Knowledge:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 6

766:

so; because it makes no allowance for whether someone "from" Greenwich Village has anything to do with whatever made the neighborhood notable. We don't have that issue with cities, towns, villages, settlements; they are inherently notable, so you can be from Detroit and have nothing to do with MoTown music or the auto industry, it's just where you're "from" (whatever that means), but being "from" Greenwich Village, or "from" The Castro, say, has an implied meaning that doesn't apply to everyone who meets someone's definition of "from" and gets dumped into the cat. The other reasons that this is overcat is that even if we could absolutely define the extent of these neighborhoods, which seems to be in flux and differs according to the period or whether the neighborhood is "in fashion or not" in real estate agents' parlance, people move around between and among neighborhoods with some frequency more than between various cities (especially given the liberality of someone clearly from a distant suburb being dumped into the category as being "from" the distant main town any way); it's transitory and having lived for a year or two in a particular neighborhood is probably trivial unless it's Chernobyl (recently) on one's being.

1284:

ones aren't based on whether the settlement has a formal political existence, such as states and municipalities, so as to exclude categories based on informal areas such as neighborhoods, which also tend to be much smaller geographically than your average municipality...not to mention esoteric to nonnatives. It doesn't matter whether it's a "significant" neighborhood such as Greenwich Village or not, and you should know from experience that allowing a category for one inevitably turns into a system of categories for all. Once again, a neighborhood's significance is why it merits an article; it doesn't follow at all that it makes sense to categorize anyone's association with that neighborhood. We do not categorize actors by the television series they have acted on, notwithstanding the significance of those television series, nor do we categories workers by the companies they have worked for, notwithstanding the significance of those companies. Significance is clearly not enough.

1071:. That's a very different discussion from what makes a valid article topic or sub-topic, which is instead what comments on the importance or historicity of the subject matter are relevant to. So please shift your gears to addressing those category-specific concerns, if you can. But as someone who has personally created a number of articles on neighborhoods, I would implore you to instead direct your energies to improving article content. Articles on the neighborhoods should of course include well-referenced histories, both political and cultural, of who had an impact there. And lists of people associated with a given locality can be organized by the kind of connection (born there, worked there, etc.), by chronological relationship (such as by birthdate), or by field of the individual, and can be annotated and sourced. I've tried this before (see 80:– Relist without prejudice against the closure. The participation in the initial CfD was limited, and there seems to be no consensus regarding whether the closure of the CfD was appropriate. Tough decisions sometimes must be made in cases of limited participation, and although no consensus defaults to keep, substantial arguments (such as overcategorization) can be given more weight. That being said, this seems to be a larger issue, one dealing with how neighborhoods that are not political entities are treated in terms of categorization. In categorization, unlike in articles, there is no recourse to "improve" a category once it has been deleted, and so such decisions should be made with extra caution. Since this is a larger issue, I am relisting at CfD so that more discussion can occur. – 2218:, they only asked one pharmacy shopkeeper. Not only this source is awful but it asserts no notability of Inciclopedia at all. See, it only covers Inciclopedia because it had a fun page, not because they found it notable, the article only talks about a parody that is found in *one* page on the site. The page could have been hosted at any other wiki and it would have been covered in the exact same way. Also, they just interview the senator to show him the parody and ask him about it and, from context, they never ask him about a website called Inciclopedia or ask his opinion about it. If *this* is the better source they could find at eswiki and here, then the assesment that there were no sources on the article asserting notability is 2167:

that "it was founded on February 24, 2006 to serve as a continuation of Frikipedia, a parody site closed by SGAE". The site is mentioned on a TV show, it means that it must have certain notability to be referenced in pop culture. Also, SELFPUB is sometimes acceptable, for example we still use information on Nobelprize.org as sources for Nobel prizes related articles. After all, this is a rightly closed AFD. If you want to renominate the article for deletion, you should wait for 2 or 3 months because there's a consensus for keeping it and in the meantime maybe many users may add more sources to the article.

1900:

references. In short, there was in my view certainly no consensus that the article should be deleted, and with some of the concerns given by the nominator alleviated by the presence of a third-party source, I chose to close it as "keep" rather than "no consensus". Two points about this DRV nomination: An argument given in this DRV nom is that the article is "original research", this was not presented in the AFD. Looking at the article, I don't think that the article suffers from blatant OR problems, rather much of the article is sourced from the website itself which is OK to a certain extent (see

185:

disregarded valid arguments he disagrees with and imposed his own personal deletionist biases in this case to override consensus. As the sole justification for deletion in this case was the improper insertion of personal bias by the admin to override a consensus for retention, these improper actions should be overturned. Similar improper deletion by this same admin in the face of clear contrary consensus was also a factor in

1013:

shouldn't blame people for moving from one neighborhood to another' (as if categories are rewards for good behaviour or something). Finally, I find it more than a little amusing that the editors wishing to overturn this decision can't even decide amongst themselves whether there was supposedly no consensus or a "clear consensus."

724:". You should go to the talk page and say that you want the wording changed to include "unless there is consensus between CfD commenters that WP:V can be ignored for a certain category". I think that you can imagine what they will tell you about that. Btw, I had not noticed that reasons for deletion include 2285:

The *real* problem is not that those sources are verifiable or reliable. The real problem is that those sources are not establishing enough notability to have its own article since they don't cover Inciclopedia itself. Some of them either cover frikipedia, or cover things that happen to have appeared

573:

the closer stated that the category had problems of verifiability (articles were being added of persons that had no source for residence there). The commenters didn't establish why exactly it was important to note that a person had lived at Riverdale and the closer correctly assesed so (aka, the need

484:

significant problems with the subnational "people from" categories as a whole, and those problems are far more egregious when dealing with something as tiny and amorphous as a neighborhood, which lacks formal, agreed-upon boundaries and is far more easily and commonly moved in and out of than a city.

207:

In the face of consensus to keep and acknowledged valid arguments for retention, there is no place or justification for deletion based on arbitrary biases. Consensus is turned into a joke if any admin is granted unlimited discretion to overturn decisions on a deus ex machina basis. Concerns expressed

2222:

correct. In other words: Dios mio, pero que mierda de fuente es esta, hace falta valor, qué coño estaban pensando en eswiki. The eswiki votation was based only on the fact that the voters like the website and want the article preserved, and they make absolutely no assesment of sources at all. I just

2166:

and is closely on the verge of notability. If one legitimate source can be found, it means that there's high chance of finding more sources on this subject. Remember we need sources when there's something that need to be cited. The first source from indymedia is ok, since it supports the information

1245:

to remain deleted we are in fact saying that significant settlements can not have a category. I'm not sure that is what is intended. For this category an overwhelming, clear and convincing case to keep was made. For the Riverdale category it is not clear that it should be kept. I guess one could

184:

was deleted improperly in the face of consensus supporting retention and the inclusion of clear arguments for retention under Knowledge policy. Administrator who improperly closed the CfD acknowledges that there are valid arguments for retention, but has stated in the close and in discussion that he

2378:

th most popular site on the web." is part of the supposed rationale for nominating this for deletion review. As such, this data being just plain wrong is relevant here - attempting to get an Alexa rank of a redirect instead of the destination site will never return meaningful data and I'm surprised

2181:

If you actually read my sources evaluation, the indymedia source talks about frikipedia being closed down, and Inci isn't mentioned. A small mention in a TV shows doesn't count towards the notability of the article as it is as trivial as info can get. I was mentioned as the winner of a competition,

1283:

I personally would like to see all subnational "people from" categories listified, because they are all vague and ridiculously overinclusive to the point of making the groupings useless. But short of that, it is completely sensible to at least draw a line as to which ones are permissible and which

352:

doubts that "are people notable from where they live?"--which is not relevant --since a category isnt about notability, the people are already notable. He further accepted the argument that he didnt like people by categories, though even he admitted it was not in question here. And then he accepted

1899:

of non-notability, and when the discussion contains people who argue for notability, they don't carry all that much weight. The fact that Rataube added a section on notability, and was able to produce a third-party source addressed the main concern in the nomination, that there were no third-party

1268:

There is also an additional possible outcome from this discussion. And that would be to listify. This addresses the notability for a person to be included along with sources. However if that direction is taken here, then we need to be ready to apply the listify option to the rest of the 'People

1062:

The closing admin's whole basis for his decision was that the arguments for retention were not "perfectly valid" but instead weak and missing the point of why these are problematic as categories. No one here has yet responded to those criticisms, which Otto in particular has very clearly restated

765:

clear overcat, while I could rant about the whole "people from" tree being an exercise in weasel words, "from" meanining whatever it means to any one at that moment in time, I will focus on its wholly inappropriate application to neighborhoods, which due to their notability have articles - rightly

1132:

who is a soureced resident of Greenwich and was in P from GV is now not even 'from New York'. Now the arguments were mailny that neighbourhood is too specific. No argument has been put forward about borough, or city, so it seems unreasonable for a cfd to affect these less specific catgorires. The

868:

List of people from articles, and this sort of article is well accepted. As for links, any article for a where the place is even mentioned in any context at all in the article important or not, will automatically be linked to the city regardless of "importance in the career" that's what Knowledge

802:

Riverdale and GV are more than geographic regions, but also cultural ones, as applied to the sort of things that produce notability at wikipedia. It's a reasonable grouping for a great many literary and musical topics. GV is better known, but they're both of major historical importance that way.

506:

up to his old tricks. First there's the ridiculous and outraged overstatement, over-the-top denunciation and periphrastic caricature of the closing admin, who "imposed his own personal deletionist biases in this case to override consensus." Then, for good measure, we have the same point expressed

845:

already holds such a list of notable residents, each one with a short mention of why they are notable and a source for its residence there. The articles on individual persons can link to this article is for some reason it was important for their biography that they had lived at Rivendale and not

248:

for deletion -- "People can live in dozens of neighborhoods in the course of a lifetime." and "Merge per Otto" -- offer no justification under Knowledge policy that would require deletion of the category. The arguments in the nomination -- "Single entry category without a parent category for the

1047:

You can find all the humor you want in "no consensus" or a "clear consensus", but I find it rather disturbing that there is no one, not even the closing administrator or his apologists, who believes that there was a consensus for deletion. The basic and fundamental concept of consensus has been

1007:

is a gross mischaracterization of the nomination. Second, that the initial reason given in the nomination may not meet your standards, the closing admin does not take only the reason offered by the nominator into consideration. Here, the nominator weighed the arguments offered by other editors,

1012:

be widely implemented and the damage to the navigational utility of the category system should fracturing an already fractured categorization structure continue. These were weighed against such arguments as (paraphrasing) 'the neighborhood is important' (which is why it has an article) and 'we

887:

hum, I must not have expressed myself clearly. I meant to say that the list on Rivendale article is adequate and correct, and that it's better than the category. I'm not sure how this affects any "List of people from" articles, except for non-US lists that have lots of unsourced red links like

823:

Sounds like a good reason for maintaining a list of notable residents, which can include such salient facts as when they lived in these neighborhoods and what impact if any they had on the neighborhood or the neighborhood on them. That would be quite an interesting article, as opposed to a dry

2355:

If you were actually bothered to read the edit summaries there was a legitimate reason for the removal of content. But no, you assume bad faith and vote solely on the fact of the person that nominated it. This is a review of the article and afd, not the user that has nominated it. Gotta love

1107:. I agree with the outcome (that this category should have been deleted) but it is a bit .. how shall I say .. inappropriate for the closing admin make what is essentially a unilateral decision. A more appropriate closure would have been no consensus or to relist for further discussion. 2336:

removing information from the page and adding a nonsensical 10,267,272 Alexa rank are not constructive and are based on badly fallacious logic. The name "inciclopedia.org" is a redirect to "inciclopedia.wikia.com"; I'm surprised it even appears on Alexa but its use to establish supposed

1494:

G11, and A7-- no indication of importance. I have looked atthe last deleted version, and there is indeed nothing that makes a reasoanble argument for notability or importance. We should see a draft of an article with some 3rd party sources for notability before permitting restoration.

988:

Consensus is worthless if only one person has a vote. Kdbank71, in his blatant refusal to respect consensus, has turned himself into judge, jury and executioner. Why do we bother with discussions if one individual can take it upon himself to spit in the face of clear consensus.

1246:

ask where is the dividing line between what is kept and what is deleted. It may take a while for some consensus to develop on where that line is. I'm also surprised that most of the opinions here seem to be applying the same logic to both nominations. Almost looks like

249:

neighborhood." were addressed under Knowledge policy and no longer relevant. The stronger arguments for retention, based on Knowledge policy, were simply discarded. Admin simply refuses to respect or accept consensus without improperly inserting his biases.

208:

regarding possible overcategorization have been addressed and are easily resolved, limiting such categories to articles with places, a suggestion that was disregarded by the closing admin. Given the improper close, overturing is the proper action.

1882:

I don't go around endorsing my own closures (evaluating my work is something I leave to others), but I will give a rationale for my close, and note that I have given my reasons on my own talkpage. First, the reasons given to delete were

2379:

it returns any numbers at all. The edits adding this nonsense to the article should be reverted and any nomination for deletion review that relies on this number as a factual justification or rationale should be speedily closed. --

437:- Nothing procedurally wrong with the delete. While there was a small response, the deletion reasoning was sound and the Keep reasoning was that somehow this neighborhood was notable (with nothing to back up that assertion). -- 458:

categorization scheme. As the closing admin correctly noted, there are indeed problems with that entire scheme but the problems with it in no way prevent us from dealing with particularly problematic categories as they arise.

1079:

subnational "people from" categories, as these actually have the potential of being useful, unlike an alphabetical dumping ground category for everyone who ever set foot in a place for however long and for whatever reason.

1951:

I am unmoved by the lazy endorsements of some of those below whose sanction is the usual stuff one expects when a close conforms to one's own views; but I include myself in the laziness category for not having consulted

511:

Then, Alan, so impressed by his own hyperbole, !votes to endorse his own nomination. Oh, it's too funny - worthy of Ionescu. Anyway, endorse and keep deleted as a proper and procedurally good close, as noted above.

1904:), and there is also some third party coverage now. Finally, the Alexa ranking looks like it's for "inciclopedia.org" which is probably a redirect address, since the actual address is "inciclopedia.wikia.com". 2140:

Agreed. It's very bad form to immediately re-nominate an article for deletion just because you disagree with the result. Give it at least a month and, if it still hasn't improved, then you can re-nominate. --

2211:. This is a sensationalist newspaper that looks for curious stuff to cover. FFS, this is just low-quality yellow press that I doubt that has any reputation for fact checking. Looking at the Society section: " 1306:

on grounds of no consensus. Reasonable arguments both sides I would be inclined to merge on the grounds that Riverdale is not incorporated, and so the members of this category can easily be subsumed into

2213:

Condoms sell like hot bread this week(...) this time (people) is buying boxes of 12, tells Mirta Salazar, shopkeeper of the sucursal of Farmacias Ahumada of (street) Providencia with (street) Manuel Montt

692:

aside from mentioning that consensus determines the interpretation and application of all policy, a question of WP:V would apply to individuals, and their presence in the category can be challenged.

636:

You probably should not put the words "established consensus" in quotes as it implies that Stifle actually used those words. Stifle said "apparent consensus" which is quite a different animal.

1462:

The article has been changed and even the slightest hints on advretisement have been removed. It would be highly requested to restore the article so that appropriate editing could be done

151: 2315:

available whatsoever. The delete arguments in the AfD, drowned out by the keeps, were the correct answer, not the original research from constantly varying Alexa results keep rationale.

1133:

closer should perhas say that delete is not an option and instead merge up to 'PPLe from Manhattan' and let there be a cfd on that if reqd. (I endorse the merge but not the delete.)

1008:

including the non-definingness of the category, the subjectivity involved in deciding that someome is "from" a particular neighborhood, the category clutter that would result should

939:. Debate was closed incorrectly as delete instead of no consensus (2 keeps, 1 delete, 1 "delete per nom" who may not have read the arguments), with a very poor initial rationale of 165: 1518:

and come back once you can provide evidence this company meets those requirements. If you are employed by this company then I strongly advise against writing an article for it.

1991:

I disagree, only Rataube & carl responded to my concerns, the rest were just votes. The discussion ended without the concerns of another reliable source being addressed.--

548:

Enough with the braying schoolmarm DGG; it's tedious. Alan's nomination is over the top in its caricature of kbdank's close. Calling him out on that is not a personal attack.

591:, creates verifiability problems as well as overcategorization. Closer was somewhat outwith the apparent consensus but the end justified the means as far as I am concerned. 1536: 1515: 1031:

it may be unclear that there was sufficient consensus for a keep close rather than no-consensus, but that does not mean there was sufficient consensus for a delete close.

1242: 1238: 174: 708:

Ah, let me rephrase that "consensus at one AfD or one DRV can not overturn the consensus behind the current interpretation of policy". As far as I know, consensus at

616:

when they dont approve of the result and argue as here one side of the case in the closing, rather than participate in the debate and wait for someone else to close?

2085:

this is not AfD2. Since there was clear consensus to keep, if you insist on another AfD, i'd think it necessary to wait at least 3 or 4 months before starting one.

1838:

Alexa.com page for wikia.com showing that 8% of traffic to wikia.com goes to the site (according to alexa anyway) and it's the third most popular wiki of wikia.com

1072: 574:

for the category was not explained). The parent category was created on-the-fly to try to save the category and it seems that it had the exact same problems. --

2051:

policy and provide some notability, overturning the consensus of the discussion based on the possible failure of a guideline would not have been appropriate.

1734: 2431:-related topics on Knowledge have been largely disruptive - in Inciclopedia's case deleting more than half the article text without any prior discussion. -- 2268:. Closer's explanation was sound. Verifiable, reliable sources were presented and consensus is that they were enough to warrant keeping the article. 51: 37: 1743:

The article was kept at AfD even though only one good source was found. As usual a bunch of Uncy' users voted keep. The article is almost entirely

1885:"Notability has not been established. A notability tag has been on it for nearly 3 months now. No third-party references still. So fails WP:WEB." 186: 46: 1128:

The outcomes for the 2 very similar discussions (neighborhoods in NYC) are differnt - one gets upmerged to the borough, the other is deleted.

1048:

tossed out by an admin who acknowledges that there were perfectly valid arguments for retention, ones that he arrogantly chose to ignore.

1949:

concerns thrown in (noted in the DRV nom); so it would have been better for the admin to have closed based on policy, not !vote-counting.

1312: 1941:

offers a fairly strong defense of his close and it is not necessarily out of process, except that I think this site does clearly fail

889: 2105: 2025: 1531:

It certainly read like an advertisement to me, hence my involvement in one of the deletions. It would be best if you have a read of

925: 42: 126: 134: 2591: 1691: 1686: 485:

So keeping people by city categories, for example, by no means necessarily leads to keeping people by neighborhood categories.

380:

that will be caused by putting people into neighborhood-level categories for every neighborhood in which they have lived. So is

2548: 2543: 1695: 1478: 1453: 1188: 1184: 1147:

You don't need anyone's approval to add them to the appropriate borough or city categories. That should have been done here.

1231: 117: 76: 2615: 2552: 2393:

That's a very small part of a very large reason that it is not notable. The main reason is lack of third-party sources, read

1532: 1308: 348:

The admin was mistaken in considering them valid & we are here to correct his misjudgment. He closed on the basis of his

1794:

This is just an article saying that 'Frikipedia' was closed down. As far as I can see, 'Inciclopedia' isn't mentioned in it.

2010:

The closer's explanation seems impeccable and the challenge to it seems not to have any basis in process. DRV is not AFD.

1893:"This article sounds like an advertisement written by the website's users, also. It fails WP:N in that it is non-notable." 1720: 1678: 1410: 1405: 21: 235:. Consensus is not a vote count, and not all arguments are created equal. The delete arguments were simply stronger. -- 2577: 2535: 1414: 1196: 725: 2600:

The article restored to your userspace so you can work on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion.

1075:) and would appreciate any help in improving the formatting. I think we'd be better off if these lists would replace 2423:

added some sources. The AfD was closed. No idea why you keep trying to re-open this, especially since your edits to

1853: 1439: 1397: 1204: 454:- the arguments for keeping were weak and generic, relying in large part on the problems that are inherent in the 2630: 2514: 2469: 1657: 1609: 1376: 1331: 713: 100: 17: 1215:, as well.) And what do you know, that's what others in the discussion said, and was re-affirmed by the closer. 923:

as a fairly clear "no consensus" from looking over the CfD with strong arguments to keep the category. Best, --

712:

is that you can't overturn WP:V claiming consensus on AfD or DRV. You can go ask there if you don't believe me.

2015: 1540: 771: 1207:, which may actually apply in this case. (It rarely does when referring to categories). So in all, this is a " 2216: 2209: 2206: 1843: 1982: 1918:

You keep referring to the sources like there's more than one, when infact there's only one legitimate one.--

1361: 1316: 731: 719: 596: 2243:

yes, that newspaper wouldn't do as a RS for negative information in a BLP, but this is not a bio article.

85: 1848:

The only decent substantial coverage from a newspaper. I don't read Spanish so can't say much about this.

244:

Unfortunately, the excuses that the admin falsely defines as "simply stronger" and that were accepted by

2450: 2402: 2361: 2295: 2228: 2187: 2117: 2033: 1996: 1923: 1867: 1274: 1259: 1247: 1171: 1004: 940: 897: 851: 741: 679: 579: 327: 2320: 1775: 1682: 979: 948: 2539: 1113: 353:

the worst argument of all: that some of the people were mistakenly in the category. No valid reasons.

2603: 2371: 1764: 1466: 1208: 2286:

on Inciclopedia, like the newspaper source I comment above. That's just enough to have a section at

1401: 2619: 2607: 2503: 2454: 2440: 2406: 2388: 2365: 2350: 2324: 2299: 2276: 2254: 2232: 2191: 2176: 2150: 2135: 2121: 2096: 2077: 2060: 2047:

Good summation of closure from the closer, given that a reliable source was found to meet the core

2037: 2019: 2011: 2000: 1986: 1965: 1927: 1913: 1908: 1871: 1646: 1598: 1573: 1552: 1539:, and then, if you still believe you can create an acceptable article, do so in userspace (e.g. at 1526: 1506: 1474: 1365: 1320: 1293: 1278: 1263: 1223: 1175: 1156: 1142: 1118: 1089: 1057: 1042: 1022: 998: 983: 965: 952: 931: 901: 880: 855: 842: 833: 814: 797: 775: 767: 745: 703: 683: 663: 645: 627: 600: 583: 557: 543: 532:

this is a violation of NPA-- please refactor. We're discussing the arguements , not the nominator.

521: 494: 468: 446: 415: 393: 364: 339: 317: 299: 281: 258: 239: 217: 198: 89: 2316: 2223:

don't want to watch the video from TV Cuatro in case I find something worse than the newspaper. --

975: 944: 734:

fact (or the intersection of two or more such facts) in an article requires an associated category

2611: 2531: 2499: 2490: 2274: 2056: 1961: 1789: 1053: 1018: 994: 829: 641: 553: 517: 464: 389: 335: 313: 295: 254: 213: 194: 1956:

which I think provides sufficient grounds for retention and makes Sjakkalle's close reasonable.

330:

those reasons but your personal dislike has no bearing on whether the CFD was closed correctly.

1393: 1352: 736:", I wonder what the policy says of creating categories on non-verified facts on an article. -- 2131: 2073: 1901: 1833: 1748: 1548: 1289: 1251: 1152: 1085: 793: 490: 411: 81: 2126:

Given the recent nature of the previous AfD, I strongly suggest you wait a while to do that.

2446: 2398: 2357: 2291: 2224: 2183: 2113: 2029: 1992: 1919: 1863: 1643: 1270: 1255: 1200: 1189:

Knowledge:What Knowledge is not#Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information

1167: 1138: 893: 847: 737: 675: 575: 181: 1560:

deletion. There is nothing to indicate notability of this company. Moreover, the user page

509:

the improper insertion of personal bias by the admin to override a consensus for retention.

480:, not about why it makes sense to categorize people by neighborhood of association. There 2436: 2384: 2346: 2172: 1569: 709: 2584: 2397:. The alexa rank will never be used to determine the notability of a website by itself.-- 1727: 1446: 158: 2445:

What? You can't find any reliable sources? Then it's not notable enough for Knowledge.--

1953: 2146: 1938: 1905: 1561: 1470: 1212: 442: 308:

No valid arguments were presented for deletion at CfD, hence the deletion was invalid.

1804:

An wiki article from the old spanish uncyclopedia, unreliable and looks like nonsense.

2495: 2394: 2269: 2250: 2109: 2092: 2052: 1973:, pretty clear consensus even if not for the best of reasons. Recommend merging with 1957: 1942: 1752: 1593: 1587: 1582: 1502: 1049: 1038: 1014: 990: 962: 876: 825: 810: 699: 659: 637: 623: 549: 539: 513: 503: 460: 385: 360: 331: 309: 291: 277: 250: 245: 236: 209: 190: 2428: 2424: 2420: 2416: 2338: 2312: 2127: 2069: 1974: 1946: 1744: 1674: 1630: 1544: 1520: 1285: 1192: 1148: 1129: 1081: 789: 486: 407: 2569: 2182:

does that contribute to my notability? There was no consensus, there was a vote.--

1712: 1431: 476:, the arguments for keeping were really about why the neighborhood should have an 384:

by fracturing an already splintered category into ever tinier and tinier slivers.

1854:

http://www.cuatro.com/videos/index.html?xref=20071114ctoultpro_6.Ves&view=ver

1067:. There are established criteria for what make good, useful, and even necessary 2163: 2048: 1978: 1815: 1639: 1357: 1134: 1108: 674:

is a core policy and it can't be overriden by consensus on either AfD or DRV. --

671: 592: 2432: 2380: 2342: 2287: 2168: 2162:, the closer gave clear rationales for keeping the article. The article meets 1799: 1565: 869:

does with internal links. This list is much more specific, as it ought to be.

1191:

for good measure.) This, as noted by the commenters and the closer is simple

2142: 1760: 1311:, but I simply do not see how there was a consensus at the time of closing. 1220: 438: 1490:

It has been deleted repeatedly by a number of different administrators for

1844:

http://www.lun.com/modulos/catalogo/paginas/2006/09/16/LUCSTDI05LU1609.htm

1809: 2245: 2112:

despite the Keep votes which never seem to address the problem at hand.--

2087: 1497: 1033: 871: 805: 694: 654: 618: 534: 355: 272: 1241:. The cases made for both categories are very different. By allowing 233:

We shouldn't fault people for living in combined metropolitan districts

718:

Reasons for deletion include but are not limited to (...) content not

1543:), with reliable sources, and then bring that to Deletion Review. -- 1514:

nothing in the article to indicate notability. I recommend you read

1823: 864:

but that's not what Knowledge does--your argument would invalidate

2337:"non-notability" for "inciclopedia.wikia.com" quite clearly fails 1581:. Spammy article with no claim to notability by a succession of 326:

A number of valid reasons for deletion were offered. You may not

1977:, which is a normal editorial action that can be done anyway. 1790:

http://estrecho.indymedia.org/newswire/display/73061/index.php

1185:

Knowledge:What Knowledge is not#Knowledge is not a directory

1834:

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/wikia.com

1183:- Wow, I get to use an oft misapplied link appropriately: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2333: 1708: 1704: 1700: 1427: 1423: 1419: 142: 138: 130: 122: 2203:

Merge with Uncyclopedia until better sources are found

1197:

Knowledge:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_location

376:

is most certainly a valid reason for deletion. So is

1774:

Not in the top 250 Wikis in the world, according to

1199:.) A list of such people would likely be deleted as 1945:as noted in the original nomination with a dash of 609:

In other words, admins can ignore what you admit as

1537:Knowledge:Notability (organizations and companies) 1516:Knowledge:Notability (organizations and companies) 2494:– Already userfied by deleting administrator. – 1243:Category:People from Greenwich Village, New York 1239:Category:People from Greenwich Village, New York 728:which would probably apply here. The page says " 175:Category:People from Greenwich Village, New York 2106:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Inciclopedia‎ 2 2026:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Inciclopedia‎ 2 229:Riverdale is a distinct and unique neighborhood 1810:http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:WM2006_0060.jpg 1073:List of people associated with Columbus, Ohio 8: 227:as closer. Several of the keep arguments: 2513:The following is an archived debate of the 1800:http://www.frikipedia.es/friki/Inciclopedia 1656:The following is an archived debate of the 1564:reads like an ad for this company as well. 1375:The following is an archived debate of the 99:The following is an archived debate of the 2483: 2108:, as the fact still stands it still fails 1623: 1345: 652:Otto, you are correct, so I just fixed it. 69: 1828:Primary source of an image on the site.. 1232:Category:People from Riverdale, New York 1003:Saying that the nomination was based on 118:Category:People from Riverdale, New York 77:Category:People from Riverdale, New York 41: 50: 187:Category:People from Greenwich Village 33: 943:, which is not grounds for deletion. 7: 507:with a slightly different emphasis: 2633:of the page listed in the heading. 2472:of the page listed in the heading. 2370:The nonsense claiming "the site is 1612:of the page listed in the heading. 1334:of the page listed in the heading. 1195:. (Indeed it looks rather close to 1585:, the requester being the latest. 961:Consensus isn't vote counting. -- 892:and ought to be mended anyways. -- 890:List_of_people_from_Andhra_Pradesh 824:alphabetical clutterful category. 180:Category listing individuals from 28: 2068:per Davewild and Colonel Warden. 270:no valid arguement for deletion. 2419:page, claiming lack of sources. 2208:. Did you look at its main page 2205:The newspaper source is horrible 1824:http://desciclopedia.pt/Tio1.jpg 1771:th most popular site on the web. 974:Nor is it formed by one person. 788:as well, brother Carlossuarez. 189:, which is also included here. 2629:The above is an archive of the 2468:The above is an archive of the 2290:but not for its own article. -- 2024:So you want me to move this to 1860:Inciclopedia was also mentioned 1608:The above is an archive of the 1330:The above is an archive of the 1203:. And of course there's always 1858:A tiny mention on a TV show. " 1533:Knowledge:Conflict of interest 1309:category:people from The Bronx 1211:" intersection. (Looking over 382:hindering navigational utility 1: 2104:If this is kept, I will make 1895:These arguements are largely 374:Not a defining characteristic 30: 927:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 726:Knowledge:Overcategorization 1213:Notability is not inherited 2656: 1889:"another non-notable wiki" 1776:meta:List of largest wikis 722:in a reliable source (...) 2415:You attempted to AfD the 1063:above. We're discussing 714:Knowledge:Deletion policy 378:avoiding category clutter 18:Knowledge:Deletion review 2636:Please do not modify it. 2520:Please do not modify it. 2475:Please do not modify it. 2455:20:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC) 2441:20:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC) 2407:17:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC) 2389:16:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC) 2366:14:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC) 2351:12:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC) 2300:02:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC) 2255:13:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC) 1663:Please do not modify it. 1647:19:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC) 1615:Please do not modify it. 1541:User:Fuegoazul/RomexSoft 1382:Please do not modify it. 1366:09:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC) 1337:Please do not modify it. 1321:05:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1294:03:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC) 1279:00:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC) 1264:00:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC) 1224:23:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC) 1176:21:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC) 1157:21:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC) 1143:14:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC) 1090:21:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC) 1058:02:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC) 1043:13:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC) 902:03:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC) 881:13:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC) 856:03:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC) 106:Please do not modify it. 90:13:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 43:Deletion review archives 2620:10:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 2504:14:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC) 2325:05:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC) 2277:16:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC) 2233:04:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC) 2192:13:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC) 2177:03:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC) 2151:00:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC) 2136:23:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 2122:20:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 2097:19:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 2078:18:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 2061:17:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 2038:17:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 2020:16:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 2001:17:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 1987:14:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 1966:13:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 1928:17:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 1914:13:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 1872:12:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 1599:23:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC) 1583:single purpose accounts 1574:13:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC) 1553:01:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC) 1527:19:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 1507:19:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 1119:22:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC) 1023:22:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC) 999:21:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC) 984:21:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC) 966:10:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC) 953:05:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC) 932:03:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC) 834:12:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC) 815:00:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC) 798:21:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC) 776:19:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC) 746:05:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC) 704:14:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC) 684:14:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC) 664:14:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC) 646:14:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC) 628:13:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC) 611:"established consensus" 601:10:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC) 584:04:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC) 558:14:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC) 544:13:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC) 522:03:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC) 495:21:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 469:21:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 447:19:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 416:22:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC) 394:14:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC) 365:13:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC) 340:00:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC) 318:23:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 300:21:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 282:19:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 259:19:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 240:19:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 218:19:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 199:19:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 2517:of the article above. 1660:of the article above. 1379:of the article above. 1356:– Deletion endorsed – 1010:people by neighborhood 103:of the article above. 614:"apparent consensus" 2332:. Original poster's 1638:closure endorsed. – 1481:) 08:30, May 6, 2008 1105:Weak Overturn/Relist 2309:Overturn and delete 1936:Overturn and Delete 1755:isn't established. 1751:of this particular 1205:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 1187:. (Oh and throw in 1166:clearly pertinent. 843:Riverdale, New York 730:However, not every 1782:Sources evaluation 1193:overcategorisation 846:somewhere else. -- 502:It's great to see 290:This isn't CFD 2. 2643: 2642: 2622: 2606:comment added by 2482: 2481: 2175: 1911: 1745:original research 1622: 1621: 1597: 1483: 1469:comment added by 1344: 1343: 1269:of' categories. 406:, brother Otto. 402:That deserves an 60: 59: 2647: 2638: 2601: 2587: 2573: 2555: 2522: 2484: 2477: 2171: 1909: 1818:from Knowledge.. 1730: 1716: 1698: 1665: 1624: 1617: 1591: 1579:Endorse deletion 1482: 1463: 1449: 1435: 1417: 1384: 1346: 1339: 1217:Endorse deletion 930: 928: 670:And, of course, 182:Riverdale, Bronx 161: 147: 146: 108: 70: 56: 36: 31: 2655: 2654: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2634: 2631:deletion review 2596: 2590: 2583: 2582: 2576: 2546: 2530: 2518: 2515:deletion review 2473: 2470:deletion review 2356:Uncy-pedians.-- 1954:this discussion 1739: 1733: 1726: 1725: 1719: 1689: 1673: 1661: 1658:deletion review 1613: 1610:deletion review 1464: 1458: 1452: 1445: 1444: 1438: 1408: 1392: 1380: 1377:deletion review 1335: 1332:deletion review 926: 924: 177:also included. 170: 164: 157: 156: 150: 120: 116: 104: 101:deletion review 68: 61: 54: 34: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 2653: 2651: 2641: 2640: 2625: 2624: 2598: 2597: 2594: 2588: 2580: 2574: 2525: 2524: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2480: 2479: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2327: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2280: 2279: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2236: 2235: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2099: 2080: 2063: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2012:Colonel Warden 2005: 2004: 2003: 1968: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1784: 1783: 1779: 1778: 1772: 1741: 1740: 1737: 1731: 1723: 1717: 1668: 1667: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1620: 1619: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1576: 1562:User:Fuegoazul 1555: 1529: 1509: 1460: 1459: 1456: 1450: 1442: 1436: 1387: 1386: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1342: 1341: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1248:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 1226: 1178: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1122: 1121: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1045: 1026: 1025: 1005:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 1001: 986: 969: 968: 956: 955: 941:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 934: 917: 916: 915: 914: 913: 912: 911: 910: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 859: 858: 837: 836: 818: 817: 800: 779: 778: 768:Carlossuarez46 759: 758: 757: 756: 755: 754: 753: 752: 751: 750: 749: 748: 687: 686: 650: 649: 648: 631: 630: 604: 603: 586: 567: 566: 565: 564: 563: 562: 561: 560: 525: 524: 497: 471: 449: 431: 430: 429: 428: 427: 426: 425: 424: 423: 422: 421: 420: 419: 418: 397: 396: 368: 367: 343: 342: 321: 320: 303: 302: 285: 284: 264: 263: 262: 261: 221: 220: 172: 171: 168: 162: 154: 148: 111: 110: 95: 94: 93: 92: 67: 62: 58: 57: 49: 40: 29: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2652: 2639: 2637: 2632: 2627: 2626: 2623: 2621: 2617: 2613: 2609: 2605: 2593: 2586: 2579: 2571: 2567: 2563: 2559: 2554: 2550: 2545: 2541: 2537: 2533: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2523: 2521: 2516: 2511: 2510: 2505: 2501: 2497: 2493: 2492: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2478: 2476: 2471: 2466: 2465: 2456: 2452: 2448: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2438: 2434: 2430: 2426: 2422: 2418: 2414: 2408: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2386: 2382: 2377: 2373: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2363: 2359: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2348: 2344: 2340: 2335: 2331: 2328: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2314: 2310: 2307: 2306: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2278: 2275: 2273: 2272: 2267: 2264: 2263: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2247: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2221: 2217: 2214: 2210: 2207: 2204: 2202: 2199:Overturn and 2197: 2193: 2189: 2185: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2174: 2170: 2165: 2164:verifiability 2161: 2158: 2152: 2148: 2144: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2103: 2100: 2098: 2094: 2090: 2089: 2084: 2081: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2067: 2064: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2050: 2049:verifiability 2046: 2043: 2039: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1969: 1967: 1963: 1959: 1955: 1950: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1937: 1933: 1929: 1925: 1921: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1912: 1907: 1903: 1898: 1894: 1890: 1886: 1881: 1880: 1873: 1869: 1865: 1861: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1852: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1842: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1832: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1822: 1817: 1814:A picture of 1813: 1812: 1811: 1808: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1798: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1781: 1780: 1777: 1773: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1759:According to 1758: 1757: 1756: 1754: 1750: 1746: 1736: 1729: 1722: 1714: 1710: 1706: 1702: 1697: 1693: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1666: 1664: 1659: 1654: 1653: 1648: 1645: 1641: 1637: 1633: 1632: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1618: 1616: 1611: 1606: 1605: 1600: 1595: 1590: 1589: 1584: 1580: 1577: 1575: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1559: 1556: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1542: 1538: 1534: 1530: 1528: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1517: 1513: 1510: 1508: 1504: 1500: 1499: 1493: 1489: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1468: 1455: 1448: 1441: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1416: 1412: 1407: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1385: 1383: 1378: 1373: 1372: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1354: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1340: 1338: 1333: 1328: 1327: 1322: 1318: 1314: 1313:69.140.152.55 1310: 1305: 1301: 1295: 1291: 1287: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1244: 1240: 1237: 1233: 1230: 1227: 1225: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1202: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1179: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1131: 1127: 1124: 1123: 1120: 1117: 1116: 1112: 1111: 1106: 1103: 1102: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1046: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1035: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1011: 1006: 1002: 1000: 996: 992: 987: 985: 981: 977: 973: 972: 971: 970: 967: 964: 960: 959: 958: 957: 954: 950: 946: 942: 938: 935: 933: 929: 922: 919: 918: 903: 899: 895: 891: 886: 885: 884: 883: 882: 878: 874: 873: 867: 863: 862: 861: 860: 857: 853: 849: 844: 841: 840: 839: 838: 835: 831: 827: 822: 821: 820: 819: 816: 812: 808: 807: 801: 799: 795: 791: 787: 783: 782: 781: 780: 777: 773: 769: 764: 761: 760: 747: 743: 739: 735: 733: 727: 723: 721: 715: 711: 707: 706: 705: 701: 697: 696: 691: 690: 689: 688: 685: 681: 677: 673: 669: 668: 667: 666: 665: 661: 657: 656: 651: 647: 643: 639: 635: 634: 633: 632: 629: 625: 621: 620: 615: 612: 608: 607: 606: 605: 602: 598: 594: 590: 587: 585: 581: 577: 572: 569: 568: 559: 555: 551: 547: 546: 545: 541: 537: 536: 531: 530: 529: 528: 527: 526: 523: 519: 515: 510: 505: 501: 498: 496: 492: 488: 483: 479: 475: 472: 470: 466: 462: 457: 453: 450: 448: 444: 440: 436: 433: 432: 417: 413: 409: 405: 401: 400: 399: 398: 395: 391: 387: 383: 379: 375: 372: 371: 370: 369: 366: 362: 358: 357: 351: 347: 346: 345: 344: 341: 337: 333: 329: 325: 324: 323: 322: 319: 315: 311: 307: 306: 305: 304: 301: 297: 293: 289: 288: 287: 286: 283: 279: 275: 274: 269: 266: 265: 260: 256: 252: 247: 246:User:Kbdank71 243: 242: 241: 238: 234: 230: 226: 223: 222: 219: 215: 211: 206: 203: 202: 201: 200: 196: 192: 188: 183: 178: 176: 167: 160: 153: 144: 140: 136: 132: 128: 124: 119: 115: 114: 113: 112: 109: 107: 102: 97: 96: 91: 87: 83: 79: 78: 74: 73: 72: 71: 66: 63: 53: 48: 44: 39: 32: 23: 19: 2635: 2628: 2599: 2519: 2512: 2489: 2474: 2467: 2429:Uncyclopedia 2425:Inciclopedia 2417:Inciclopedia 2375: 2329: 2308: 2270: 2265: 2244: 2219: 2212: 2200: 2198: 2159: 2101: 2086: 2083:endorse keep 2082: 2065: 2044: 2007: 1975:Uncyclopedia 1970: 1935: 1934: 1896: 1892: 1888: 1884: 1859: 1768: 1763:the site is 1742: 1675:Inciclopedia 1662: 1655: 1635: 1631:Inciclopedia 1629: 1614: 1607: 1586: 1578: 1557: 1521: 1519: 1511: 1496: 1491: 1487: 1465:— Preceding 1461: 1381: 1374: 1351: 1336: 1329: 1303: 1235: 1228: 1216: 1180: 1163: 1130:Anna Wintour 1125: 1114: 1109: 1104: 1076: 1068: 1064: 1032: 1009: 936: 920: 870: 865: 804: 785: 762: 729: 717: 693: 653: 617: 613: 610: 588: 570: 533: 508: 499: 481: 477: 473: 455: 451: 434: 403: 381: 377: 373: 354: 349: 271: 267: 232: 228: 224: 204: 179: 173: 105: 98: 82:IronGargoyle 75: 64: 2602:—Preceding 2532:LaTiendaUSA 2491:LaTiendaUSA 2447:Otterathome 2399:Otterathome 2358:Otterathome 2292:Enric Naval 2225:Enric Naval 2184:Otterathome 2114:Otterathome 2102:Nom comment 2030:Otterathome 1993:Otterathome 1920:Otterathome 1864:Otterathome 1816:Jimbo Wales 1271:Vegaswikian 1256:Vegaswikian 1168:Sgt. bender 894:Enric Naval 848:Enric Naval 784:You get an 738:Enric Naval 716:also says " 676:Enric Naval 576:Enric Naval 456:People from 2376:10,267,272 2288:Frikipedia 1902:WP:SELFPUB 1897:assertions 1769:10,267,272 1749:notability 1252:WP:ILIKEIT 1069:categories 1065:categories 732:verifiable 720:verifiable 65:6 May 2008 2372:currently 1939:Sjakkalle 1906:Sjakkalle 1765:currently 1761:Alexa.com 1471:Fuegoazul 1394:RomexSoft 1353:RomexSoft 1201:WP:TRIVIA 2616:contribs 2608:Latienda 2604:unsigned 2496:Tikiwont 2271:Celarnor 2173:complain 2053:Davewild 1958:Eusebeus 1910:(Check!) 1479:contribs 1467:unsigned 1236:Overturn 1181:Comments 1164:Overturn 1050:Alansohn 1015:Otto4711 991:Alansohn 963:Kbdank71 937:Overturn 921:Overturn 826:Otto4711 638:Otto4711 550:Eusebeus 514:Eusebeus 504:Alansohn 461:Otto4711 386:Otto4711 332:Otto4711 310:Alansohn 292:Otto4711 268:Overturn 251:Alansohn 237:Kbdank71 210:Alansohn 205:Overturn 191:Alansohn 47:2008 May 20:‎ | 2578:restore 2549:protect 2544:history 2421:Rataube 2330:Endorse 2317:MrPrada 2266:Endorse 2220:totally 2160:Endorse 2128:JoshuaZ 2070:JoshuaZ 2066:endorse 2045:Endorse 2008:Endorse 1971:Endorse 1753:website 1721:restore 1692:protect 1687:history 1558:Endorse 1545:Stormie 1522:Hut 8.5 1512:Endorse 1488:endorse 1440:restore 1411:protect 1406:history 1286:Postdlf 1229:Endorse 1149:Postdlf 1082:Postdlf 976:MrPrada 945:MrPrada 790:Postdlf 763:Endorse 589:Endorse 571:Endorse 500:Endorse 487:Postdlf 478:article 474:Endorse 452:Endorse 435:Endorse 408:Postdlf 225:Endorse 152:restore 131:history 2553:delete 2395:WP:WEB 2201:Delete 2110:WP:WEB 1979:Stifle 1943:WP:WEB 1696:delete 1640:Splash 1415:delete 1358:Stifle 1304:relist 1135:Occuli 1126:Remark 593:Stifle 2585:cache 2570:views 2562:watch 2558:links 2433:carlb 2381:carlb 2343:carlb 2339:WP:RS 2334:edits 2313:WP:RS 2311:, no 2169:@pple 1947:WP:RS 1862:..." 1747:, so 1728:cache 1713:views 1705:watch 1701:links 1594:Help! 1566:Nsk92 1447:cache 1432:views 1424:watch 1420:links 1302:Weak 159:cache 139:watch 135:links 55:: --> 52:May 7 38:May 5 16:< 2612:talk 2566:logs 2540:talk 2536:edit 2500:talk 2451:talk 2437:talk 2427:and 2403:talk 2385:talk 2374:the 2362:talk 2347:talk 2341:. -- 2321:talk 2296:talk 2251:talk 2229:talk 2188:talk 2147:talk 2143:Kesh 2132:talk 2118:talk 2093:talk 2074:talk 2057:talk 2034:talk 2016:talk 1997:talk 1983:talk 1962:talk 1924:talk 1868:talk 1767:the 1709:logs 1683:talk 1679:edit 1636:Keep 1570:talk 1549:talk 1535:and 1503:talk 1492:both 1475:talk 1428:logs 1402:talk 1398:edit 1362:talk 1317:talk 1290:talk 1275:talk 1260:talk 1234:and 1221:jc37 1172:talk 1153:talk 1139:talk 1086:talk 1054:talk 1039:talk 1019:talk 995:talk 980:talk 949:talk 898:talk 877:talk 852:talk 830:talk 811:talk 794:talk 786:amen 772:talk 742:talk 710:WT_V 700:talk 680:talk 672:WP:V 660:talk 642:talk 624:talk 597:talk 580:talk 554:talk 540:talk 518:talk 491:talk 465:talk 443:talk 439:Kesh 412:talk 404:amen 390:talk 361:talk 336:talk 328:like 314:talk 296:talk 278:talk 255:talk 214:talk 195:talk 143:logs 127:talk 123:edit 86:talk 35:< 2592:AfD 2246:DGG 2088:DGG 2028:?-- 1735:AfD 1588:Guy 1498:DGG 1454:AfD 1254:. 1115:yan 1110:Ark 1077:all 1034:DGG 872:DGG 866:all 806:DGG 695:DGG 655:DGG 619:DGG 535:DGG 482:are 356:DGG 350:own 273:DGG 166:CfD 22:Log 2618:) 2614:• 2568:| 2564:| 2560:| 2556:| 2551:| 2547:| 2542:| 2538:| 2502:) 2453:) 2439:) 2405:) 2387:) 2364:) 2349:) 2323:) 2298:) 2253:) 2231:) 2190:) 2149:) 2134:) 2120:) 2095:) 2076:) 2059:) 2036:) 2018:) 1999:) 1985:) 1964:) 1926:) 1891:, 1887:, 1870:) 1711:| 1707:| 1703:| 1699:| 1694:| 1690:| 1685:| 1681:| 1644:tk 1642:- 1634:– 1572:) 1551:) 1505:) 1477:• 1430:| 1426:| 1422:| 1418:| 1413:| 1409:| 1404:| 1400:| 1364:) 1319:) 1292:) 1277:) 1262:) 1250:v 1219:- 1209:nn 1174:) 1155:) 1141:) 1088:) 1056:) 1041:) 1021:) 997:) 982:) 951:) 900:) 879:) 854:) 832:) 813:) 796:) 774:) 744:) 702:) 682:) 662:) 644:) 626:) 599:) 582:) 556:) 542:) 520:) 493:) 467:) 445:) 414:) 392:) 363:) 338:) 316:) 298:) 280:) 257:) 231:, 216:) 197:) 141:| 137:| 133:| 129:| 125:| 88:) 45:: 2610:( 2595:) 2589:| 2581:| 2575:( 2572:) 2534:( 2498:( 2449:( 2435:( 2401:( 2383:( 2360:( 2345:( 2319:( 2294:( 2249:( 2227:( 2215:" 2186:( 2145:( 2130:( 2116:( 2091:( 2072:( 2055:( 2032:( 2014:( 1995:( 1981:( 1960:( 1922:( 1866:( 1738:) 1732:| 1724:| 1718:( 1715:) 1677:( 1596:) 1592:( 1568:( 1547:( 1501:( 1473:( 1457:) 1451:| 1443:| 1437:( 1434:) 1396:( 1360:( 1315:( 1288:( 1273:( 1258:( 1170:( 1151:( 1137:( 1084:( 1052:( 1037:( 1017:( 993:( 978:( 947:( 896:( 875:( 850:( 828:( 809:( 792:( 770:( 740:( 698:( 678:( 658:( 640:( 622:( 595:( 578:( 552:( 538:( 516:( 489:( 463:( 441:( 410:( 388:( 359:( 334:( 312:( 294:( 276:( 253:( 212:( 193:( 169:) 163:| 155:| 149:( 145:) 121:( 84:(

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

Knowledge

:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 6 - Knowledge

Index