Knowledge:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 5

2755:(the nom and two deletes against one keep which asserted notability and gave some searches), as well as anything else you think relevant (like whether I should have done more research into whether it was notable, or whatever) was one that should have been deleted then, or kept, or relisted. This is a BLP, remember, and we have an ethical duty to make sure that a BLP that isn't or can't or likely won't be maintained, should be gone. No article is better than a hurtful/harmful/potentially libelous article. Also, to those that said more research should have been done... how much? I'm saying it's not reasonable to expect a closer to read minds, if some amount of checking (how much is reasonable? 5 min? 20 min? 3 hours?) doesn't find the refs, the delete is in my view justified. Now, I've also been criticised (and probably rightly so) for not just userifying the article to Minos's talk space right away, as soon as he turned up. Yep, probably should have, and then committed to keep an eye on things (because remember, user space gets searched by Google and indexed and returns results just like articlespace, at least for now it does, and we certainly have had users making nice s in their user space... not that Minos necessarily would or wouldn't, but you never know, you have to keep an eye on that.)... all that said, was it a good delete at the time or no, and why? The feedback is useful, believe me. ++ 2398:

more work (the work that perhaps should have been done during the discussion) and found better evidence of notability. Excellent! Recreate the article, then, and add the sources that have now been found. I'll userify it myself to whoever asks, as I already offered. (or, perform a history merge to Davewild's version, if that makes more sense, whichever) But I think the proper outcome here is to endorse the deletion, as the deletion itself was proper... and then recreate the article, since there are now several enthusiasts ready to do good work on it, which was lacking before. DRV is about process, not about rearguing the AfD (which is what DGG and Fred Bauder are doing). Proper process was followed, in my view. I'll be delighted here if the outcome is that we end up with a better, more properly sourced article, that offers good evidence of notability. I'm inclusionist, remember? The article as it stood at the time, did not. Finally, the time that Minos P. Dautrieve and Enchantress of Florence spent casting aspersions in various places could better have been spent accepting my first offer of userification and improving the article, in my view. But that's just me. ++

3483:- Rewriting an article with generic and useful references is precisely what I did at the end of March for this very reporter. The article later got cluttered with "less-objective" material, I removed most of it when I found the time but it remained reasonably informative as far as I can remember. I have no intention of recommending the deletion of the equivalent bloggers, podcasters and what not, they are people gaining notability with their medium of choice. Many of them have been asked to participate in TV shows as experts. It's a sad sociological mesure of standards to use TV to gauge notoriety but what can we do. We're not talking about reality-show-style notoriety here, people like Natali Del Conte, Cali Lewis and others like Leo Laporte and Patrick Norton spend time researching complicated technology subjects and their opinion help form people's position on those subjects. The simple fact that this page has resurrected three times and generates a debate after deletion should already give you a clue we're not dealing with teenage-crush material but people with real a interest. 3528:– Overturn. I'll list it again at AfD. You really can't go speedy deleting things that have already survived a legitimate AfD. On checking the central claims in this DRV, I find them to be spurious. The article is not blatant advertising requiring a fundamental rewrite, certainly not of the kind of level that is typically treated with CSD G11. Furthermore, it seems from the DRV that there is the likelihood of a meaningful AfD debate (which may nevertheless conclude with deletion) regarding sources and the status and like of the thing. Finally, I think it is bound to cause over-excitement when someone makes a series of edits to the article in February 2008, before summarily deleting it two months later. Other people should be left to do such things and then we can help reduce 2830:

not examining the search results in detail, should have been sufficient to open up further discussion on sources and notability claims or concepts. At that point there was neither consensus nor indication that there isn't consensus, so for me it would have been a clear case for relisting. Instead of relisting or simply joining the discussion himself, the closer offered an extensive analysis of his own in the closure, which isn't really his role, shifting thus the whole focus from the diligence of the discussion to his own. As the debate has been closed as no consensus, I'd also disagree with applying the reversal of the default decision for BLPs, since that proposal is still being discussed. --

4182:, not much must have been left because it seems that the only notable thing that the company has ever done is Skytrain, aka company is not notable by itself, aka it should be only mentioned inside the article of the notable product. This was an obvious deletion that takes load out from AfD) If Unimodal is only famous for making Skytrain, then make only an article about Skytrain and speak about Unimodal on a section. It's obvious that the concept that made the company famous is more notable than the company itself. Also transport buffs will be way more interested on the concept than on the company. This way it's better for the encyclopedia 3789:. Objective is not a term I would use to describe this article, which documented a fictional concept in terms which made it very hard to tell that it was indeed fiction. It's been debated over a couple of years, during which time no sources which are not directly traceable to the originator have been produced. Newspapers reprinting the originator's publicity material do not magically make independent sources. There are no independent sources because there is no product. It has never existed, no prototype has been made. There has never been more than an artist's rendering. PRT now exists, in limited fashion, and looks 4006:

coverage from respectable outlets (NY Times twice, LA Times, etc) as long as it is clearly labelled as concept that has never been prototyped (and again, that's what the article said). Personally, I've always had some skepticism about SkyTran, and I think there are more developed systems that do not have their own articles (Taxi2000, maybe the Polish Mist-er), but the facts about SkyTran are quite verifiable: that Malewicki has worked on it for the last decade, and that he is still trying to get a prototype built. That, along with a very basic description of the concept, can be represented in an article, IMO.

2584:(ec)Several comments - Firstly as I said on Lar's talk page I don't mind either way whether this deletion review was reopened and said if anyone wanted to reopen they could. As to my opinion on the actual closure I believe the best thing to have done would have been to relist the discussion so further comments could been made after the assertion was made that sources were available. It is very likely that the sources that are now in the article would have been found and a consensus to keep would have formed. Finally I cannot see any consensus on 3321:

with your article, is that the community has already once taken time to evaluate this. The guidelines and policies are the same evrywhere, so this isn't unfair, but their application certainly isn't constant either, for a number of reasons, one of them being that the number of editors that are actually interested in more than a few articles is rather limited. In other words, this isn't a linear system, but one that while being governed by the same rules everywhere is overall constantly far from equilibrium. Once there are some more

2007:

brings 1800 for just that phase of his career --and is almost perfectly precise for getting the right person. . 2nd item on it is a profile of him on Forbes. About 1 in 10 are usable 3rd party substantial references. The closer compares the article with a similar one he closed, and that might also merit deletion review. The AfD should have been continued, not closed, but the material put forth by now is sufficient. The excessive protests about the deletion shouldn't prejudice us--we are looking at the article and the close.

4029:: while the concept has not been realised, many interesting concepts and ideas (including purely fictional ones) have articles in Knowledge. The New York Times magazine article from 6 May 2008 shows that the concept generates continuing interest more widely. And although the concept comes only from the inventors, this does not in principle prevent critical evaluation of the concept from independent third parties writing secondary sources, providing potential material for reporting here. I look on it rather like the 1412:"I haven't addressed your WP:V concerns" - so how do you endorse a deletion based on this meeting WP:V? You have found some sources, which is better than anyone else so far. Nevertheless, if you admit the WP:V concerns aren't addressed, why am I such a jerk for trying to apply WP:V, and why do you want to keep content that you say you can't prove meets sourcing requirements? All I ask is that policy be enforced here. Those sources are a start, but merely use the term "play party", so they run afoul of 1274:) clearly states "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". No one found sources beyond the one weak one already mentioned... the closer bought a classically weak argument (I'm sure it's in that "arguments to avoid at AFD" essay), so the close was not proper. I'm bringing to DRV instead of another AFD because I suspect an AFD would attract the same people and the same arguments, and perhaps the same policy-ignoring close... DRV seems a more appropriate venue. 2916:. The sources presented here do not persuade people that the notability threshold is crossed, being as they are videos of her or largely blogospheric material. These same points were made at the end of the AfD by Tikiwont. The claims of 'notability by accumulation' are not terribly persuasive, as revealed particularly by the "more famous every day" comment — the article should come back when the 'becoming famous' process has led to third-party discussions of the subject. – 3279:

detail as if they where they would be removed. There are BIO pages on this site about fictional people who existed in trivial TV shows. With no validation the sites of other Podcasters exits, and I am just unclear why this one person is being reviewed at what looks to me to be a higher degree then all others who currently exist. My reason for doing this is purely fairness and constancy across Knowledge. If someone can tell me why pages such as

3422:- This reporter is gaining notoriety every day, being invited as expert on debates, discussion panels, etc. If we can keep the page content under control, I can't see what the big problem is with a simple reference to who this person is, When people will look for her on Knowledge, they'll simply see who she is, where to find her work and see useful references to help them judge for themselves how notable she is or should be or shouldn't be.-- 1031:. You need to email info-en-c@wikimedia.org with a URL to the copyrighted material, and "provide enough information to substantiate your claim of copyright ownership." If it's not online, you may have to submit the copyrighted work via email or postal mail, to substantiate your claim. Please be aware that, in doing so, any material you post to Knowledge from that copyrighted source will be released under the 2541:

argument, which is what a large majority of commenters endorsed at the BLP talk page (whether it was consensus or not, or just a large majority... meh) .... if having a 70% margin isn't sufficient to get a policy changed, then there are a lot of AfDs that need overturning, not just this one. So I think there is merit in discussing further. The closer did agree that a reopen was fine with him. ++

3684:

suspect is most, the "company" of three people is trying to sell an idea for a rapid transit system, except no one's bought into it anywhere, and nowhere in the world is there a working prototype. This makes it difficult for secondary sources to say anything, because the product essentially does not exist. This means that anything there is to say about UniModal is

2863:

discussion still too 'light'. Their sole analysis would have been reflected by a relist to generate a "more thorough" discussion, while the close seemed to rather elaborate all possible arguments first before weighing them. More specifically it was you who went through the list of roles, the NYT articles and the Ghits adding also a comparison to another AfD.--

2249:, who self-identifies as a lawyer on his userpage. His comment begins "One of the most prominent lawyers in the USA." Now that would make me sit up and check, AGFing that this chap isn't someone trying to keep the article in because of CoI or POV - which is easily checked by determining whether he has edited it extensively and tendentiously in the past. 3885: 2257: 1440:

alienating other users and probably mobilizing opposition to your opinion. Replying to almost every single !vote in the AfD that you don't agree with merely highlights that !vote and gives it weight - and you are doing the same thing here. My endorsement of the close stands; there was no clear consensus, which defaults to a keep.

3403:- The topic is clearly the subject of multiple secondary sources and this was not known during the AfD until towards the end of the discussion period. While the closing administrator's closing was in good faith and proper, an AfD being improperly closed has never been the only reason we overturn AfD closings.-- 3029:

I must respectfully say that I didn’t appreciate that at that time when I reposted the story that I should have first done an undelete request as I am doing now. I didn’t know the process existed and the administrator I spoke to at that time didn’t inform me of this process. For this I do apologize.

3025:

Since then this person has become a host of CNET and has her own show on CNETTV called Loaded. In addition since being with CNET she tech guest on the Today Show (NBC), CNBC, Fox News as well as other significant TV programs. So the feeling was that the reason for the original deletion was no longer

2623:

As a newcomer to Knowledge, I recall thinking that it is, of course, encyclopedic to have the basic biographical details of most government officials, business leaders, etc. Where they were born, went to college, worked over the years. What's not obvious to a newcomer is how these articles can turn

1102:

know that you're the copyright holder. We have to ask you to prove it, otherwise we risk other people claiming to be copyright holders and releasing someone else's material into the public domain. That would be a legal problem for Knowledge, so care has to be taken to make sure we're actually talking

4033:

concepts which arose in the century or two before the actual tunnel was built, and which now appear in the History section of that article. PS I've been to Terminal 5 long term car park, and there is currently a coach service to and from the terminal. There is an internal rapid transit system though

3710:

where it will probably fail if more references cant be found. To me, the article reads as descriptive not promotional. Only the most obvious & unfixable advertisements are eligible for G11. The arguments of the deleting admin are essentially lack of notability, but that also needs AfD, since the

3346:

I don't like taking this decision, but the new sources provided look like fluff pieces and not real coverage of her. Also, there is no actual biographical data on those sources, they just cover her because of her work at journalist at a certain company, so she should appear listed on an article that

3278:

By the way I want to make it clear I am in no way connected to this person. I am not a fan or anything like that. I am only doing this because I think 1000s of other pages exist on Knowledge that should be removed before this page. And none of the other Bio pages have been reviewed to this level of

3238:

I am sorry I didn't know other sources from the person themselves had to say that she had a sister or a dog or a cat. :) Ok now that I understand the problem you have with the page I have found sources that could be used to support some of the other information on the page. Information that can not

2615:

and the actual English word "notable". I think most active Wikipedians tend to forget just how different WP usage and the general usage of this word are. I think that's at least part of the problem here. From the perspective of a Washington regulatory attorney, Lynch is clearly notable. From the

2281:

Again, how much searching is enough? If I spot check 15 articles in the search returns and all I find is mentions in passing, and baseball players and the like, the returns do seem deceptive to me. The onus should not be on the closer to determine if there are references somewhere... it should be on

2145:

I would not call the policy change "failed"... it had a majority in support, and I think you may want to examine some considerable number of other recent AfDs of a similar nature. I'm not launching a satyagraha, because policy here is descriptive. Do things a certain way, and have them stand, enough

1003:

If listenability was not an important subject, I would not be pursuing this. There has been extremely little research done on the subject, which I briefly reviewed in my article. You currently have no page on this subject. I would think that someone out there would be interested in getting this page

237:

I don't have time to do that, and considering that we want this encyclopedia to be contributed to, we should implement a much more efficient method of automatic notification -- which would involve simply generating a transcluded note on the relevant AfD page. This would be good for future reference.

4005:

Its conceptual nature is well documented in all the sources I've provided, and (as I recall) it was clearly labelled as such in the article. Every source indicated that he was seeking funding to build a prototype. There is nothing wrong with documenting a concept that has received independent media

2844:

Where do you think the close discussion veered from analysis of the arguments presented by those who opined into presenting my own arguments? I agree that's definitely a thing to be watched for... but I do think it's important for the closer to present an analysis of the arguments given, not just a

2514:

To some degree, Lar, isn't this just drama waiting to happen? Whether it was closed improperly or not seems immaterial at the moment. A solution was found at the end of DRV. Using DRV "for your own improvement" seems a bit of a stretch. (keeping in mind that I've already "endorsed" your previous

2397:

As the closer, I would reiterate what I said in the close... the article did not itself give evidence of notability (it had no references after all). The Google search given, when I spot checked its returns, did not give articles that gave strong evidence of notability either. Now, others have done

1721:

Actually I didn't revert back to "my version", I was careful to retain sources (well, attempts at them) that were added. And I did comment on the talk page... no one has replied yet. I'm sorry but you need to be more careful with what you imply about me... I'm not doing the stuff you allege, and it

1695:

Rividian, what you are doing to the article is not wrong (stubbing it basically), just be careful not to get in an edit war over it. The last thing I or anyone else wants here is for you to garner a very unnecessary block. Right now, you've substantially blanked the article (again, not inherently

1439:

For the record, I didn't call you a jerk, and certainly not for trying to maintain policy. Your attitude towards anyone who disagrees with you is another story, but I won't comment further. You may think you are merely making strong arguments, but in reality, you might want to consider that you are

3990:

There are many "theoretical" projects that are perfectly encyclopedic, precisely because people have taken an interest in them. You are repeating arguments you have said over and over again JzG. Ideas are valid items for wikipedia, as long as they can be cited and sourced - just like UniModal can.

3967:

You mean Malewicki was punting it again in the hope of getting investment for a prototype. He never has, of course. He is pitching way too high. None of that discussion is independent, since all details about the system come fomr Malewicki, there being no other possible source for a theoretical

3320:

The latest links look still very much like bloggers and podcasters blogging and podcasting about other bloggers and podcasters. If I understand correctly she actually worked for one of the sites in the past. So I have to stand by my opinion. Part of the problem that you have unfortunately run into

3187:

All of the biographical information has been independently verified by direct contact with Ms. Del Conte. The original writing of the Knowledge page was done by someone else who sent a long list of questions to Ms. Del Conte. Since that time I have spoken to here she informed me how the page was

2829:

which is what we should be looking at here not least by the closer's request. As the discussion presented itself, it wasn't 'closable' yet. The three initial keep opinions weren't very elaborated and lacked information what (if any) kind of sources had been looked for. The late keep opinion, while

1736:

I wasn't trying to imply anything about you Rividian, and my apologies that that is the impression you got. I saw your posts on the article talk page as well. I saw that you had three edits to the article with today's timestamp, all removing the same content. My advice was meant as merely that,

1640:

and all are casual mentions, as far as I can tell. This is related to GNAA because both were kept due to spurious arguments about the quality of sources, and promises that better sources would be found eventually. I would improve the article, except I improve articles using sources. Every source I

196:

as well as other print articles in Men's Health and various newspapers. By the way, how would I notify the people who were watching the AfD that this is being raised in a deletion review? Do deletion reviews should automatically place a notification on the AfD, for those who are still watching the

2862:

The close certainly needs to analyze or let's say weigh arguments. here, the keep arguments neither really addressed his jobs nor mentioned any search for sources, the keep mentioned Ghits and NYT coverage. At this point the arguments as presented were were few and rather sketches and the overall

1261:

This AFD was closed improperly because the closer somehow bought the dubious "sources will be found someday, but not today" argument. Despite being tagged for sourcing for 2 years and going to AFD over sourcing, all that was found was a half page of an in-genre book that confirms 1.5 sentences of

3860:

Also, I think the argument that a proper AfD should be foregone since a couple users think it will fail anyway.. is a falacious argument. Proper procedure should be followed in cases where there is any controversy. If I'm not wrong, the article has already survived an AfD (tho my memory might be

3683:

This article was deleted under CSD 11. Though the content was edited and pared down significantly from its original form, it was still purely promotional material based solely on the assertions of the company that is the subject of the article. For those unfamiliar with UniModal, which I would

993:

Sorry about that. The original article was deleted on October 22 2007 by butseriouslyfolks. The next day it was restored by Michael Hardy. It was again deleted by Spike Wilbury November 18 at 20:09, leaving no reason why he did that, other than notice of "blatant violation of copyright." What

3299:

Or maybe the issue is that to much detail exists on this page and some of it should be removed. Fair enough… That could be a valid point… I am not sure killing the whole page (tossing the baby out with the bath water) is the right approach for helping foster an environment where people want to

2781:

reference, which clearly demonstrates notability, was made known after the few and majority "delete" votes came in. As always, I have issue with the deletion of articles when references are easily found I believe it should be a requirement for closing administrators to at least perform minimal

2006:

Chief Legal Officer for Morgan Stanley is almost certain to have multiple references when looked for, and so it did. The link added to the NY list is obviously sufficient -- literally dozens of articles; almost all are obviously the same person. Google search for +"Gary Lynch" +"Morgan Stanley"

2588:

to change the default for no consensus BLPs. A straight vote shows 60.99% in favour of changing of changing the default (and that takes those who said things like 'support only if' and the ip address with no other contributions). I cannot believe that 60% is a consensus to change policy so the

2705:

Good analysis, JayHenry, you often bring an excellent fresh look to things, I'm glad you stopped by. I'd never considered myself "hard-bitten" before, but I think you nailed it. And it's precisely this sort of wider ranging commentary I was hoping to get by keeping the DRV open even after the

4225:

Why are we discussing the merits of an article here. if it has any merits worth discussing, it should go to AfD. And we seem to be discussing a possible merge--that should go the article talk page. Deletion Review is not for dealing with all the problematic articles in Knowledge - it is for

2540:

Maybe. But I hope not. I do personally welcome the input. If taking it to my talk is the way to go, I guess that would be fine too. But it's not just about me, I think it's larger, I think we have had a large number of closes of BLP AfDs lately that have advanced the "no consensus is delete"

3021:

Hello a few weeks ago I reposted a web page that was deleted. As part of that process I asked a Knowledge administrator why it was originally deleted. I was informed at the time of the original removal of the page the subject in question (Ms. Natali Del Conte) was did not achieve a level

1989:

but support userfying and improving the article to a higher standard by anyone interested so that it can be reposted in articlespace at a future time. Lar's close wasn't flawed - the arguments in the AfD were minimal, and "Gary Lynch" isn't exactly a unique name to search for on the 'net.

1416:

which says "we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term". There's nothing in WP:CIVIL that says I can't make strong arguments... the only incivil thing I've said is the word "jerk" but that was referencing myself.

1076:

The other quote came was just a couple sentences that came from an online book of mine. I will send both to info-en-c as you recommended and we will see what happens. Will they know what I am talking about? Does the deleted piece exist somewhere still? Will I have to repost the article?

1292:

which fairly represents the discussion. No objection to nominating it again in a month if nobody works on it. That would be an appropriate AfD2. Deletion review, however, is not. To say that one is bringing it here in the hope of finding a more sympathetic audience is Forum Shopping.

3384:

Granted that no individual reference is compelling, but cummulativley these show a person who is noticed by independent 3rd party journals. When we get to splitting hairs, let's remeber that we should error on the side of providing the most information to our reader's benefit.

3033:

I know at this time Ms. Del Conte has now achieved more main stream credibility then may others who currently have long standing pages on Knowledge. Therefore with great respect for the fine work done on this site, I would like to request a review of this judgment if possible.

1613:

the existing article isn't very good, but if it bothers you so much, work on it. Change it. Make it conform - but comparing this to the Gay Nigger association is a bad-faith strawman argument - how the two things are similar is beyond me. In fact, I should probably put this on

1007:

Should I attempt to repost that page? Would that be the best way to get someone's attention? Dealing with the bureaucracy and the really strange way you have of communicating here makes it very difficult for scholars and other knowledgeable people who would like to contribute.

924:

I contributed this article in October 2008. There was a question about the copyright of two quotes which I took up with butseriouslyfolks and OTRS. They acknowledged receipt of the verification, but the page has not been restored. What do I have to do to have it restored?

1072:

One of the quotes that you contested came from my online newsletter that I used in the Wiki piece was a quote from Cicero. The translation that I used has been in the public domain since 1776. How can that be a copyright violation? Can anyone hold a copyright on Cicero?

1498:

The person I was replying to said "you are alienating other users and probably mobilizing opposition to your opinion". So that implies people are opposing because of me, not because of the article. I was just replying to what was said... it's not my fault he put it out

2482:– As agreed with Lar, the deleting admin, I have restored the article with my userspace version history merged in. Regardless of whether the closure was correct or not the article has now been sourced to establish notability and restored thus resolving the matter – 3222:- I had given a close look at the available sources in the original AfD and going through the latest version I still don't see that we now have enough substantial coverage about herself from independent (as in independent from Ms Del Conte) reliable sources.-- 2558:

In that case, your punishment is your reward:-) Even though I personally think this may be better served on talkpages (yours, BLPs, someone elses...have fun! (Also, for the DRV closer, I stand by my initial post here -- endorse deletion, allow recreation...)

2496:

I have undone the close (per agreement with Davewild), because I welcome more input on this. The article has been recreated, properly sourced, but if this AfD was closed improperly I would like to learn from it so please see if there is a consensus... thanks!

2023:

These arguments should have been advanced during the deletion discussion, or better, the things behind them used to enhance the article. We cannot expect closers to be mind readers, we can only ask them to evaluate whatever arguments and links are presented.

216:

you should leave them a notice on their talk page. There is no automated process for this. Remember that you should leave notices for *all* participants. If you leave notices only to those that you think that will vote to keep then that would be considered

2845:

statement, because in other DRV's we have seen closers get faulted for apparently closing the way they felt like or for not giving the arguments presented suitable weight... this is a balance I think. If this one went too far that would be good to know. ++

3730:

per JDoorjam's reasoning. If it's going to fail AFD anyway, as asserted by DGG and Stifle, why waste the community's time? Bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy is pointless. Let it stay deleted. No sources, no notability = no article. Call it an

2706:

proximate issue was resolved... No I'm not quite sure how to close the chasm of meaning either. We can point newcomers to various help texts, essays and the like till we are blue in the face but that won't quite do it. But this does need some thought. ++

2628:

S", smear campaigns or prank hatchet jobs against marginally significant or even by right completely private citizens. Again, neither side is incorrect. It's just an understanding deficit between those initiated in our ways, and those with a fresh

1641:

find with this term has useless information... like "Bondage Land is a blend of play party, skits, disco, and carnival". That's just not encyclopedic in any way... and yet it's one of the sources people keep suggesting we use for this article. --

1990:

Information turned up after it was closed presents the article in a different light, I assume (can't see the actual article as it was) and so it seems like an entry could be crafted. Is there a vote for "endorse deletion but recreate article"?

2728:

Without researching the history, I won't comment on what should have happened, but the article now appears to meet the criteria for inclusion. It seems to be undeleted now, so I'm not sure wheter to say endorse or overturn -- just keep it.

1046:

released under the GFDL, so keeping that material would have caused problems with your own copyright on that material. If you really want to re-use it here, the process takes a little time, but it will make sure things are done properly. --

1065:

I had given permissions permission to use what I had quoted. Butseriouslyfolks had told me originally that the only concern was that I had to verify my copyright ownership and to identify myself, which I did. That apparently wasn't enough.

1080:

The general rule of copyright law is that enforcement is incumbent on the owners. People who go around trying to protect other people's property only create damage, as in this case. You don't have to protect me against myself. Please!

3086:

Since Moving to CNET she is now been on Fox News and NBC and CNBC. I don’t have great access to all references as most of them existed on her Knowledge page. But here is what I can find with a quick Google search. Hope this helps.

1270:. Despite the closers confused argument that "assertions made by several editors that sources were out there. There were assertions made by several editors that sources were not out there. Strong arguments on both sides" policy ( 4127:

looks to be brand new, just added in the last week. I believe UniModal is the company, SkyTran is the concept. They are often used interchangeably, though I believe the term SkyTran is older and more common in discussions.

2061:

as above... should have been advanced during the AfD. But now, just use this material to improve the article. I'll userify it to wherever, or merge with Davewild's userpage or whatever seems to make more sense, just ask.

3075:

I don’t want to debate to much about the logic behind the original delete because I honestly think that was not fair, due to the fact that many other pages have existed on far more minor internet celebrities then Ms. Del

2206:

up, but I don't think my condition was out of line, much less stronger than yours. We DO have a policy that random mentions don't carry much sand. My checking (close enough or not) found only random mentions. The article

3295:

and 100s of other just like him also have Knowledge pages. If your going to remove lots of Bios such as some of the others I have mentioned then fair enough I just want to make sure the approach is constant and fair.

3022:

credibility to obtain a reference on this site. However even in the original deletion it was noted that the subject was in the process of moving to a new job where they could likely become worthy of a Knowledge page.

1317:? How many poorly closed AFDs to we have to sit through before policy is actually applied here? To me it's just as bad as "forum shopping" to keep nominating for AFD again and again, hoping the right people show up. -- 4150:

pushing Malewicki's fantasy. Where the hell do they all come form? I swear that 100% of the entire world's population of PRT enthusiasts edits Knowledge - and the whole lot of them would fit in a single Ultra pod.

2180:

In the close, Lar says "There is no specific biographical mention given. So notability is not conferred by Gary having been the subject of a substantial biography in book form, or multiple substantial biographies in

4254:" is inadequate, but the rest of the rationale gives solid reasoning for deletion, and I agree with that reasoning. The fact that he let a personal opinion slip in at the end of a correct rationale is a reason to 3641:

Reading through the article's history, it becomes clear that this was added to the project as purely promotional material. The bare bones that remain seem to outline an untested idea that no one wants to invest

269:

of the previous voters expressed their opinion on the article without several of the 7 independent references (newspapers, magazines, and 1 book). Their expressions are therefore at least somewhat invalidated.

2589:

existing default to keep should continue. A more limited proposal might persuade some of those opposing (such as me - see my comments there) to support it but the change does not have consensus at the moment.

4226:

discussing the merits of deletion decisions. This deletion decision to use speedy is acknowledged to be wrong even by the people who want to sustain it. If anyone wants to change the reasons for speedy to :

1696:

wrong), but when reverted, you have now reverted back to your version twice. A friendly bit of advice to you that you need to use the talkpage of the article and not just edit summaries with reversions.

4367:. Promotes some entity? Apparently so. Exclusively? Seems like it. Needs a rewrite? Sure does. A fundamental, rip-it-up-and-start-again rewrite? Very probably. We don't need an AfD for stuff like this. 3819:" - the article repeatedly reiterated that it is a PROPOSED system, exactly because you complained and complained about that. That problem has been fixed for over a year JzG, quit yelling about it. 4052:

The ULTra system at Heathrow is not scheduled to begin operating until 2009, so you can't ride it yet (though you can probably get a look at the guideway, which I believe is at or near completion)

3303:

Again I say all of this with tremendous respect for you as unpaid administrators just trying to do the right thing. I am just trying to build a better site so we are all on the same side... --

2150:. Consensus on this matter is changing. I'm just chivvying it along a bit. I don't really think this aspect of your argument stands... you can still carry the day using the other two points. ++ 1559:

Apparently, it took 26 months, one afd, and a deletion review. Thank you Rividian, for bringing a subpar article to the attention of the community. There is now a plethora of sources found by

2109: 4348:. I've read two different versions in the article's history. One of them is advertising copy for a non-existant product, and the other is simply a description of a non-existant product. -- 2688:. (We needn't quibble over the strength of the divergence, I hope most people can see my point here: these terms have non-obvious legalistic interpretations that are exclusive to Knowledge.) 1340:"closed improperly", "closer bought the dubious", "confused argument", "closer bought classically weak", "policy-ignoring close". Someone's fired up about this. Putting aside your obvious 4186:. When Unimodal has two very notable products each one with its own article, or when the company has coverage that is not on the context of covering its products, then come back to DRV -- 1541:

There were 26 months to find sources... how much more time do we have to wait? It's disappointing that we should keep an article around due basically to bureaucracy. Do we really need

1528:. No objection to a renomination, as DGG suggests, in a month or two if there has been no improvement. This is using DRV to forum-shop despite Rividian's protests to the contrary. -- 2188:

in favour of excluding articles in which the subject has not received substantial biographical coverage, but only coverage about his or her isolated statements, opinions or actions.

175: 1349: 2049:

article clearly shows notability. It's just a matter of improving the article a bit and finding more information. No reason to have to draft the article on some other page.

4250:

DGG, you are right, I corrected my vote to make clear why I don't oppose the deletion even if it's a speedy. I was veering off-topic. About the speedy rationale, the part "

2256:

for "Gary Lynch"+SEC. There are 1500 articles listed, all of which on the first several pages appear to be about this Gary Lynch. Several are detailed profiles, including

521: 4405: 3438:- The article deleted failed to meet our standards. If you think she's notable now, create a new article; but lose the bloggers and podcasts, the video links, etc. Read 1252: 3325:

for Ms Del Conte you can just ask for the draft to be restored into your userspace and work on it. Meanwhile I hope you you stay around to improve things elsewhere.--

3012: 537: 1605:

of Google news hits for this topic. Nine pages. It's been covered, it's notable, these things happen and it's not just a chat room term. Many of those articles are

670:, whose sole contribution to Knowledge was this article and asking for the site to be removed from the sapm blacklist, where it was placed due to rampant spam, see 2611:

If I could offer a somewhat different observation regarding what occurred here: it seems that at least part of the problem is the rather broad divergence between

1110:

have to repost the article, but once the copyright issue is resolved, any admin should be able to un-delete the article for you so you can work on it again. --

530:

The article of "Zorpia" was deleted due to its lack of notability. However it has received multiple non-trivial coverage by a few major news sources recently.

3880:- This survived deletion two years ago, and has received some attention recently in California as a possible future transit solution. Here are some sources: 1000:

There were two quotes that were questioned, both of which came from my materials and of which I own copyright. I explained that at the time to permissions.

3688:

purely promotional, because there's nothing to say about UniModal except what UniModal says about themselves. My opinion is still that this article should

997:

I have left a review of deletion with both butseriouslyfolks and Spike Wilbury. I have also emailed permissions en at wikimedia asking what the problem is.

2105:

saw a failed attempt to introduce into the wording of BLP the recommendation that marginal BLPs with no consensus at AfD default to delete instead to keep.

3905: 2131:

me he intended to ignore that page, saying "I think if we start doing what we know is right in this matter, we'll find that consensus has indeed changed."

2120:

that cleaved closely to policy - and found in the opposite direction. Perhaps fortunately, they were able to work it out collegially and agreed to relist.

2752: 2253: 1954: 1637: 3442:

for further guidance. If there are that many podcasters and other non-notables out there, then tag the non-notable ones with the appropriate notices;

279: 251: 206: 955:

Which right date, the date I posted the article, the first time it was removed, the second time it was removed? My correspondence with permissions?

132: 127: 51: 37: 2777:(As it was recreated after this DRV began, there's going to be some confusion as to the intent of the "overturn" and "endorse" votes here.) - The 3768:

Um. Keeper? Did you even look at the article. It has a ton of sources... Please actually look at the page in question before giving your opinion.

2743:

This perhaps is a bit of an odd DRV since it's being prolonged at my request... the question is not, at least to me, whether the article as it is

136: 2616:

perspective of a hard-bitten Wikipedian, who's trying to help diffuse BLP land mines having seen how explosive they can be, Lynch is not clearly

1745:

be stubbed, but that doesn't mean continually reverting to your preferred version (even if it's the "right" version). The same advice goes to

515: 46: 1209: 1204: 582: 368: 161: 119: 2969: 2964: 1213: 4325:- I removed the "cache" of the page - since it is an incorrect cache. People are basing their opinions on the current, and poorly written 1459:

There is no policy against replying to weak arguments... if people want to keep a questionable article to spite me, that's rather sad. --

3446:

is not an argument for retention or restoration of a non-notable, but rather a sorrowful acknowledgement that we don't catch 'em all. --

3366:

Request to have the draft moved to your userspace. So when the correct sources become on-line this will not have to be all repeated. --

2973: 647: 1238: 1196: 239: 2998: 2956: 1602: 1542: 872: 867: 538:

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=16&art_id=58722&sid=16778833&con_type=1&d_str=20071217&fc=1

42: 915: 4230:

That's similar to the policy for blatant BLP violations, and I dont think that method of working applies to articles in general.

346:

Having re-read the article / sources, I think the consensus established at AfD is still accurate. Notability isn't established. --

1681:. Despite what people want to assume about me, I will drop this the minute there actually are credible sources shown to exist. -- 876: 574: 1389:. All the energy spent trying to get this deleted probably could have made the article half as long and much more well sourced. 418:– Requests for a userspace draft were not responded to, therefore with no suggestions to overturn the deletion it is endorsed – 4329:, NOT the page that was deleted. I still want to see the article *before* it was deleted. Can someone PLEASE make that happen? 2274:

Lar dismissive these comprehensive results - which should meet even his standards, surely - as "deceptive". I have no idea why.

3630: 2309:

So I am not saying we should overturn on the basis of the fact that "this chap is notable". (Though the man that brought down

3243: 1911: 1906: 1028: 901: 859: 2747:

should be a keep. I don't think anyone here debates that, certainly not me... The question is whether the article as it was

766:

Based primarily on the Standard article, I suspect the possibility of an article. Let's see a userspace draft written from

3268: 3163:

unless and until non-trivial independent biographical sources are available. We have too many thinly-sourced biographies

2452:

followed, Lar; you applied a standard that did not achieve consensus when discussed and ignored an informed keep argument.

1915: 275: 247: 202: 21: 4209: 4071: 4039: 3585: 3580: 2463: 641: 3589: 1940: 1898: 1673:(edit conflict) As I said, these sources mention the term but do not come close to providing the coverage required by 2268: 3881: 2046: 1968: 327:

Looking at the article, and reading the sources added , they do not show notability for the company as a company.

192:

is the last version. 5/22 of the people (23%) voted Keep before seeing these new sources. These new sources include

3239:

yet be supported by independednt sources could be removed form the page, and added in time when such sources exist.

3080:

That said to answer your question Ms. Del Conte moved from a podcast to working on her own show on CNET TV. Link:

2790: 472: 467: 4408:

before. Speedy anything that previously survived a deletion debate is blatant violation of the deletion policy. --

4228:

I think its not notable, and I think the people at deletion Review are likely to agree with me, it can be deleted.

3897: 3639:

The UniModal article was clearly cited and objective. JDoorjam deleted "UniModal" based on his sole opinion that "

717:

It was removed when the risk of spamming was thought to eb reduced. I still clean out the occasional link to it.

4428: 3944:, and the current SkyTran article pretty much covers it. So if the SkyTran article is kept, then I would vote to 3614: 3572: 3551: 3503: 3443: 3248: 2935: 2887: 2854: 2816: 2764: 2715: 2550: 2506: 2407: 2381:

Actually I believe the closure should be overturned based on the arguments above but recreate anyway regardless.

2295: 2224: 2159: 2071: 2033: 1877: 1832: 1175: 1130: 838: 789: 476: 438: 393: 374: 98: 17: 3893: 2677: 271: 243: 198: 123: 3205:. Nothing to indicate the deletion was either out of process, nor that anything has changed re: notability. 2354: 2091:

Lar is an awfully nice chap and a more than competent administrator. However, this decision needs overturning.

2660:, are all words and concepts that, in the real world, mean something slightly to dramatically different from 2215:. And I did look. Perhaps not successfully enough. (that is why I asked that this be kept going longer...) ++ 1385:

concerns, which are valid for eviscerating the current article or going on a massive sourcing campaign - but

1042:

I'm sorry this process is so confusing, but it's really for your protection. Anything posted to Knowledge is

597: 552: 4371: 4205: 4106: 4067: 4035: 3671: 3064: 2319: 2246: 1862: 1817: 945: 823: 757: 653: 559: 501: 459: 423: 315: 84: 2271:

that would at least grab the eye enough (His name's in the headline!) to make a closing admin keep looking.

3390: 2734: 1200: 975: 608: 583:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ET_Features/The_Sunday_ET/Long_time_no_talk/rssarticleshow/1929648.cms

189: 115: 76: 3263: 1473:

The idea that you believe that people are replying/posting here to "spite you" is what is actually sad.

4388: 4334: 4309: 4263: 4191: 3996: 3866: 3849: 3824: 3773: 3649: 3352: 3210: 3188:

created and she has also validated that all of the Biographical information on this page is correct. --

2960: 2053: 1797: 1627: 1449: 1398: 863: 704: 619: 298: 226: 592:, launched in 1961, is India's largest financial daily with a daily readership of over 650,000 copies. 188:

mentions at the end, right before it was deleted, that he added more sources to establish notability.

4290: 3465: 3453: 659: 371: 3159:

Cited sources are just videos with her in them. These are not sources we can use for a biography.

974:

is asking for the correct date of your contributions. That said, your best bet is to follow up with

4417: 4392: 4374: 4357: 4338: 4313: 4295: 4267: 4241: 4213: 4195: 4164: 4137: 4114: 4075: 4061: 4043: 4015: 4000: 3981: 3957: 3917: 3870: 3853: 3828: 3806: 3777: 3759: 3722: 3702: 3675: 3653: 3540: 3492: 3470: 3412: 3394: 3375: 3356: 3334: 3312: 3231: 3214: 3197: 3180: 3154: 3134: 3068: 3049: 2924: 2872: 2857: 2839: 2819: 2802: 2767: 2738: 2718: 2700: 2681: 2598: 2579: 2553: 2535: 2509: 2491: 2467: 2438: 2410: 2390: 2374: 2361:, this version clearly establishes notability and should be fine in addressing concerns from AFD. ( 2345: 2324: 2298: 2283: 2227: 2162: 2074: 2056: 2036: 2018: 1998: 1980: 1976: 1866: 1821: 1802: 1769: 1731: 1716: 1690: 1650: 1632: 1583: 1554: 1536: 1508: 1493: 1468: 1454: 1426: 1403: 1326: 1304: 1283: 1164: 1119: 1092: 1056: 1017: 987: 964: 949: 934: 855: 827: 810: 778: 761: 745: 730: 708: 686: 623: 427: 382: 357: 338: 319: 302: 283: 255: 230: 210: 87: 3817:

documented a fictional concept in terms which made it very hard to tell that it was indeed fiction

3258: 3118:

and others have pages on Wikipeida. Also many more people who exist to smaller audiences such as

4368: 4353: 4099: 3901: 3889: 3746: 3698: 3488: 3427: 3408: 3330: 3292: 3227: 3119: 2868: 2835: 2798: 2696: 2625: 2594: 2585: 2566: 2522: 2487: 2425: 2386: 2370: 2315: 2124: 2102: 1756: 1727: 1703: 1686: 1646: 1570: 1550: 1533: 1504: 1480: 1464: 1422: 1374: 1322: 1279: 1160: 630: 589: 81: 3280: 3253: 2264: 4413: 3386: 3371: 3308: 3193: 3130: 3045: 2730: 2685: 2617: 2612: 1192: 1151: 671: 218: 4279:- original deletion was sound, based on the spammy article as written. I take no position on 3100: 3095: 4384: 4330: 4305: 4259: 4187: 3992: 3862: 3845: 3820: 3769: 3645: 3537: 3348: 3206: 2952: 2921: 2908: 2459: 2282:

the article improvers to add them. And I've done my share of improving, (believe me, I take

2050: 1996: 1789: 1619: 1560: 1441: 1390: 1155:– Someone already took it to AFD again, which is what consensus of the DRV was for anyway – 1088: 1013: 960: 930: 771: 700: 635: 629:

Try a userspace workup, the deleted article was a mess of spam written mostly by users like

615: 294: 222: 2620:. Neither are incorrect incidentally. It's WP:NOTABLE and the word notable that disagree. 193: 4284: 4255: 4133: 4057: 4011: 3953: 3913: 3459: 3447: 3244:

http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/02/textras-natalie-del-conte-leaves-podshow-for-cnet-tv/

2669: 2127:

explicitly notes that there is no consensus to change. He, with his customary politeness,

1902: 1362: 1341: 567: 3005: 1947: 1245: 1098:

Sounds like you've got things in hand, now. As to "protecting you," the issue is that we

908: 508: 168: 4178:(speedy was correct because, once you move all the Skytrain info to its proper place in 1368: 4030: 3269:

http://sarahmeyers.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/natali-del-conte-the-next-veronica-belmont/

2341: 2310: 2117: 1972: 1964: 1344:

issues and the clear agenda you have, let's take a look at notability for this article:

1115: 1052: 983: 767: 696: 377: 1545:

to realize WP:V applies to an article, even if a bunch of people like that article? --

4349: 4237: 4159: 4153: 4147: 3976: 3970: 3801: 3795: 3752: 3740: 3736: 3732: 3718: 3693: 3663: 3576: 3484: 3439: 3423: 3404: 3326: 3223: 3175: 3169: 3164: 3150: 2864: 2850: 2831: 2812: 2794: 2760: 2711: 2692: 2673: 2665: 2590: 2572: 2560: 2546: 2528: 2516: 2502: 2483: 2431: 2419: 2403: 2382: 2366: 2291: 2220: 2155: 2147: 2067: 2029: 2014: 1762: 1750: 1746: 1723: 1709: 1697: 1682: 1678: 1642: 1576: 1564: 1546: 1529: 1500: 1486: 1474: 1460: 1418: 1413: 1356:

worthy, but shows that the term is in heavy use for some time and is not a neologism.

1318: 1300: 1275: 1156: 725: 719: 681: 675: 334: 2313:

is, really.) I'm saying the close was flawed in intent and execution. Sorry, Lar! --

1069:

Anyway, I will do what you say and see if that works. It is all so dumb, isn't it?

4409: 3367: 3322: 3304: 3189: 3126: 3056: 3041: 2661: 2286:

pretty seriously, I'm inclusionist) but I was the closer, not one of the voters. ++

2134:

This explains the puzzling policy-exceptionalism of this close. Lar is launching a

815: 775: 742: 544: 347: 265:

Some of the below say that 'consensus was overwhelming', 'this is not AfD 2', ect.

185: 3606: 3105: 3090: 2990: 2691:

Not sure what the solution is, but this is at least part of what happened here. --

2123:

In puzzlement, I urged him on User talk:Lar to reconsider this, pointing out that

1932: 1230: 1023:

Ah, I think I understand now. Simply stating that you are the copyright holder is

893: 493: 153: 3273: 1062:

Thanks, Kesh, I really appreciate that. Sorry about all the trouble this caused.

3667: 3533: 3288: 3115: 3060: 2917: 2455: 1991: 1858: 1813: 1674: 1382: 1353: 1314: 1310: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1084: 1009: 971: 956: 941: 926: 819: 753: 463: 419: 311: 3059:, how she has become more notable since the original deletion on January 23rd? 2260: 4129: 4053: 4007: 3949: 3909: 3793:. Not that I've seen it, I've not used the Heathrow terminal 5 car park yet. 3284: 3249:

http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/03/17/why-is-natali-del-conte-speaking-spanish/

3111: 2478: 2135: 1894: 1853: 3081: 2418:, which was properly done, support recreation with new sources, as per Lar. 2337: 1111: 1048: 979: 3936:

article, which was just created two weeks ago. There is no need for both a

3842:

Would someone mind giving me a way to look at the article and its history?

1039:

can reuse your work without your permission, even for commercial purposes.

673:

and several delist requests from the same addresses as wrote the article.

598:

http://www.enterpriseinnovation.net/article.php?id_article=2108&page=1

553:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119075761457639146.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

4232: 4179: 4094: 3937: 3713: 3568: 3524: 3145: 2846: 2808: 2756: 2707: 2542: 2498: 2399: 2287: 2216: 2151: 2108:

Lar didn't approve of this, and, so disapproving, closed the contentious

2063: 2025: 2009: 1295: 329: 2191:

Opinion clearly disagrees with me on this interpretation of notability.

4326: 4280: 4258:, but I don't think that it's a reason to overturn a correct speedy. -- 4124: 4090: 3941: 3933: 2783: 2173:

Second, because it runs contrary to policy and custom about notability.

1609:

these events. I don't know why you're so hellbent on deleting this - I

607:

is an technology publication under Questex Media Group which also owns

604: 310:, closer correctly interpreted the discussion. DRV is not AFD round 2. 3264:

http://nymieg.blogspot.com/2008/03/natali-del-conte-ripoff-artist.html

2807:

How much work is reasonable? How easy is easy. I hear you, though. ++

455: 414: 4383:

This already *survived* an AFD! Can I please see the old article???

2446:. Subject is obviously important with significant press coverage. 238:

In fact, many things need to be automatically linked together. I've

3711:

existence of the NYT article is a clear assertion of significance.

3790: 2363:

don't mind whether the original decision is endorsed or overturned

1381:

This is clearly a notable subject. But, I haven't addressed your

3662:

and list at AFD. Deletion was not in accordance with any of the

1032: 4204:

I like this idea. The product is interesting, not the company.

3259:

http://www.crunchnotes.com/2006/12/18/natali-leaves-techcrunch/

2454:

I support recreating as a sourced stub and working from there.

2336:

but support userfying pending proper references, per Avruch. --

1563:

above, ready to be added to the article that was not deleted.

3844:

I haven't been to it in a long while, and I'm not an admin...

1788:

For the record, the article is much better the way it is now.

1741:

a block as I feel you would not deserve a block. The article

1350:

Hundreds of Google hits from various organizations and forums.

3254:

http://www.centernetworks.com/natali-del-conte-welcome-to-nyc

3122:

and 100s of other just like him also have wikipedia pages.

4404:

This should be clear. The page in question (or part of it)

3110:

I should also add that a number of other Cnet host such as

2110:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Hema Sinha (2nd nomination)

2094:

First, because it runs contrary to policy about consensus.

814:– Copyright status unconfirmed so cannot restore. List on 3101:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/24197124#24197124

3096:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/24103730#24103730

940:

Well, first of all, giving us the right date would help.

2265:

this from the sadly defunct but very reliable Regardie's

577:

is a listed multi-media conglomerate in the Philippines.

184:

New evidence of notability raised at end of discussion

3602: 3598: 3594: 2986: 2982: 2978: 2786: 2748: 2185: 2128: 2113: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1226: 1222: 1218: 978:

or another email to OTRS. DRV won't touch copyvios. --

889: 885: 881: 665: 568:

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=94254

489: 485: 481: 149: 145: 141: 3666:. However I don't think the article will survive AFD. 3347:

has a list of journalists working for that company. --

2782:

amount of research into a topic before deleting. The

994:

violation of what copyright? There was no violation.

2195:, Lar's more stringent condition is more out of line. 2184:

I have argued in the past - in fact, on one occasion

2751:, taking into account the arguments advanced in the 194:

an article in Edge Magazine focused on a RSD course

4176:Endorse deletion, redirect and merge into Skytrain 3644:" I very much doubt a proper AFD exists for this. 2473:( The following was Davewild's close statement:) 2353:based on the userspace version I have created at 2245:The third, and only informed comment, came from 2238:Thirdly, because Lar didn't look closely enough. 1963:Creating a discussion in the relevant place per 4252:an untested idea that no one wants to invest in 3106:http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=722762374 3091:http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=657645382 2267:. On the first page itself, fourth row down is 1029:Knowledge:Copyright violations#Copyright owners 293:. Consensus at the AFD appears overwhelming. 4034:- as you can see on my video of the terminal. 3274:http://revision3.com/internetsuperstar/loaded/ 8: 2211:has lots of good stuff but I didn't find it 2116:. The close edit-conflicted with a close by 3550:The following is an archived debate of the 2934:The following is an archived debate of the 1876:The following is an archived debate of the 1262:this article... that's just not enough per 1174:The following is an archived debate of the 837:The following is an archived debate of the 437:The following is an archived debate of the 97:The following is an archived debate of the 3517: 3082:http://www.cnettv.com/9742-1_53-31863.html 2901: 2753:Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Gary_Lynch 2632:Incidentally, to cite prominent examples: 1846: 1144: 803: 407: 69: 3055:Can you please show us, by reference to 1749:if xe continues to revert you as well. 1737:advice - I clearly said I wanted you to 41: 3735:speedy then instead of a G11 (said the 2793:was another classic example of this. -- 695:That's weird... I just did a search in 547:is an English newspaper from Hong Kong. 50: 4066:I look forward to trying it out then! 2202:Not being a law student I had to look 33: 3932:when I voted, I was not aware of the 970:October 2008 hasn't happened yet. So, 365:Notability has not been established. 7: 4089:Why does the cache link above go to 3739:that'sa stickler for the rules...) 3681:Comment from deleting administrator. 818:if proof of permission is lodged. – 752:Let's see a userspace draft please. 4431:of the page listed in the heading. 3506:of the page listed in the heading. 2890:of the page listed in the heading. 1835:of the page listed in the heading. 1133:of the page listed in the heading. 792:of the page listed in the heading. 396:of the page listed in the heading. 28: 4184:*resists tempation to invoke IAR* 2114:no consensus defaulting to delete 699:and I cannot see zorpia there... 1722:would be easy to verify this. -- 1334:Endorse no-consensus keep close. 741:Added link to DRV1, March 2007. 575:ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation 4427:The above is an archive of the 3502:The above is an archive of the 2886:The above is an archive of the 1831:The above is an archive of the 1129:The above is an archive of the 788:The above is an archive of the 392:The above is an archive of the 2258:this from the Associated Press 1309:Where are the sources to meet 1: 2284:User:Anthere/Values#Deletions 2084:. Ah, the Dramaz, it is here. 30: 4256:whack the admin with a trout 3664:criteria for speedy deletion 3143:on t he basis of the above. 2269:this from the New York Times 1290:endorse no- consensus close. 3300:contribute to Knowledge. 1371:, a Cincinnati news source. 4454: 3458:16:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)-- 3436:Endorse original deletion 1387:not to delete it entirely 18:Knowledge:Deletion review 4434:Please do not modify it. 4418:13:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC) 4393:04:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC) 4027:Overturn and list at AFD 3708:Overturn and list at AfD 3557:Please do not modify it. 3541:19:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC) 3509:Please do not modify it. 2941:Please do not modify it. 2925:19:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC) 2893:Please do not modify it. 2873:19:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC) 2355:User:Davewild/Gary Lynch 2252:This comment then links 1965:this mailing list thread 1883:Please do not modify it. 1867:09:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC) 1857:– Deletion overturned – 1838:Please do not modify it. 1181:Please do not modify it. 1136:Please do not modify it. 1103:to the copyright holder. 844:Please do not modify it. 828:09:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC) 795:Please do not modify it. 533:Here are its coverages: 444:Please do not modify it. 428:09:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC) 399:Please do not modify it. 240:made a Proposal about it 104:Please do not modify it. 88:01:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC) 43:Deletion review archives 4375:23:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC) 4358:19:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC) 4339:18:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC) 4314:18:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC) 4296:16:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC) 4268:15:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC) 4242:14:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC) 4214:11:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC) 4196:14:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC) 4165:23:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC) 4138:17:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 4115:17:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 4076:17:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 4062:17:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 4044:09:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 4016:16:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 4001:08:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 3982:08:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 3958:14:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC) 3918:07:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 3871:06:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 3854:06:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 3829:08:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 3807:22:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 3778:08:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 3760:20:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 3723:16:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 3703:15:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 3676:11:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 3654:07:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 3493:18:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC) 3471:16:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC) 3413:20:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC) 3395:18:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC) 3376:13:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC) 3357:16:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 3335:10:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC) 3313:14:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 3232:12:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 3215:11:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 3198:10:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 3181:08:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 3155:16:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 3135:12:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 3069:11:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 3050:11:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 2858:17:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC) 2840:10:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC) 2820:20:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC) 2803:20:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC) 2768:20:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC) 2739:18:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC) 2719:10:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC) 2701:03:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC) 2599:21:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 2580:21:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 2554:21:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 2536:21:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 2510:21:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 2492:20:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 2468:20:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 2439:20:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 2411:19:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 2391:17:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 2375:16:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 2359:restore article history 2346:16:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 2325:16:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 2299:21:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC) 2247:User:Minos P. Dautrieve 2228:21:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC) 2163:21:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC) 2075:19:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 2057:16:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 2037:19:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 2019:16:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 1999:14:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 1981:14:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 1822:11:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 1803:19:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 1770:19:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 1732:19:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 1717:19:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 1691:18:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 1651:18:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 1633:18:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 1584:18:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 1555:18:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 1537:18:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 1509:17:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 1494:17:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 1469:17:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 1455:16:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 1427:16:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 1404:16:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 1327:16:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 1305:15:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 1284:15:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 1165:03:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC) 1120:01:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC) 1093:07:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC) 1057:23:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC) 1018:16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC) 988:00:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC) 965:22:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 950:11:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 935:16:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 779:19:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC) 762:10:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC) 746:13:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 731:08:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 709:03:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 687:21:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 624:19:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 560:The Wall Street Journal 383:10:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC) 358:03:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC) 339:20:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 320:11:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 303:11:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 284:02:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC) 256:03:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 231:02:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 211:00:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 80:– Deletion endorsed. – 3554:of the article above. 2938:of the article above. 2456:Matthew Brown (Morven) 2254:the Google news search 1969:New York times article 1880:of the article above. 1363:The Columbia Chronicle 1178:of the article above. 976:User:butseriouslyfolks 841:of the article above. 441:of the article above. 101:of the article above. 2261:the Chicago Sun-Times 605:Enterprise Innovation 219:WP:CANVASS canvassing 1812:and DGG's comments. 609:The Hollywood Report 116:Real social dynamics 77:Real social dynamics 3968:project like this. 3323:reliable references 3167:by obsessive fans. 3141:Restore and rewrite 2789:and the subsequent 2448:Proper process was 2047:This New York Times 770:in accordance with 768:independent sources 272:ImperfectlyInformed 244:ImperfectlyInformed 199:ImperfectlyInformed 4304:See change below. 4206:Stephen B Streater 4146:obsessive pro-PRT 4068:Stephen B Streater 4036:Stephen B Streater 3444:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS 3430:) 9 May 2008 (UTC) 2146:times, and voila. 1994: 1607:specifically about 590:The Economic Times 4441: 4440: 4185: 4163: 3980: 3960: 3890:Phoenix New Times 3805: 3756: 3701: 3516: 3515: 3179: 2900: 2899: 2678:WP:INDISCRIMINATE 2646:assume good faith 2634:original research 2576: 2532: 2435: 2148:consensus changed 1992: 1845: 1844: 1766: 1713: 1580: 1490: 1193:Play party (BDSM) 1152:Play party (BDSM) 1143: 1142: 802: 801: 748: 729: 685: 406: 405: 60: 59: 4445: 4436: 4365:Endorse deletion 4346:Endorse deletion 4293: 4287: 4183: 4157: 4113: 4109: 4102: 3974: 3928: 3898:Arizona Republic 3799: 3787:Endorse deletion 3757: 3754: 3749: 3743: 3728:Endorse deletion 3697: 3626: 3625: 3610: 3592: 3559: 3532:kind of thing – 3518: 3511: 3481:Restore and Keep 3468: 3462: 3456: 3450: 3420:Restore and Keep 3401:Restore and Keep 3382:Reverse and Keep 3344:Endorse deletion 3220:Endorse deletion 3203:Endorse deletion 3173: 3161:Endorse deletion 3057:reliable sources 3008: 2994: 2976: 2953:Natali Del Conte 2943: 2909:Natali Del Conte 2902: 2895: 2827:Overturn closure 2577: 2574: 2569: 2563: 2533: 2530: 2525: 2519: 2436: 2433: 2428: 2422: 2416:Endorse deletion 2334:Endorse deletion 2323: 1987:Endorse deletion 1950: 1936: 1918: 1885: 1847: 1840: 1800: 1794: 1767: 1764: 1759: 1753: 1714: 1711: 1706: 1700: 1630: 1624: 1581: 1578: 1573: 1567: 1491: 1488: 1483: 1477: 1452: 1446: 1401: 1395: 1248: 1234: 1216: 1183: 1145: 1138: 911: 897: 879: 846: 804: 797: 772:the amnesia test 740: 723: 679: 669: 648:deleted contribs 511: 497: 479: 446: 408: 401: 355: 352: 308:Endorse deletion 291:Endorse deletion 171: 157: 139: 106: 70: 56: 36: 31: 4453: 4452: 4448: 4447: 4446: 4444: 4443: 4442: 4432: 4429:deletion review 4406:survived an AfD 4291: 4285: 4112: 4107: 4100: 4098: 3753: 3747: 3741: 3635: 3629: 3621: 3620: 3619: 3613: 3583: 3567: 3555: 3552:deletion review 3507: 3504:deletion review 3466: 3460: 3454: 3448: 3017: 3011: 3004: 3003: 2997: 2967: 2951: 2939: 2936:deletion review 2891: 2888:deletion review 2573: 2567: 2561: 2529: 2523: 2517: 2432: 2426: 2420: 2351:Speedy recreate 2314: 1959: 1953: 1946: 1945: 1939: 1909: 1893: 1881: 1878:deletion review 1836: 1833:deletion review 1810:Endorse closure 1798: 1790: 1763: 1757: 1751: 1710: 1704: 1698: 1628: 1620: 1577: 1571: 1565: 1526:Endorse closure 1487: 1481: 1475: 1450: 1442: 1399: 1391: 1257: 1251: 1244: 1243: 1237: 1207: 1191: 1179: 1176:deletion review 1134: 1131:deletion review 920: 914: 907: 906: 900: 870: 854: 842: 839:deletion review 793: 790:deletion review 633: 526: 520: 514: 507: 506: 500: 470: 454: 442: 439:deletion review 397: 394:deletion review 353: 348: 180: 174: 167: 166: 160: 130: 114: 102: 99:deletion review 68: 61: 54: 34: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 4451: 4449: 4439: 4438: 4423: 4422: 4421: 4420: 4398: 4397: 4396: 4395: 4378: 4377: 4369:Angus McLellan 4361: 4360: 4342: 4341: 4319: 4318: 4317: 4316: 4299: 4298: 4273: 4272: 4271: 4270: 4245: 4244: 4219: 4218: 4217: 4216: 4199: 4198: 4172: 4171: 4170: 4169: 4168: 4167: 4118: 4117: 4104: 4093:instead of to 4083: 4082: 4081: 4080: 4079: 4078: 4047: 4046: 4031:Channel Tunnel 4023: 4022: 4021: 4020: 4019: 4018: 4003: 3985: 3984: 3964: 3963: 3962: 3961: 3930:Clarification: 3921: 3920: 3874: 3873: 3857: 3856: 3834: 3833: 3832: 3831: 3810: 3809: 3783: 3782: 3781: 3780: 3763: 3762: 3725: 3705: 3678: 3637: 3636: 3633: 3627: 3617: 3611: 3562: 3561: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3543: 3514: 3513: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3495: 3476: 3474: 3473: 3432: 3431: 3416: 3415: 3379: 3378: 3362: 3360: 3359: 3340: 3339: 3338: 3337: 3241: 3240: 3235: 3234: 3217: 3200: 3184: 3183: 3157: 3078: 3077: 3072: 3071: 3040:Joe Dawson -- 3037:All the best, 3019: 3018: 3015: 3009: 3001: 2995: 2946: 2945: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2898: 2897: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2779:New York Times 2772: 2771: 2770: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2689: 2650:indiscriminate 2630: 2621: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2582: 2494: 2471: 2470: 2441: 2413: 2394: 2393: 2378: 2377: 2348: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2311:Michael Milken 2306: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2276: 2275: 2272: 2250: 2240: 2239: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2197: 2196: 2189: 2182: 2175: 2174: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2140: 2139: 2132: 2121: 2118:User:Sandstein 2106: 2096: 2095: 2092: 2086: 2085: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2001: 1961: 1960: 1957: 1951: 1943: 1937: 1888: 1887: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1843: 1842: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1806: 1805: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1407: 1406: 1378: 1377: 1375:The Ottawa Sun 1372: 1366: 1360: 1357: 1346: 1345: 1337: 1336: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1259: 1258: 1255: 1249: 1241: 1235: 1186: 1185: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1141: 1140: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1104: 1060: 1059: 1040: 991: 990: 953: 952: 922: 921: 918: 912: 904: 898: 849: 848: 833: 832: 831: 830: 800: 799: 784: 783: 782: 781: 764: 738: 737: 736: 735: 734: 733: 712: 711: 701:Web 2.0 Junkie 697:Spam blacklist 690: 689: 616:Web 2.0 Junkie 613: 612: 601: 600: 594: 593: 586: 585: 579: 578: 571: 570: 564: 563: 556: 555: 549: 548: 541: 540: 528: 527: 524: 518: 512: 504: 498: 449: 448: 433: 432: 431: 430: 404: 403: 388: 387: 386: 385: 360: 341: 322: 305: 287: 286: 259: 258: 234: 233: 182: 181: 178: 172: 164: 158: 109: 108: 93: 92: 91: 90: 82:Angus McLellan 67: 62: 58: 57: 49: 40: 29: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4450: 4437: 4435: 4430: 4425: 4424: 4419: 4415: 4411: 4407: 4403: 4400: 4399: 4394: 4390: 4386: 4382: 4381: 4380: 4379: 4376: 4373: 4370: 4366: 4363: 4362: 4359: 4355: 4351: 4347: 4344: 4343: 4340: 4336: 4332: 4328: 4324: 4321: 4320: 4315: 4311: 4307: 4303: 4302: 4301: 4300: 4297: 4294: 4288: 4282: 4278: 4275: 4274: 4269: 4265: 4261: 4257: 4253: 4249: 4248: 4247: 4246: 4243: 4239: 4235: 4234: 4229: 4224: 4221: 4220: 4215: 4211: 4207: 4203: 4202: 4201: 4200: 4197: 4193: 4189: 4181: 4177: 4174: 4173: 4166: 4161: 4156: 4155: 4149: 4145: 4142:Fuck me, yet 4141: 4140: 4139: 4135: 4131: 4126: 4122: 4121: 4120: 4119: 4116: 4111: 4110: 4103: 4101:Corvus cornix 4096: 4092: 4088: 4085: 4084: 4077: 4073: 4069: 4065: 4064: 4063: 4059: 4055: 4051: 4050: 4049: 4048: 4045: 4041: 4037: 4032: 4028: 4025: 4024: 4017: 4013: 4009: 4004: 4002: 3998: 3994: 3989: 3988: 3987: 3986: 3983: 3978: 3973: 3972: 3966: 3965: 3959: 3955: 3951: 3947: 3943: 3939: 3935: 3931: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3919: 3915: 3911: 3907: 3903: 3899: 3895: 3891: 3887: 3883: 3879: 3876: 3875: 3872: 3868: 3864: 3859: 3858: 3855: 3851: 3847: 3843: 3839: 3836: 3835: 3830: 3826: 3822: 3818: 3814: 3813: 3812: 3811: 3808: 3803: 3798: 3797: 3792: 3788: 3785: 3784: 3779: 3775: 3771: 3767: 3766: 3765: 3764: 3761: 3758: 3750: 3744: 3738: 3734: 3729: 3726: 3724: 3720: 3716: 3715: 3709: 3706: 3704: 3700: 3696: 3695: 3691: 3690:stay deleted. 3687: 3686:by definition 3682: 3679: 3677: 3673: 3669: 3665: 3661: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3655: 3651: 3647: 3643: 3632: 3624: 3616: 3608: 3604: 3600: 3596: 3591: 3587: 3582: 3578: 3574: 3570: 3566: 3565: 3564: 3563: 3560: 3558: 3553: 3548: 3547: 3542: 3539: 3535: 3531: 3527: 3526: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3512: 3510: 3505: 3500: 3499: 3494: 3490: 3486: 3482: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3472: 3469: 3463: 3457: 3451: 3445: 3441: 3437: 3434: 3433: 3429: 3425: 3421: 3418: 3417: 3414: 3410: 3406: 3402: 3399: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3392: 3388: 3383: 3377: 3373: 3369: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3358: 3354: 3350: 3345: 3342: 3341: 3336: 3332: 3328: 3324: 3319: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3310: 3306: 3301: 3297: 3294: 3290: 3286: 3282: 3276: 3275: 3271: 3270: 3266: 3265: 3261: 3260: 3256: 3255: 3251: 3250: 3246: 3245: 3237: 3236: 3233: 3229: 3225: 3221: 3218: 3216: 3212: 3208: 3204: 3201: 3199: 3195: 3191: 3186: 3185: 3182: 3177: 3172: 3171: 3166: 3162: 3158: 3156: 3152: 3148: 3147: 3142: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3132: 3128: 3123: 3121: 3117: 3113: 3108: 3107: 3103: 3102: 3098: 3097: 3093: 3092: 3088: 3084: 3083: 3074: 3073: 3070: 3066: 3062: 3058: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3047: 3043: 3038: 3035: 3031: 3027: 3023: 3014: 3007: 3000: 2992: 2988: 2984: 2980: 2975: 2971: 2966: 2962: 2958: 2954: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2944: 2942: 2937: 2932: 2931: 2926: 2923: 2919: 2915: 2911: 2910: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2896: 2894: 2889: 2884: 2883: 2874: 2870: 2866: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2856: 2852: 2848: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2837: 2833: 2828: 2825: 2821: 2818: 2814: 2810: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2800: 2796: 2792: 2788: 2785: 2780: 2776: 2773: 2769: 2766: 2762: 2758: 2754: 2750: 2746: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2736: 2732: 2727: 2724: 2720: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2698: 2694: 2690: 2687: 2683: 2679: 2675: 2671: 2667: 2663: 2659: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2643: 2639: 2635: 2631: 2627: 2622: 2619: 2614: 2610: 2609: 2600: 2596: 2592: 2587: 2583: 2581: 2578: 2570: 2564: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2552: 2548: 2544: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2534: 2526: 2520: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2495: 2493: 2489: 2485: 2481: 2480: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2453: 2451: 2445: 2442: 2440: 2437: 2429: 2423: 2417: 2414: 2412: 2409: 2405: 2401: 2396: 2395: 2392: 2388: 2384: 2380: 2379: 2376: 2372: 2368: 2364: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2349: 2347: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2332: 2331: 2326: 2321: 2317: 2316:Relata refero 2312: 2308: 2307: 2300: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2273: 2270: 2266: 2262: 2259: 2255: 2251: 2248: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2237: 2236: 2229: 2226: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2205: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2194: 2190: 2187: 2186:very recently 2183: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2172: 2171: 2164: 2161: 2157: 2153: 2149: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2104: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2093: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2083: 2080: 2076: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2055: 2052: 2048: 2045: 2042: 2038: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2016: 2012: 2011: 2005: 2002: 2000: 1997: 1995: 1988: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1978: 1974: 1970: 1966: 1956: 1949: 1942: 1934: 1930: 1926: 1922: 1917: 1913: 1908: 1904: 1900: 1896: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1886: 1884: 1879: 1874: 1873: 1868: 1864: 1860: 1856: 1855: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1841: 1839: 1834: 1829: 1828: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1808: 1807: 1804: 1801: 1795: 1793: 1787: 1786: 1771: 1768: 1760: 1754: 1748: 1747:User:Simonxag 1744: 1740: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1715: 1707: 1701: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1639: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1631: 1625: 1623: 1617: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1585: 1582: 1574: 1568: 1562: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1552: 1548: 1544: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1524: 1523: 1510: 1506: 1502: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1492: 1484: 1478: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1453: 1447: 1445: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1415: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1405: 1402: 1396: 1394: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1379: 1376: 1373: 1370: 1367: 1364: 1361: 1358: 1355: 1351: 1348: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1338: 1335: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1302: 1298: 1297: 1291: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1254: 1247: 1240: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1215: 1211: 1206: 1202: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1184: 1182: 1177: 1172: 1171: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1153: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1139: 1137: 1132: 1127: 1126: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1067: 1063: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1045: 1044:automatically 1041: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1005: 1001: 998: 995: 989: 985: 981: 977: 973: 969: 968: 967: 966: 962: 958: 951: 947: 943: 939: 938: 937: 936: 932: 928: 917: 910: 903: 895: 891: 887: 883: 878: 874: 869: 865: 861: 857: 856:Listenability 853: 852: 851: 850: 847: 845: 840: 835: 834: 829: 825: 821: 817: 813: 812: 811:Listenability 808: 807: 806: 805: 798: 796: 791: 786: 785: 780: 777: 773: 769: 765: 763: 759: 755: 751: 750: 749: 747: 744: 732: 727: 722: 721: 716: 715: 714: 713: 710: 706: 702: 698: 694: 693: 692: 691: 688: 683: 678: 677: 672: 667: 664: 661: 658: 655: 652: 649: 646: 643: 640: 637: 632: 628: 627: 626: 625: 621: 617: 610: 606: 603: 602: 599: 596: 595: 591: 588: 587: 584: 581: 580: 576: 573: 572: 569: 566: 565: 561: 558: 557: 554: 551: 550: 546: 543: 542: 539: 536: 535: 534: 531: 523: 517: 510: 503: 495: 491: 487: 483: 478: 474: 469: 465: 461: 457: 453: 452: 451: 450: 447: 445: 440: 435: 434: 429: 425: 421: 417: 416: 412: 411: 410: 409: 402: 400: 395: 390: 389: 384: 381: 380: 379: 376: 373: 370: 364: 361: 359: 356: 351: 345: 342: 340: 336: 332: 331: 326: 323: 321: 317: 313: 309: 306: 304: 300: 296: 292: 289: 288: 285: 281: 277: 273: 268: 264: 261: 260: 257: 253: 249: 245: 241: 236: 235: 232: 228: 224: 220: 215: 214: 213: 212: 208: 204: 200: 195: 191: 187: 177: 170: 163: 155: 151: 147: 143: 138: 134: 129: 125: 121: 117: 113: 112: 111: 110: 107: 105: 100: 95: 94: 89: 86: 83: 79: 78: 74: 73: 72: 71: 66: 63: 53: 48: 44: 39: 32: 23: 19: 4433: 4426: 4401: 4364: 4345: 4322: 4276: 4251: 4231: 4227: 4222: 4175: 4152: 4143: 4105: 4086: 4026: 3969: 3945: 3929: 3902:Mesa Tribune 3892:(critical), 3877: 3841: 3837: 3816: 3794: 3786: 3727: 3712: 3707: 3692: 3689: 3685: 3680: 3659: 3640: 3638: 3622: 3556: 3549: 3529: 3523: 3508: 3501: 3480: 3475: 3435: 3419: 3400: 3387:Kevin Murray 3381: 3380: 3361: 3343: 3302: 3298: 3277: 3272: 3267: 3262: 3257: 3252: 3247: 3242: 3219: 3202: 3168: 3160: 3144: 3140: 3124: 3109: 3104: 3099: 3094: 3089: 3085: 3079: 3039: 3036: 3032: 3028: 3024: 3020: 2940: 2933: 2913: 2907: 2892: 2885: 2826: 2778: 2775:Keep article 2774: 2744: 2731:Kevin Murray 2726:Keep article 2725: 2682:WP:CONSENSUS 2657: 2653: 2649: 2645: 2641: 2638:encyclopedic 2637: 2633: 2629:perspective. 2515:deletion). 2477: 2472: 2449: 2447: 2443: 2415: 2362: 2358: 2350: 2333: 2212: 2208: 2203: 2192: 2101:Background: 2081: 2043: 2008: 2003: 1986: 1962: 1882: 1875: 1852: 1837: 1830: 1809: 1791: 1742: 1738: 1621: 1618:to-do list. 1615: 1610: 1606: 1525: 1443: 1392: 1386: 1352:Clearly not 1333: 1294: 1289: 1260: 1180: 1173: 1150: 1135: 1128: 1107: 1099: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1068: 1064: 1061: 1043: 1036: 1027:enough. See 1024: 1006: 1002: 999: 996: 992: 954: 923: 843: 836: 809: 794: 787: 739: 718: 674: 662: 656: 650: 644: 638: 614: 545:The Standard 532: 529: 443: 436: 413: 398: 391: 367: 366: 362: 349: 343: 328: 324: 307: 290: 266: 262: 183: 103: 96: 75: 64: 4385:Fresheneesz 4331:Fresheneesz 4306:Fresheneesz 4286:Orange Mike 4260:Enric Naval 4188:Enric Naval 3993:Fresheneesz 3894:OC Register 3863:Fresheneesz 3846:Fresheneesz 3821:Fresheneesz 3770:Fresheneesz 3646:Fresheneesz 3461:Orange Mike 3449:Orange Mike 3349:Enric Naval 3293:Roger Chang 3289:Tom Merritt 3207:KleenupKrew 3120:Roger Chang 3116:Tom Merritt 2626:WP:COATRACK 295:KleenupKrew 223:Enric Naval 3948:UniModal. 3755:Disclaimer 3699:JDiscourse 3285:Molly Wood 3281:Cali Lewis 3112:Molly Wood 2686:WP:FAIRUSE 2618:WP:NOTABLE 2613:WP:NOTABLE 2575:Disclaimer 2531:Disclaimer 2479:Gary Lynch 2434:Disclaimer 2204:A fortiori 2193:A fortiori 2181:articles." 2136:satyagraha 1895:Gary Lynch 1854:Gary Lynch 1765:Disclaimer 1712:Disclaimer 1603:Nine pages 1579:Disclaimer 1489:Disclaimer 1035:, meaning 660:block user 654:page moves 65:5 May 2008 4087:Question: 3791:like this 2654:consensus 1973:Catchpole 1967:and this 1638:7 results 1369:City Beat 1004:back up. 666:block log 4402:Overturn 4350:Carnildo 4180:Skytrain 4095:UniModal 3938:UniModal 3906:NY Times 3886:LA Times 3882:NY Times 3878:Overturn 3861:dodgy). 3694:JDoorjam 3660:Overturn 3569:UniModal 3525:UniModal 3485:Ptousign 3424:ptousign 3405:Oakshade 3327:Tikiwont 3224:Tikiwont 3165:WP:OWNed 3026:valid. 2914:Endorsed 2865:Tikiwont 2832:Tikiwont 2795:Oakshade 2791:overturn 2787:deletion 2693:JayHenry 2670:WP:CIVIL 2658:fair use 2642:civility 2591:Davewild 2484:Davewild 2444:Overturn 2383:Davewild 2367:Davewild 2082:Overturn 2044:Overturn 2004:Overturn 1724:Rividian 1683:Rividian 1643:Rividian 1547:Rividian 1530:Dhartung 1501:Rividian 1499:there.-- 1461:Rividian 1419:Rividian 1342:WP:CIVIL 1319:Rividian 1276:Rividian 1157:Rividian 642:contribs 280:contribs 252:contribs 207:contribs 47:2008 May 20:‎ | 4410:PeaceNT 4327:SkyTran 4281:SkyTran 4277:Endorse 4223:Comment 4144:another 4125:SkyTran 4091:SkyTran 3942:SkyTran 3934:SkyTran 3838:Comment 3615:restore 3586:protect 3581:history 3368:BitStop 3305:BitStop 3190:BitStop 3127:BitStop 3042:BitStop 2999:restore 2970:protect 2965:history 2784:Buy.com 1941:restore 1912:protect 1907:history 1543:18 AFDs 1239:restore 1210:protect 1205:history 902:restore 873:protect 868:history 776:GRBerry 743:GRBerry 502:restore 473:protect 468:history 363:Endorse 344:Endorse 325:endorse 263:Comment 186:Ellmist 162:restore 133:protect 128:history 4372:(Talk) 4323:Change 4148:WP:SPA 3946:delete 3742:Keeper 3668:Stifle 3590:delete 3534:Splash 3440:WP:BIO 3076:Conte. 3061:Stifle 2974:delete 2918:Splash 2674:WP:AGF 2666:WP:ENC 2624:into " 2586:WT:BLP 2562:Keeper 2518:Keeper 2421:Keeper 2125:WT:BLP 2103:WT:BLP 1993:Avruch 1916:delete 1859:Stifle 1814:Stifle 1752:Keeper 1743:should 1699:Keeper 1679:WP:NEO 1566:Keeper 1476:Keeper 1414:WP:NEO 1214:delete 1085:Bdubay 1037:anyone 1010:Bdubay 972:Bdubay 957:Bdubay 942:Stifle 927:Bdubay 877:delete 820:Stifle 754:Stifle 631:Zorpia 477:delete 456:Zorpia 420:Stifle 415:Zorpia 369:Editor 354:figura 312:Stifle 137:delete 85:(Talk) 4160:Help! 4130:ATren 4054:ATren 4008:ATren 3977:Help! 3950:ATren 3910:ATren 3802:Help! 3623:cache 3607:views 3599:watch 3595:links 3176:Help! 3006:cache 2991:views 2983:watch 2979:links 2662:WP:OR 2320:disp. 1948:cache 1933:views 1925:watch 1921:links 1739:avoid 1611:agree 1246:cache 1231:views 1223:watch 1219:links 1100:don't 909:cache 894:views 886:watch 882:links 816:WP:AN 726:Help! 682:Help! 509:cache 494:views 486:watch 482:links 197:AfD. 169:cache 154:views 146:watch 142:links 55:: --> 52:May 6 38:May 4 16:< 4414:talk 4389:talk 4354:talk 4335:talk 4310:talk 4292:Talk 4283:. -- 4264:talk 4238:talk 4210:talk 4192:talk 4134:talk 4123:The 4108:talk 4072:talk 4058:talk 4040:talk 4012:talk 3997:talk 3954:talk 3940:and 3914:talk 3908:. 3867:talk 3850:talk 3825:talk 3774:talk 3737:user 3719:talk 3672:talk 3650:talk 3603:logs 3577:talk 3573:edit 3530:this 3489:talk 3467:Talk 3455:Talk 3428:talk 3409:talk 3391:talk 3372:talk 3353:talk 3331:talk 3309:talk 3228:talk 3211:talk 3194:talk 3151:talk 3131:talk 3065:talk 3046:talk 2987:logs 2961:talk 2957:edit 2869:talk 2836:talk 2799:talk 2749:here 2735:talk 2697:talk 2595:talk 2488:talk 2387:talk 2371:talk 2357:and 2342:talk 2338:John 2263:and 2213:then 2129:told 2054:Talk 2051:Fred 2015:talk 1977:talk 1929:logs 1903:talk 1899:edit 1863:talk 1818:talk 1728:talk 1687:talk 1677:and 1675:WP:N 1647:talk 1551:talk 1534:Talk 1505:talk 1465:talk 1423:talk 1383:WP:V 1354:WP:V 1323:talk 1315:WP:N 1313:and 1311:WP:V 1301:talk 1280:talk 1272:WP:V 1268:WP:N 1266:and 1264:WP:V 1227:logs 1201:talk 1197:edit 1161:talk 1116:talk 1112:Kesh 1106:You 1089:talk 1053:talk 1049:Kesh 1033:GFDL 1014:talk 984:talk 980:Kesh 961:talk 946:talk 931:talk 890:logs 864:talk 860:edit 824:talk 758:talk 705:talk 636:talk 620:talk 522:DRV1 490:logs 464:talk 460:edit 424:talk 378:wiki 335:talk 316:talk 299:talk 276:talk 248:talk 227:talk 203:talk 190:Here 150:logs 124:talk 120:edit 35:< 4289:| 4233:DGG 4154:Guy 4097:? 3971:Guy 3796:Guy 3751:| 3745:| 3733:IAR 3714:DGG 3642:in. 3631:AfD 3464:| 3452:| 3170:Guy 3146:DGG 3013:AfD 2847:Lar 2809:Lar 2757:Lar 2745:now 2708:Lar 2571:| 2565:| 2543:Lar 2527:| 2521:| 2499:Lar 2450:not 2430:| 2424:| 2400:Lar 2288:Lar 2217:Lar 2209:now 2152:Lar 2112:as 2064:Lar 2026:Lar 2010:DGG 1955:AfD 1796:| 1792:Tan 1761:| 1755:| 1708:| 1702:| 1626:| 1622:Tan 1575:| 1569:| 1561:Tan 1485:| 1479:| 1448:| 1444:Tan 1397:| 1393:Tan 1296:DGG 1253:AfD 1108:may 1025:not 916:AfD 774:. 720:Guy 676:Guy 516:AfD 375:the 330:DGG 274:| { 267:All 246:| { 201:| { 176:AfD 22:Log 4416:) 4391:) 4356:) 4337:) 4312:) 4266:) 4240:) 4212:) 4194:) 4136:) 4074:) 4060:) 4042:) 4014:) 3999:) 3956:) 3916:) 3904:, 3900:, 3896:, 3888:, 3884:, 3869:) 3852:) 3840:- 3827:) 3776:) 3748:76 3721:) 3674:) 3652:) 3605:| 3601:| 3597:| 3593:| 3588:| 3584:| 3579:| 3575:| 3538:tk 3536:- 3491:) 3411:) 3393:) 3385:-- 3374:) 3355:) 3333:) 3311:) 3291:, 3287:, 3283:, 3230:) 3213:) 3196:) 3153:) 3133:) 3125:-- 3114:, 3067:) 3048:) 2989:| 2985:| 2981:| 2977:| 2972:| 2968:| 2963:| 2959:| 2922:tk 2920:- 2912:– 2871:) 2849:: 2838:) 2811:: 2801:) 2759:: 2737:) 2729:-- 2710:: 2699:) 2684:, 2680:, 2676:, 2672:, 2668:, 2664:, 2656:, 2652:, 2648:, 2644:, 2640:, 2636:, 2597:) 2568:76 2545:: 2524:76 2501:: 2497:++ 2490:) 2466:) 2427:76 2402:: 2389:) 2373:) 2365:) 2344:) 2290:: 2219:: 2154:: 2066:: 2062:++ 2028:: 2024:++ 2017:) 1979:) 1971:. 1931:| 1927:| 1923:| 1919:| 1914:| 1910:| 1905:| 1901:| 1865:) 1820:) 1799:39 1758:76 1730:) 1705:76 1689:) 1649:) 1629:39 1616:my 1572:76 1553:) 1532:| 1507:) 1482:76 1467:) 1451:39 1425:) 1417:-- 1400:39 1325:) 1303:) 1282:) 1229:| 1225:| 1221:| 1217:| 1212:| 1208:| 1203:| 1199:| 1163:) 1118:) 1091:) 1055:) 1016:) 986:) 963:) 948:) 933:) 892:| 888:| 884:| 880:| 875:| 871:| 866:| 862:| 826:) 760:) 707:) 622:) 492:| 488:| 484:| 480:| 475:| 471:| 466:| 462:| 426:) 372:of 337:) 318:) 301:) 282:} 278:- 254:} 250:- 242:. 229:) 221:-- 209:} 205:- 152:| 148:| 144:| 140:| 135:| 131:| 126:| 122:| 45:: 4412:( 4387:( 4352:( 4333:( 4308:( 4262:( 4236:( 4208:( 4190:( 4162:) 4158:( 4132:( 4070:( 4056:( 4038:( 4010:( 3995:( 3979:) 3975:( 3952:( 3912:( 3865:( 3848:( 3823:( 3815:" 3804:) 3800:( 3772:( 3717:( 3670:( 3648:( 3634:) 3628:| 3618:| 3612:( 3609:) 3571:( 3487:( 3426:( 3407:( 3389:( 3370:( 3351:( 3329:( 3307:( 3226:( 3209:( 3192:( 3178:) 3174:( 3149:( 3129:( 3063:( 3044:( 3016:) 3010:| 3002:| 2996:( 2993:) 2955:( 2867:( 2855:c 2853:/ 2851:t 2834:( 2817:c 2815:/ 2813:t 2797:( 2765:c 2763:/ 2761:t 2733:( 2716:c 2714:/ 2712:t 2695:( 2593:( 2551:c 2549:/ 2547:t 2507:c 2505:/ 2503:t 2486:( 2464:C 2462:: 2460:T 2458:( 2408:c 2406:/ 2404:t 2385:( 2369:( 2340:( 2322:) 2318:( 2296:c 2294:/ 2292:t 2225:c 2223:/ 2221:t 2160:c 2158:/ 2156:t 2138:. 2072:c 2070:/ 2068:t 2034:c 2032:/ 2030:t 2013:( 1975:( 1958:) 1952:| 1944:| 1938:( 1935:) 1897:( 1861:( 1816:( 1726:( 1685:( 1645:( 1549:( 1503:( 1463:( 1421:( 1365:. 1359:. 1321:( 1299:( 1278:( 1256:) 1250:| 1242:| 1236:( 1233:) 1195:( 1159:( 1114:( 1087:( 1051:( 1012:( 982:( 959:( 944:( 929:( 919:) 913:| 905:| 899:( 896:) 858:( 822:( 756:( 728:) 724:( 703:( 684:) 680:( 668:) 663:· 657:· 651:· 645:· 639:· 634:( 618:( 611:. 562:. 525:) 519:| 513:| 505:| 499:( 496:) 458:( 422:( 350:B 333:( 314:( 297:( 225:( 179:) 173:| 165:| 159:( 156:) 118:(

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

Knowledge

:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 5 - Knowledge

Index