP:SELFPUBlished
2363:
2329:
2327:
2254:
2251:
2120:
2071:
1989:
1975:
1957:
1924:
1882:
1875:
1855:
1853:
1785:
1673:
1654:
1651:
1565:
1542:Endorse deletion
504:censorship :P --
463:
400:
390:
339:
321:
291:for criticism.
257:
239:
187:
173:
155:
122:
84:, in particular
70:
56:
36:
31:
2493:
2492:
2488:
2487:
2486:
2484:
2483:
2482:
2472:
2469:deletion review
2325:
2323:
2249:
2143:guidelines. --
1998:
1992:
1985:
1984:
1978:
1948:
1932:
1920:
1917:deletion review
1871:
1868:deletion review
1851:
1849:
1649:
470:
459:
312:
296:
230:
214:
202:
196:
190:
183:
182:
176:
146:
130:
118:
115:deletion review
68:
61:
54:
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
2491:
2489:
2479:
2478:
2463:
2462:
2461:
2460:
2435:
2410:
2371:
2354:
2333:
2317:
2296:
2295:
2294:
2281:
2240:
2212:
2191:
2190:
2189:
2155:
2134:
2100:
2099:
2098:
2060:
2050:Colonel Warden
2039:
2000:
1999:
1996:
1990:
1982:
1976:
1927:
1926:
1911:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1878:
1877:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1842:
1841:
1840:
1839:
1818:
1817:
1807:Colonel Warden
1792:
1775:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1723:
1722:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1684:
1683:
1662:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1592:
1591:
1573:
1556:
1539:
1518:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1382:
1364:
1363:
1345:
1344:
1318:
1298:
1297:
1274:
1273:
1238:
1237:
1211:
1210:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1185:
1175:
1174:
1167:
1156:
1145:
1094:
1085:
1075:
1069:
1068:
1046:
1045:
1027:
1026:
995:
994:
993:
992:
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
968:
940:
939:
917:
916:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
820:
819:
805:Paul McCartney
794:
793:
776:
775:
758:
757:
728:
727:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
555:
540:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
496:
495:
475:
466:
444:
432:
415:
204:
203:
200:
194:
188:
180:
174:
125:
124:
109:
108:
107:
106:
67:
62:
58:
57:
49:
40:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2490:
2477:
2475:
2470:
2465:
2464:
2459:
2455:
2451:
2447:
2443:
2439:
2436:
2434:
2430:
2426:
2422:
2418:
2414:
2411:
2409:
2405:
2401:
2397:
2393:
2388:
2384:
2380:
2375:
2372:
2370:
2366:
2362:
2358:
2355:
2353:
2349:
2345:
2341:
2338:and close as
2337:
2334:
2332:
2328:
2321:
2318:
2316:
2312:
2308:
2304:
2300:
2297:
2293:
2290:
2288:
2287:
2282:
2280:
2277:
2276:
2272:
2267:
2266:
2265:
2261:
2257:
2253:
2252:
2244:
2241:
2239:
2236:
2234:
2233:
2228:
2224:
2220:
2217:and close as
2216:
2213:
2211:
2207:
2203:
2199:
2196:and close as
2195:
2192:
2188:
2184:
2180:
2176:
2175:
2174:
2170:
2166:
2165:
2159:
2156:
2154:
2150:
2146:
2142:
2138:
2135:
2133:
2128:
2124:
2119:
2118:
2113:
2108:
2104:
2101:
2097:
2093:
2089:
2085:
2082:
2081:
2080:
2075:
2070:
2069:
2064:
2061:
2059:
2055:
2051:
2047:
2043:
2040:
2038:
2035:
2031:
2028:
2027:
2026:
2025:
2022:
2021:
2017:
2013:
2009:
2005:
1995:
1988:
1981:
1973:
1969:
1965:
1961:
1956:
1952:
1947:
1943:
1939:
1935:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1928:
1925:
1923:
1918:
1913:
1912:
1907:
1904:
1900:
1895:
1891:
1890:
1886:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1876:
1874:
1869:
1864:
1863:
1858:
1854:
1847:
1844:
1843:
1838:
1834:
1830:
1826:
1822:
1821:
1820:
1819:
1816:
1812:
1808:
1804:
1800:
1796:
1793:
1791:
1788:
1783:
1779:
1776:
1774:
1770:
1766:
1762:
1758:
1753:
1748:
1745:
1744:
1739:
1735:
1731:
1727:
1726:
1725:
1724:
1721:
1717:
1713:
1709:
1706:
1705:
1700:
1696:
1692:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1682:
1677:
1672:
1671:
1666:
1663:
1661:
1657:
1653:
1652:
1644:
1640:
1636:
1632:
1628:
1623:
1620:
1619:
1612:
1608:
1604:
1603:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1590:
1586:
1582:
1577:
1574:
1572:
1568:
1564:
1560:
1557:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1543:
1540:
1538:
1534:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1519:
1517:
1514:
1510:
1505:
1502:
1501:
1488:
1484:
1480:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1470:
1466:
1461:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1451:
1447:
1446:
1440:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1419:
1415:
1410:
1409:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1383:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1362:
1358:
1354:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1343:
1339:
1335:
1330:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1305:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1283:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1253:. BLP is for
1252:
1248:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1223:Wikilawyering
1220:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1196:
1190:
1186:
1183:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1143:
1139:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1112:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1098:
1095:
1092:
1089:
1086:
1083:
1080:
1076:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1011:
1005:
1001:
997:
996:
981:
977:
973:
969:
967:
963:
959:
955:
951:
947:
944:
943:
942:
941:
938:
934:
930:
925:
921:
920:
919:
918:
915:
911:
907:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
878:
874:
870:
865:
861:
857:
853:
849:
845:
841:
836:
832:
828:
824:
823:
822:
821:
818:
814:
810:
806:
802:
798:
797:
796:
795:
792:
788:
784:
780:
779:
778:
777:
774:
770:
766:
762:
761:
760:
759:
756:
752:
748:
744:
740:
736:
732:
731:
730:
729:
726:
722:
718:
713:
710:
694:
690:
686:
681:
680:
679:
675:
671:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
659:
655:
651:
647:
646:
645:
641:
637:
632:
631:
630:
627:
623:
619:
615:
611:
607:
606:
605:
601:
597:
593:
589:
585:
584:
583:
579:
575:
571:
567:
563:
559:
556:
554:
551:
548:
544:
541:
539:
535:
531:
526:
523:
522:
515:
511:
507:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
494:
490:
486:
485:
479:
476:
474:
469:
464:
462:
456:
452:
448:
445:
443:
440:
436:
433:
431:
427:
423:
419:
416:
413:
408:
404:
399:
398:
393:
389:
388:
387:
384:
379:
378:
372:
368:
364:
360:
356:
352:
347:
343:
337:
333:
329:
325:
320:
316:
311:
307:
303:
299:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
274:
269:
265:
261:
255:
251:
247:
243:
238:
234:
229:
225:
221:
217:
212:
208:
199:
193:
186:
179:
171:
167:
163:
159:
154:
150:
145:
141:
137:
133:
129:
128:
127:
126:
123:
121:
116:
111:
110:
105:
102:
99:
95:
91:
87:
83:
79:
78:
74:
73:
72:
71:
66:
63:
53:
48:
44:
39:
32:
23:
19:
2473:
2466:
2446:Techno Union
2442:battle droid
2437:
2412:
2390:
2378:
2373:
2356:
2340:no consensus
2339:
2335:
2319:
2298:
2285:
2273:
2247:
2242:
2231:
2219:no consensus
2218:
2214:
2198:no consensus
2197:
2193:
2162:
2157:
2136:
2116:
2112:battle droid
2107:no consensus
2106:
2102:
2066:
2062:
2046:No consensus
2045:
2041:
2029:
2018:
2012:battle droid
2001:
1934:Techno Union
1921:
1914:
1893:
1889:Techno Union
1887:
1872:
1865:
1845:
1824:
1802:
1794:
1777:
1763:for keep. --
1760:
1757:no-consensus
1756:
1751:
1746:
1707:
1668:
1664:
1647:
1642:
1639:Keating Five
1638:
1634:
1631:Vicki Iseman
1630:
1621:
1600:
1575:
1558:
1541:
1520:
1503:
1459:
1443:
1417:
1413:
1321:
1314:
1310:
1282:John Hinkley
1258:
1254:
1250:
1188:
1181:
1170:
1163:
1159:
1152:
1148:
1103:
1053:
1009:
1007:
999:
953:
949:
826:
742:
734:
711:
610:Vicki Iseman
592:Vicki Iseman
561:
557:
542:
524:
482:
477:
460:
446:
434:
417:
396:
391:
375:
298:Vicki Iseman
216:Vicki Iseman
132:Vicki Iseman
119:
112:
93:
89:
77:Vicki Iseman
75:
64:
2425:Enric Naval
2400:Enric Naval
2227:Office 2007
2084:Wookiepedia
1829:Enric Naval
1730:Enric Naval
1691:Enric Naval
1546:KleenupKrew
1465:Enric Naval
1423:Enric Naval
1387:Enric Naval
1372:Enric Naval
1334:Enric Naval
1263:Enric Naval
1200:Enric Naval
1035:Enric Naval
972:Enric Naval
958:Enric Naval
924:red herring
906:Enric Naval
869:Enric Naval
801:red herring
783:Enric Naval
747:Enric Naval
741:I can see "
685:Enric Naval
654:Enric Naval
574:Enric Naval
506:Enric Naval
369:concerning
359:explanation
2392:discounted
2260:count/logs
1650:Horologium
1643:Tony Rezko
1326:Brady Bill
1108:result #10
1002:paragraph
65:4 May 2008
2344:Pixelface
2223:Microsoft
1782:Sjakkalle
1761:consensus
1142:result #1
1135:result #3
1131:result #4
1127:result #5
1122:result #6
1118:result #7
1114:result #8
1111:result #9
650:WP:PEOPLE
98:Mackensen
94:relisting
2438:Overturn
2365:complain
2357:Overturn
2336:Overturn
2320:Overturn
2286:Celarnor
2232:Celarnor
2215:Overturn
2194:Overturn
2158:Overturn
2127:Contribs
2117:lifebaka
2103:Overturn
2042:Overturn
1846:Overturn
1795:Overturn
1786:(Check!)
1778:Overturn
1747:Overturn
1712:Alansohn
1708:Overturn
1581:Eusebeus
1567:complain
1559:Overturn
1521:Overturn
1509:Dhartung
1504:Overturn
1353:Oakshade
1287:Oakshade
1227:Oakshade
1138:result#2
1125:Figure?"
1058:Oakshade
1016:Oakshade
1004:WP:BLP1E
948:states "
946:WP:BLP1E
929:Oakshade
864:this one
809:Oakshade
765:Oakshade
717:Oakshade
712:Overturn
622:WP:BLP1E
525:overturn
478:Overturn
461:xDanielx
447:Overturn
407:Contribs
397:lifebaka
342:WP:BLP1E
293:WP:BLP1E
289:coatrack
281:WP:BLP1E
264:WP:BLP1E
90:overturn
86:WP:BLP1E
47:2008 May
20: |
2450:PeaceNT
2396:WP:FICT
2374:Endorse
2299:Endorse
2243:Comment
2179:JoshuaZ
2141:WP:FICT
2137:Endorse
2063:Endorse
2034:Spartaz
2030:Endorse
1980:restore
1951:protect
1946:history
1799:WP:DGFA
1765:PeaceNT
1665:Endorse
1622:Endorse
1576:Endorse
1479:JoshuaZ
670:JoshuaZ
636:BusterD
626:John254
614:WP:NPOV
596:BusterD
558:Endorse
543:Endorse
530:JoshuaZ
439:Spartaz
435:Endorse
418:Endorse
383:John254
315:protect
310:history
273:WP:NPOV
233:protect
228:history
178:restore
149:protect
144:history
2202:Stifle
1955:delete
1899:Splash
1656:(talk)
1255:living
618:WP:BLP
550:(talk)
422:Stifle
363:WP:BLP
346:WP:BLP
319:delete
237:delete
153:delete
101:(talk)
82:WP:BLP
2361:@pple
2307:EEMIV
2275:Cobra
2271:Glass
2250:Jerry
2074:Help!
2020:Cobra
2016:Glass
2008:links
1987:cache
1972:views
1964:watch
1960:links
1894:noone
1676:Help!
1563:@pple
1460:event
1259:could
1164:every
1153:still
1104:still
1000:first
392:Note:
336:views
328:watch
324:links
254:views
246:watch
242:links
198:AfD 2
185:cache
170:views
162:watch
158:links
55:: -->
52:May 5
38:May 3
16:<
2454:talk
2429:talk
2404:talk
2348:talk
2311:talk
2256:talk
2206:talk
2183:talk
2169:talk
2149:talk
2145:Kesh
2123:Talk
2092:talk
2088:Kesh
2054:talk
1968:logs
1942:talk
1938:edit
1833:talk
1811:talk
1769:talk
1734:talk
1716:talk
1695:talk
1607:talk
1585:talk
1550:talk
1513:Talk
1483:talk
1469:talk
1450:talk
1427:talk
1391:talk
1376:talk
1357:talk
1338:talk
1291:talk
1267:talk
1251:dead
1231:talk
1225:. --
1204:talk
1081:and
1079:here
1062:talk
1039:talk
1020:talk
976:talk
962:talk
933:talk
910:talk
873:talk
860:here
856:here
854:and
852:here
848:here
844:here
840:here
833:and
813:talk
787:talk
769:talk
751:talk
735:sure
721:talk
689:talk
674:talk
658:talk
640:talk
616:and
600:talk
578:talk
562:only
534:talk
510:talk
489:talk
426:talk
403:Talk
332:logs
306:talk
302:edit
250:logs
224:talk
220:edit
166:logs
140:talk
136:edit
35:<
2389:: "
2225:to
2164:DGG
2068:Guy
1994:AfD
1801:is
1752:how
1670:Guy
1602:DGG
1445:DGG
1315:any
1249:is
1054:not
484:DGG
275:.
266:.
192:AfD
22:Log
2456:)
2431:)
2406:)
2350:)
2313:)
2258:¤
2208:)
2185:)
2171:)
2151:)
2125:-
2094:)
2056:)
2048:.
1970:|
1966:|
1962:|
1958:|
1953:|
1949:|
1944:|
1940:|
1903:tk
1901:-
1835:)
1813:)
1805:.
1771:)
1736:)
1718:)
1697:)
1609:)
1587:)
1552:)
1535:)
1511:|
1507:--
1485:)
1471:)
1452:)
1429:)
1393:)
1378:)
1359:)
1340:)
1293:)
1285:--
1269:)
1233:)
1206:)
1064:)
1041:)
1033:--
1022:)
978:)
964:)
935:)
912:)
875:)
867:--
850:,
846:,
842:,
815:)
789:)
771:)
753:)
723:)
691:)
676:)
660:)
652:--
642:)
624:.
602:)
580:)
572:--
536:)
512:)
491:)
471:\
428:)
405:-
334:|
330:|
326:|
322:|
317:|
313:|
308:|
304:|
252:|
248:|
244:|
240:|
235:|
231:|
226:|
222:|
168:|
164:|
160:|
156:|
151:|
147:|
142:|
138:|
96:.
45::
2452:(
2427:(
2402:(
2346:(
2309:(
2204:(
2181:(
2167:(
2147:(
2129:)
2121:(
2090:(
2076:)
2072:(
2052:(
1997:)
1991:|
1983:|
1977:(
1974:)
1936:(
1831:(
1809:(
1767:(
1732:(
1714:(
1693:(
1678:)
1674:(
1605:(
1583:(
1548:(
1533:C
1531::
1529:T
1527:(
1481:(
1467:(
1448:(
1425:(
1389:(
1374:(
1355:(
1336:(
1289:(
1265:(
1229:(
1202:(
1060:(
1037:(
1018:(
974:(
960:(
931:(
908:(
871:(
811:(
785:(
767:(
749:(
719:(
687:(
672:(
656:(
638:(
598:(
576:(
532:(
508:(
487:(
468:C
465:/
424:(
409:)
401:(
338:)
300:(
256:)
218:(
201:)
195:|
189:|
181:|
175:(
172:)
134:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.