Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2008 March 1

3505:.) The shortcut was apparently changed months ago in an ... ill-advised move to delete the "one event" section of WP:BLP and when the section was restored the shortcut remained at WP:BIO. One of the most strenuous Keep editors, User:Therefore, was following the BLP#1E link that editors were referring to and was evidently confused for a while (he did not change his vote when the confusion was finally cleared up). Some of the Keep editors who participated in the earlier stages of the debate may well have had their decisions affected by the confusion. Although I think this DRV discussion should result in overturning, it would be completely justifiable to relist. I've offered (at the top of the AfD page) to contact every editor who participated in the AfD to make them aware of the difference and offer them an opportunity to reconsider, since they may have been confused. My offer stands, but only if the AfD is relisted. (It seems to me that, absent a complete merger of policies or guidelines, editors should not be allowed to redirect a shortcut to a policy/guideline page for just this reason.) I realize that the shortcut was changed months ago, but does anyone really want to argue that editors need to check each time they type a shortcut into an AfD discussion? They're called "shortcuts" for a reason. 1600:

question is Anonymous's de facto logo/banner/flag - they place it in propaganda, flyers, forums, picket signs, and (I believe) website defacements as a form of identification, and it is closely tied to the group's perceived identity. No one knows who originally made the image since everything on the Anonymous boards is posted anonymously (heh), but editors such as myself believe that it falls under fair use as a logo even under the strictest copyright provisions, similar to the way the logos for corporations like BMW are considered fair use. This is discussed in more depth on the IfD page, and I will be happy to provide you with more details if needed.

2935:, as noted) but as events. This event involves more than one person, is inextricably linked to a political campaign with attendant muckraking, and most of the interest in the individual is purely salacious. We should not be bolstering this. An existing article exists on the campaign and its controversies, and that is where this material should go. A redirect is unproblematic, a biography is not because there is no reason for this person to have any ongoing coverage. In twenty years time the article will still be "X is some girl that was involved with a politician and that ended up in the news". 3871:? But I guess I'm being too mechanical in my strained, wikilawyered interpretation of this deeply complex and nuanced policy which in fact means the opposite of what it says it means. Getting back to the actual purpose of this forum: The policy exists. No other interpretation is available when policy is explicit and obvious. If an AfD consensus refuses to recognize that, it is the job of the closing admin to do so. If the closing admin does not do so it is the job of this forum to point it out and the job of the closing admin of this forum to do so. 945:. Despite the fact that this image uses the demotivator "poster" format, it most certainly functions as a logo. Why? The image is a graphical symbol with easy recognition that is used to identify the group. It is placed in posters, flyers, forums, and (I believe) website defacements to mark the group. The logo vs. poster point was discussed in the origional IMD which resulted in Keep, but if more evidence is needed, I now present several examples of the image in anonymous propaganda, as contrasted with similar usage of corporate logos: 1688:: If the creator simply states "it's bad for wikipedia," that means nothing. Knowledge (XXG) is not at the service of pov statements by individuals with a conflict of interest. Wiki goes by what is notable. That said, if the creator instead stated "I do not give permission for this image to be used," that would be something else entirely. However, that is practically impossible. That image has been floating around for years now. If someone were to step forward at this point, they'd have no way to prove they created the image.-- 4114:, which is a common objection to biographies of such people and not always sufficient. However, I think the general reason against including a person in that case is if the event does not center around that person, the event itself isn't very significant, or that person isn't a significant player in the event. It's not intended to mean a person has to be notable for more than one event. Given the nature of the actual event and her specific role in it the one event argument just wasn't sufficient reason.-- 2858:

closing admin has earned my respect for that. With one point I would quarrel: In this kind of detailed, long, contentious AfD it would have been better to close with a more detailed statement about how the decision actually related to policy. I disagree with the closing decision because consensus (or in this case a lack of consensus) cannot overturn policy, and no policy-based argument was put forth for Keep, while very detailed policy-based arguments were given for delete or merge. The

2818:(WCDAWDWP) is the governing philosophy (and I'm not confident that it isn't), then this DRV discussion needs to focus on whether or not the closing admin misinterpreted the debate. The only misinterpretation that would get us anywhere close to rehashing the AfD itself is over the question of how much certain votes should be discounted because they ignored or argued against policy rather than giving an acceptable interpretation of it. If editors would prefer to overrule 3660:) that my close was not (as put above) measured against headcount. Indeed I spent over 2 hours reading through the responses and links in the AfD; I read the article and articles related to the AfD; I noted each nominators previous edits especially where they were Single Purpose Accounts; and I did not pay undue attention to the numbers but added them as a part of my closure just to give comparison values. As I stated in my close 3349:

records of some sort, but her notoriety stemmed almost solely from her emergence as an internet phenomenon from a YouTube video, and the rumors and salacious speculation surrounding a totally innocent act. In the case of Iseman, without the gossip (and that is all it is), she is as utterly non-notable as the thousands of other lobbyists in Washington, and we shouldn't be in the business of republishing rumors and gossip.

1161:. And it's implied then that it might be taken and manipulated, changed, etc. And geez, just look at the name. They're not going to identify themselves or claim copywrite anyway, it's part of the nature of the group. It would be difficult to prove that any single person even created the image, anyway. Posting into placed like /b/ and 4chan is implied consent to release it to the public domain. 1546:

snowball's chance in hell that anyone would ever claim copyright or be able to enforce it, and 5) it now has a source as per NFCC 10a. I think some editors may be taking a personal vendetta out on Anonymous for past trolling and vandalism. In some sense I can understand this - from time to time their trolling has annoyed me as well - but it is not a reason to sabotage the article.

1492:

suggests anything they produce and release as a member of anonymous is public domain. I mean, a member of anonymous literally creates an image and releases it for anyone to use without attributing it to the original creator and does this knowingly, in fact, largely intending for it to happen. At the very least this implies consent for use if not an outright waiver of copyright.--

2290:. You cannot just wave the policies and essays of "BLP", "COATRACK" and "BLP1E" and use them to say "this must therefore be deleted, end of discussion" without considering if there really is a violation of those policies. In fact, BLP1E and COATRACK arguments were in my view very unconvincing since the article focuses on Iseman's achievements as a lobbyist, and 2298:. The McCain story is just mentioned briefly with a link in the lead. The rest of the article is about Iseman's education, and her career. The NYT silliness is probably what gave Iseman name recognition for most people who know her name now, but it is her activities in working with politicians which has given her real significance. The 599:– No consensus to overturn. I would like to assume good faith, but I sense there is a large undercurrent in this debate that is not actually about our NFCC policy. There were a number of arguments on both sides of the debate that seemed to be based on misunderstandings of copyright law and/or our NFCC policy. Firstly anonymous works 4070:. The combination of attempting to delete/redirect that article together with the attempt to remove the Iseman article together essentially appears to have the net effect of removing most substantial coverage of a very notable set of events that is having long-term impacts on the United States presidential campaign. 3070:

sockpuppetry or the participation of a large number of inexperienced or otherwise unrepresentative users results in a large number of comments in an AFD discussion which are contrary to community-wide policy and consensus. It is singularly inappropriate for an administrator closing an AFD discussion to misapply

1095:

anonymous isn't some hierarchical organization with a formal setup. It is really just a bunch of people who do as they please without asking for any recognition of their efforts. Anyone can join and distribute images all over the Internet. As such I would say it should really just say public domain, not fair use.

2676:. As I noted in the AfD, outside of two trivial events (a listing of her clients from her now-deleted profile page at her firm, and a note about her speaking at a school board meeting), none of the sources covered her outside of the context of her relationship with McCain. All of the relevant information is at 3919:). Where is the argument in the AfD that gives a plausable response to this point, which I did make in the AfD? In fact, in the AfD I ran through a description of all seven footnotes in the article. It simply is not plausable to claim more than one notable event in this person's life. (b) I agree that the 3664:. Whilst I read good arguments - I read them from both sides and that fact and the fact that a consensus to close was not formed forced my action as the closing administrator to reach the default conclusion of keep - in my view as a part of the overall policy and guidelines to closing admins. Best wishes-- 2032:– Closure endorsed. This was a somewhat tricky closure, as there was no consensus to overturn a no consensus decision. The thoughtful discussion in this DRV has served to elaborate many policy points that were brought up in the AfD, so I considered these on the strength with which they followed the letter 2175:. My personal view is that closures should follow the rough editorial consensus absent compelling reasons to do otherwise. This AfD was fairly straight-forward, there was no shortage of input, there was almost no canvassing/sockpuppeting, and the arguments for deletion were IMO reasonable but indecisive. 3368:

matter has received the idea that a Knowledge (XXG) article will substantially alter the level of public attention is close to laughable. In any event, this is not AfD round 2. We should let community consensus decide what to do in such cases, in this case there was not sufficient consensus to delete.

4548:

The closing admin should have radically discounted those Keep !votes because historical notability can't reasonably be claimed if we're talking about interest that only lasts for months. The AfD participants had no reasonable way of knowing that an article providing more information about her than is

3956:

I'll respond to the rest of your points later today when I have more time but to be brief; if we agree that there is some point where an individual's notability overrides ONEEVENT/BLP1E issues then that needs to be determined by community consensus; in this case the consensus was that that wasn't the

3676:

SV's comment repeats the mistake on the top of the AfD page: The convincing points in the case the admin agreed with should be noted. Instead we have an assertion that they were looked at. In a hotly debated case, if one argument is more convincing than a competing argument, it is useful to everybody

3050:

Yet again (as below) you're twisting a policy or guideline into something exactly the opposite of what it means. The passage in WP:DGFA that I quoted directly contradicts you. It is the closing admin's job to assess how well policy has been adhered to by editors in the discussion. You've been arguing

2765:

That article you mention was just destructively redirected, despite clear consensus at the afd to keep it. (Its now up for deletion review, on the grounds that this redirect amounts to a deletion). this shows a certain determination to get rid of the content regardless. The consensus of the community

2574:

As you like - but it was also not a consensus to re-direct. I leave you to it - but I ask you to again await the decision of this secondary process, and as my understanding of you is that you are a good editor and admin I continue to assume good faith that you will do just that. Again my best wishes

2417:

as major contributor. I have pledged to abide by the AfD. Now, I'm surprised that within minutes of unsuccessful AfD, the page was redirected, as if no one had objected to this exact action prior to to the AfD. I have reverted the redirect as against the consensus measured (in the AfD and VI talk). I

1560:

I wasn't even paying close enough attention to realize who they are. I thought it was a band. Seemed like a strange logo for a band, but then I figured that's why people were disputing whether or not it is actually a logo. Regardless, I don't see the necessity. Where's the link that shows there is no

1545:

It's hard to believe we are even having this discussion - 1) the image already passed IfD handily, 2) it is an important logo that helps distinguish the general Anonymous from the Chanology Anonymous, 3) it easily qualifies for fair use assuming full copyright, 4) even if it didn't then there isn't a

1523:

At the very least there's permission to copy, at the most it's released into the public domain. I just don't see why we're even arguing over whether this violates copyright. Given the nature of Anonymous, we'd know if they didn't want this image used. Hell, I think they already gave us their position

4349:

Noroton you completely misread the policy. Few articles deal solely with a person in context of what that person is notable for because that would just be a dumb article. Background of some sort is always required in an article. Her career as a lobbyist goes directly to her notability because if she

4090:

and others should too. It doesn't much affect the arguments here, however, since the event is covered either way. It would be unfair and inappropriate under the spirit of WP:BLP if more information about the event were included in an article about one participant rather than an article about McCain,

2900:

adequate policy-based arguments were presented by the other side. I don't see evidence in the closing statement that the closing admin adequately considered how little the Keep editors relied on policy even though good policy arguments were presented on the Delete/Merge side. It does not appear that

1599:

is an amorphous collection of internet forum and imageboard users who traditionally engaged in trolling, vandalism, prank calls, and other nonsense. However, recently they have become notable due to several real-life activities that have drawn considerable media coverage and commentary. The image in

4593:

I'm not going to try and make this AfD part two, but the fact is this really shows why the close as no consensus was appropriate. Whether policy justified deletion in this case seemed more a matter of personal interpretation than any clear-set policy. Arguably her career as a lobbyist does give her

4213:

is intended to be applied to a situation in which we have an article concerning an event under the pretense of a biography of a person involved in it. Such an article necessarily gives massive undue weight to the event in our characterization of the person involved in it, and, thus, constitutes an

2721:

some political events are important, and this is one of them. Itwill remain in the histories of the campaign when its written. I wish people would realize that the presumption of privacy does not apply to really major politicians such as presidential candidates, and those involved with them to the

1491:

When looking at the IfD you'll notice a few anonymous editors came in to say it is basically the logo of anonymous and should be kept. The nature of anonymous means any logo they produce would not be clearly released into the public domain or attributed to a source. However, the nature of the group

1135:

I am aware of that. My point is the very nature of creating something and releasing it as a member of anonymous is the same as releasing it into the public domain because that person is knowingly providing an image which will be spread around the Internet by complete strangers most likely and never

4517:

The WP:NOT#NEWS policy above clearly states that the encyclopedia is concerned not with the passing notability of news accounts but the longer-term notability of history. In the AfD, User:DGG was one of the editors making the point that WP:BLP is not absolute. (I also addressed this in the AfD and

4499:

Note the "may" in the quote is not absolute either, which further strengthens DA's case. Clearly, this policy and WP:BLP allow for exceptions and clearly consensus can decide those exceptions, but common sense tells us that even a consensus to apply policy has limits or we'd have the equivalent of

3367:

Excuse me, but the situations aren't comparative at all. Alison Stokke was a teenager who had nasty things said about her on the internet. That's not at all in the same category as a major lobbyist who has been mentioned and discussed in major newspapers. Furthermore, given how much attention this

2642:

I would likely have endorsed the close if this had been closed as a merger and that should still be strongly considered and possibly discussed on the talk page. But a no consensus is a reasonable close as well. The redirection in the middle of this DRV is not so good but I believe Doc when he says

1034:

Going into /b/ is basically the equivalent of walking into the middle of an internal marketing meeting at a company. Of course there are going to be tons of images being thrown around. However, if you look at the logos Anon presents to the outside world, there are only a few, as is consistent with

4328:

The policy language actually touches on WP:NPOV concerns and refutes John's point more economically than I ever could. In applying policy, a look at the intent, purpose and spirit is a good guide. The nut graph and paragraphs at the top of the policy help as do descriptions of the policy that are

3028:

Of course AFD discussions should be closed on the basis of the strength of arguments. However, the relative merits of the arguments presented is a subjectivity that is better assessed collectively by the established contributors participating in an AFD discussion than by the single administrator

2857:

I notice that it took a while for a closing admin to weigh into the 84K-long, difficult AfD and I appreciate and applaud the admin who took on the responsibility. I also appreciate the regard for consensus and the editor's statement that policy was considered. It could not have been easy, and the

2418:

encourage this correct process, but am disappointed with the unsupported redirect by Doc. Since Doc appears so interested in getting his way here, I'm just going to stop fighting him, even though in this case I believe he's incorrect, and consensus already has been measured as against his action.

1094:

Anonymous doesn't claim copyright. In fact, I'd say the very nature of the "organization" means they don't claim copyrights. Anonymously releasing an image with the intent that it be spread without being attributed to you is really the same as releasing something into the public domain. Mind you,

611:

into the public domain. NFCC10a demands source and copyright holder. A source was found (seemingly midway through the debate). Please note that WP:NFCC does not require that this source be linked to. A specific description of where this source can be found in some other media may be acceptable as

3957:

case. DRV is not AfD roudn 2. (I don't see any consensus against merging but that isn't the claim being made here and regardless should have a full discussion. Certainly merging isn't viable as long as the obvious merge target itself is just a redirect. See the DRV a few entries above this one).

3074:

by claiming that his or her judgment regarding the correct application of policy to the article in question is so far superior to even the judgement of other administrators in this respect that his or her personal assessment of the merits of the arguments presented outweighs the judgement of all

2899:

I put some hard work into providing policy-based arguments against Keep. I did so because as an editor participating in that discussion, I was obligated to try to apply policy and guidelines as well as my common sense more than my personal preferences. I do not see evidence on that AfD page that

3348:

Precedent on Knowledge (XXG) has been to remove articles on people whose notoriety stems primarily from a single incident; Alison Stokke, "QZ", and Crystal Gail Mangum as primary examples. The first is the most relevant; there was nothing derogatory in her bio, and she had apparently held track

2977:

expressed, not to employ the closure as a forum for his or her own personal views regarding the acceptability of an article's subject matter. The closure of this discussion as "no consensus" is exemplary in its adherence to this principle. Absent an extrodinarily compelling reason, such as an

4553:

would be of any historical interest at all for encyclopedia readers. Incidentally, the "historical notability" isn't a high hurdle: I think two notable events would get past it, but it is meant to help weed out subjects of only passing notability. The exceptions allowed for in WP:BLP aren't a

3885:

Knowledge (XXG) is not a bureaucracy and people can have reasonable disagreements about how to interpret and enforce policy. In this case, there did not seem to be a consesus that Marsden was either a) only notable for one event and b) that that one event was not by itself so notable as to not

3251:

section. This is the kind of illogical, weak argument that is found on the AfD page, which is the only reason we can bring it up here because this is not AfD Part 2. We are obligated to be "fair" in our coverage of an event. We are not obligated to say nice things about someone in their own WP

2207:

exists, the "significance of the event" argument doesn't hold -- all significant information about that event can go into that article. There is no reason to override WP:ONEEVENT or the other aspects of WP:BLP that directly apply here and have never been shot down by any Keep arguments. I made

2036:

the spirit of policy in question. There are two main factors that led me to make this decision. One is the fact that the spirit of WP:BLP (i.e. do no harm) is better served with retention of the article than a "...Controversy" fork alone. Were the subject of the article actively requesting its

1926:

web-content with no assertion of notability. Article specifically stated that very little was known about it, and then pleaded with people to keep checking because the creator of the game promises to leak details over time. Knowledge (XXG) is not an online game promotion site. As it has been

1279:

These concerns are important, but they were already considered at the IfD, which resulted in keep, and no one has presented new evidence. The original IfD considered whether the image was replaceable and determined it was not. The original IfD discussed the problems with sourcing the image and

3941:

Oh, to more directly refute JoshuaZ's point (b): I would agree that if this event was comparable to the JFK assassination, then this article would be justified as the BLP of a subject just too important to be ignored. It's kind of hard to argue that this event was of such importance since the

1224:

from Project Chanology, which is a protest David's image represents. The people in that photo are not Anonymous as a whole. Anonymous, as a whole, cannot be represented by "people". It's a group and subculture that firmly rejects representation. As such, the two uniform cartoon images most

923:

4526:

but that the woman was in the news. Comments at the AfD also justified "Keep" votes because the article would be useful to readers now interested in the news event. These comments should have been radically discounted because they were so contrary to WP:NOT#NEWS as well as WP:BLP (as well as

3900:

I go into this here only to make the point that no plausable response to these arguments was in the AfD discussion: (a) There was no other event than the Feb. 21 NY Times article that was notable. The article consisted of either mentions in the media that are trivial or nonsubstantial by the

3069:

does state that the single administrator closing an AFD discussion should personally consider and weigh the merits of the arguments presented. What must not be overlooked is that this policy provision is intended to be applied to a particular situation, namely, one in which either outright

2782:

And I have contributed to that discussion. My position is that having two articles is clearly unnecessary, and support keeping that article and deleting this one. The BLP issues in that article can be fixed, but not in this one, and the community's "consensus" cannot override policy.

747:

It's replaceable fair use, thus should be deleted per NFCC #1. People are claiming it's the logo specifically to controvert NFCC, but there are so many different logos it's also a POV issue. We also can't identify the copyright owner (again, bad), or the source of the interior image.

2680:, which is an appropriate article. In fact, her name should not appear anywhere in Knowledge (XXG), because this whole kerfuffle isn't about her, it's about McCain. That is why the coatrack analogy has been applied; it's "all about George" (or in this case, "all about John"). 4423:

can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the

2708:

BLP is policy and AFD consensus should be measured against policy not headcount. The closing comments do not address the BLP aspect so it is not clear that this was properly weighed in the close. I would personally go for a straight redirect to the controversy article.

215:

Procedural listing for a user who tried to list it but put it in the incorrect format and on one of the archive log pages. I have no opinion on this article, myself, at this time. Original requester's text below, as well as deletion logs for the three affected pages.

2978:

article which is comprised of unsourced controversial material concerning living persons or copyright infrigements, administrators must not delete articles being discussed at AFD without an actual consensus to do so. While an article which substantially violates the

3760:

was involved, and exclude all mention of well-sourced information concerning her accomplishments, thereby creating the very sort of negatively biased coverage that the policy is designed to prohibit. As a still more disruptive tactic, supporters of the deletion of

3327:

There is no need to mention her by name at all, either in the controversy article, or in this "biographical" article. The article covering the issue does not suffer by omitting her name (simply identifying her as a lobbyist is sufficient). The sources for the

4462:

This is a good point (JoahuaZ brings it up earlier), and it gets us back to what we're actually supposed to be doing here: deciding if the closing admin's decision was within policy. The argument DA makes was made in the AfD, but here and in the AfD the

4447:

but this event happens to be extremely notable and this person was a central figure in it, there has to be consideration for whether this is an exception. So the decision to close as no consensus was perfectly legitimate given the circumstances of the

3501:. As can be seen in the AfD, and now on Doc Glasgow's talk page, some experienced editors who were used to that shortcut as a link to the section in WP:BLP were inadvertently directing people to the WP:BIO page. (The new link to the WP:BLP section is 2350:. Closing admin got it wrong, this is a BLP issue, a consensus to keep is needed, whereas there is a consensus here to do something other than keeping a biography. I nominated for, and still prefer, deletion, but a merge would be a fair compromise.-- 2216:) no longer links to WP:BLP, but rather to WP:BIO, so Delete/Merge arguments were cut off at the knees when editors like me were confused about that. The switch in that shortcut may be a reason to relist the debate, as I posted at the top of the AfD. 2887:

Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.

2491:

If the discussion failed to reach consensus, then the article is kept by default, but the decision should generally include a reference to the lack of consensus, such as No consensus - default to keep, in order to minimise ambiguity and future

3439:

was deleted on the grounds of genuinely harmful publicity, as the article related to a person with no voluntary participation in public life who had a notability which she regarded as embarrassing thrust upon her through no fault of her own.

2953:

It's even more tenuous than that, actually. "X was a girl that a politician's aides, anonymously, told a newspaper they thought might have been too close to politician Y". There is no evidence, in all this mess, that Vicki Iseman was ever

2870:

has been shown to be obvious. That being the case, Keep votes must be discounted and a "rough consensus" declared, probably for "delete" (too few "merge" votes, which was my choice). The only guidelines I can find for closing admins is at

3723:

keeps can overcome. It is a well established principle that policy overrides vote counting, not least because consensus behind policy is immeasurably greater than the "consensus" represented by a few dozen editors turning up at an AfD.

4442:

as it concerns talk of one event notability. Policy is not clear enough on this issue, but a person associated with one event may be given an independent article in certain conditions. As such if someone's argument on an article is only

3340:, who is not involved with McCain at all at this point. He stated that the allegations were "highly implausible", and added there he was totally unaware of any discussions about the alleged relationship while he was working for McCain. 2643:

that he was unaware of this discussion. Claims that ONEVENT/BLP1E and others somehow necessitate overturning are highly unpersuasive. In general, we should respect actual consensus or lack thereof when deciding BLP-penumbra issues. See

464:

Synth rock exists, probably we can find sources for it if we look hard enough, but the deleted article was not compliant with policy. I think that userfying and pointing the author to the music project is the est way to handle this.

4153:

If this article somehow passes deletion review, how could it possibly have any information in it since the subject is of marginal notability and therefore all information not connected to this one event would have to be deleted under

1956:, valid A7. The article had stuff like what the characters were, but no assertation of any notability whatsoever. An incomplete/unreleased game would have to be pretty darn special to have an article of its own, and some rock-solid 3246:

at this point confuses me for the reasons explained in my 19:06 comment below) to demand that we provide "positive coverage" of a person notable for only one event contravenes both the spirit of WP:BLP and the direct language of the

4481:, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Knowledge (XXG):Biographies of living persons for more details.) Timely news subjects not suitable for Knowledge (XXG) may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. 3850:. Unless we're going to redact her name from the presidential campaign article as well, the deletion of this article would still place massively undue weight on the scandal, and exclude all well-sourced information favorable to 3696:

Not a single individual has raised any argument that the close violates Knowledge (XXG) process, the only valid justification for overturning consensus. All I see here is an attempt to reargue the failed attempt at deletion.

2302:

policy is mainly a policy on how to write biographies on living people, not whether to write such biographies, and with every statement in the article well sourced, there is no violation. The closure was entirely correct.

4566:

subsection of WP:BLP. We see this article running up against multiple policies which reinforce and clarify each other, something we don't see applying to one-event-notability articles like the ones on Oswald and Sirhan.

3909:(50th paragraph on the history-making Homer-Center School Board meeting; three paragraphs in the college alumni magazine, etc.) or it consisted of stories that piggybacked on the original New York Times story which was 3029:

closing it. (Note that some of the editors supporting retention of the article are administrators themselves.) Furthermore, as I argue below, deletion of the article is radically inconsistent with the purpose of the

3414:

should be withheld unless such a redaction has actually been effectuated and maintained against what will doubtless be many outraged users. Articles such as those described above are actually quite different cases:

4091:

the most important participant and the one who actually makes the event notable. It has the flavor of pinning the scarlet letter on one person and not the other, whatever the intentions of Knowledge (XXG) editors.

3252:

article because something bad about them was said (insinuated, actually) in an article on an event. Having something not nice written about you in Knowledge (XXG) is not a notability criterion for an article. From

3818: 3047:

the relative merits of the arguments presented is a subjectivity that is better assessed collectively by the established contributors participating in an AFD discussion than by the single administrator closing

2893:

A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions.

2494:

As the closing admin that is exactly what view and decision I took. Whatever happens here so be it but there was no consensus to delete even as BLP and even less of an interest or consensus to merge. Best

2958:

with anybody, appropriately or inappropriately. Nor has the New York Times claimed that she was (and they were severely lambasted by their Public Editor for running the story, given the lack of evidence)

523: 4170:(boldface in original). So we delete everything but the information on this one event under WP:NPF and then all we have is information on this one event, which is strongly discouraged by WP:ONEEVENT ( 2927:

is an important principle, and here we have a person whose role in public life is so minor that without the one regrettable event any article would be a slam-dunk delete; we should cover such matters

3913:

if ever there was one (by "piggybacked" I mean those other stories never, ever would have been written without the original NYT story -- therefore they offer no additional proof of notability beyond

616:

for the image was, has likely colored the discussion). The copyright holder is anonymous (or Anonymous). This leaves the debate on if this image is replaceable. I see no consensus on this point. –

808:, however: the deletion of any fair use image could be justified on the grounds that it is replaceable in consideration of the prospect of the copyright holder releasing it under a free license. 710:"It's a logo!" was used to get the image kept. It's not a logo, it's a poster, and RFU at that. And it's no way official - I saw four logos on /b/ within the sapce of 5 minutes last Saturday. 2250:

is an unreasonable idea by any means. But DRV isn't the place for that; merging options can (and should, for the sake of clarity) be discussed on the talk page after an AfD is closed as keep.

797: 701: 551: 3444:

may be distinguished on two grounds: that lobbyists are intentionally public figures, and that her notability arose as a result of alleged fault asserted by highly reliable sources such as

781:-- irrespective of whether this image does or does not actually constitute a logo, it is clearly irreplaceable in the sense that it is necessarily to illustrate the propaganda employed by 1075:: Really? Salable? And where can you buy it then? It isn't "from a popular website." It isn't from any particular website. You can find it haunting the internet in many locations.-- 2627:

to await the outcome of DRV especially when that editor has asked for the review. If the DRV results in a change of view on my AfD closure that will be accepted by me without qualm. --

2294:

on the nonsense speculation from the New York Times. If the article was a repeat of the NYT story, that would be a coatrack and BLP1E, but this article is in fact a complete biography.

2257:

allusions are very tenuous given the obvious long-term significance of this particular event. Whether or not the information could theoretically be placed anywhere doesn't change that.

4382:

The policy doesn't make it clear for someone who apparently only looks for black and white statements, but WP:ONEVENT is not given as an absolute argument. I'll highlight it for you:

1533: 1145: 3278:. I never claimed that "anytime we mention a person in the context of negative events, we must provide an article on the positive aspects of that persons life." Indeed, if the only 2261:

really was not meant to preclude proper coverage of events of this magnitude (hence its qualifications); the relevant talk page discussions and ArbCom proceedings make this clear. —

2743:

Nobody is disagreeing that the event is important. Vicki Iseman, however, is not important. The event is mentioned and linked from five other articles in Knowledge (XXG), including

853:. This image is clearly non-replaceable. If you tried to create a new image using freely licensed images, it would not be the same thing, and would thus misrepresent the group. -- 3657: 2960: 2460: 2367: 2364: 2163: 1987:- no indication of its importance so valid A7. Even with such an indication the page would have severe problems - no secondary sources, no real world context, crystalballism etc 2832:

This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate itself was interpreted incorrectly by the closer

4123: 3784: 3779: 2463: 3788: 878: 3343:

The public editor of the Times very frankly criticized the paper's handling of the entire story, and stated that they provided no evidence of a relationship between the two.

3085: 3071: 3066: 3014:

disagrees with you on the task of the closing admin, as I demonstrated in my post at 17:33. Strength of argument counts, not simply that there was an argument, however weak.

3011: 2876: 1056:, as soon as I saw this, I recognized it as a salable item from a popular website, and was going to nominate it for deletion myself, so thank you for it already being here! 4603: 4457: 4359: 2963: 1669:-- Has nothing else to offer the conversation, but seriously, if the maker of the logo came and said it was bad to use on wiipedia, could it possibly make any difference? 1501: 1109: 3771: 37: 4562:

where delving into the person's personal life may provide important answers to historical questions, and the focus on that notable material is further mandated by the

4230:, however, avoidance of undue weight actually weighs in favor of retention of the article, since deletion of the article removes well-sourced information favorable to 2624: 2588: 2510:

Oh and Doc - it is extremely inappropriate to redirect after the AfD and whilst this DRV is in place. Please abide by the first decision of the umpire and await the

1100:

As it concerns the image being a poster, it was earlier pointed out that the image was created using a software that is on their site, but was not created by them.--

687: 3336:

McCain employees, and their allegations have been denied by McCain and Iseman. More importantly, they have been denied by McCain's former communications director,

2146: 1364:

The source doesn't need to be listed here. It needs to be listed on the image page. Also, I get I'm arguing the same points as the IFD discussion, thus my vote to

4479:

Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event

1878: 2990:, except in the case of articles which are comprised of inadequately sourced, potentially libelous material. Since this article is clearly not such a blatant 51: 4222:

as an archetypical example of such an unacceptable article. Yet, for most people whose notability has arisen from a single event, we cannot, consistent with

2623:- Yes I noted that he has - and such an action was completely inappropriate. I have reverted and protected for now and I urge all persons including Tony aka 4388:

imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Knowledge (XXG) article about a larger subject, but

4087: 1887:

Very little is known about the game at this time, but Ankama has promised to keep users posted with trailers, concept art, screenshots, etc. every two weeks.

526:), but unless there is an explicit request to review that as well, I'd simply follow JzG's suggestion for that case, i.e. that given its history any article 2166: 1329:(especially if different from the source), which is important both for copyright and for informational purposes." In this case, it is unfortunate that the 2546:

made it look like you were acting in direct opposition to the closure of the AfD - good faith is your right and assumed - but now you know. Best wishes.--

46: 3927:

has very specific, very clear, very hard-to-misinterpret language saying why an additional BLP article is a bad idea when the event has its own article.

4235: 3753: 3745: 3629: 3574: 3315: 3311: 3174: 3030: 2979: 2156: 2041:

perspective are cast into active doubt because other aspects of the subject's life as a major lobbyist (a marginally public figure) may have notability

1225:

commonly used to represent them, an invisible suited male, and a green skinned, suited male are the only acceptable images for representing Anonymous.--

924:

commonly used to represent them, an invisible suited male, and a green skinned, suited male are the only acceptable images for representing Anonymous.--

3294:

demonstrates that it is possible to provide substantial reliably sourced information concerning her accomplishments, and place the events described in

3923:

was notable. That's why it's covered in its own article, and the event is certainly important enough to be covered by a Knowledge (XXG) article. And

3677:

if the closing admin can point it out. In some cases, it will avoid DRV (although that was unlikely in this case) and it will help educate editors.

4037: 3979:

which covers much of the same territory and is also a policy. But if we're going to continue on this point, let's do it at that spot on the page.

3843: 1197:

I personally don't see why we don't just use the image David Shankbone took that actually depicts members of the group, in place of this image. --

4242:

policy by means of negatively-biased selection of which well-sourced material to report, when the policy expressly states its purpose as follows:

3318:

is viewed as a deletionists' charter, instead of a policy designed to ensure that our coverage of living people is accurate, fair, and balanced.

514:

have correctly been deleted as redirects with missing targets and no significant history so there isn't anything to review there. The target of

1348: 2501: 2427: 2384: 2354: 2330: 2312: 2194: 3775: 2363:. Comparing the numbers for the person with the numbers for the controversy, it's possible to state with confidence: this is an ex-parrot. -- 2208:

detailed, very explicit arguments at AfD because a majority didn't seem to be listening to the WP:BLP arguments. That may have been because

4219: 3051:

that the Keep arguments adhered strongly enough to policy not to be radically discounted, but your own arguments are weak even right here.

867: 4587: 4373: 4148: 1512: 1234: 1206: 1180: 1124: 42: 2722:

extent that they are already covered by the news media extensively. In such circumstances, if an article is reliably sourced it meets BLP

612:

well (although this is not relevant as a source was found that could be linked to...again, the undercurrent and implication of where the

4199:, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, you should 1670: 1653: 1426: 1136:

attributed to them. A person giving their consent to such a thing is the same as a person releasing their work into the public domain.--

4192:, we are not bound to follow a strictly literal interpretation of policy, to the manifest detriment of the policy's intent and purpose: 4172:

If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted.

3428: 2826:

could be argued, but there would need to be an extremely strong case that it would be best for the encyclopedia to ignore WP:BLP. See

603:

copyrighted. This is indisputable. It is arguable if they can be placed in the public domain or not, but there is no way to verify if

206: 4289: 4239: 4045: 3307: 3186: 3854:. (This should not be construed as an invitation to actually redact Vicki Iseman's name from the presidential campaign article, as 1176: 4310: 1005:. Apologies for the imageshack'ing - encyclopedia dramatica links are blocked, but here they are a main source of anon propaganda. 4550: 4067: 3839: 3826: 3767: 3582: 3562: 3546: 3435:

obviously does not suffer from this deficiency, as it is primarily concerned with well-sourced, positive aspects of her career.

3411: 3390: 3303: 3295: 3198: 3166: 3135: 3130: 2744: 2677: 2339: 2247: 2204: 2103: 2098: 1830: 3633: 21: 4599: 4453: 4355: 4119: 3139: 2107: 1529: 1497: 1141: 1105: 833: 300: 295: 1442:

This image is the most commonly used logo for Anonymous. Like logos of companies, it should be kept regardless of copyright.--

3436: 2271: 2189: 1847:" (Emphasis added) I'd like to see the article reinstated in time for the game's upcoming beta test. I left a note on the 304: 255: 250: 163: 158: 2529:

I redirected unaware of this DRV, please assume good faith. Plus, redirection is not deletion, and AfD cannot preclude it.--

966: 4500:

jury nullification all over the place -- groups of editors being willfully blind to policy and doing whatever they pleased.

4226:, produce comprehensive biographies, since we lack the necessary coverage in third-party reliable sources. In the case of 725:

I do not understand the requester's statement. Please reword and/or expand. Why do you want what done? Per what policy?

3177:

is to uphold the intent of the policy, not to enforce the letter of the policy in a manner contrary to its purpose -- see

3122: 2132: 2090: 2037:

deletion, I would suspect the outcome of this debate would be very different. Also, arguments coming from the letter of a

1631: 1246:- Logo or not, it's replaceable fair use AND lacks a source. There's an available free alternative to represent the band. 974: 903: 800:

was predicated on the probability of the discretionary freely licensed release of this or a similar image by a member of

434:

The page for synth rock (as well as rocktronica, but that's a minority) has been deleted for being a "non-existant genre".

404: 342: 259: 167: 4200: 3653:- having awoken to such interesting re-debate on the article I feel it is proper to clarify again (as was already posted 3279: 2823: 2481: 2644: 1368:

as it was wrong. One of those where the weight of arguments should have resulted in a delete against the majority vote.

662: 373: 287: 4622: 3971:

User:Devil's Advocate makes a similar point below, and I answer it there at 18:16, 3 March. Essentially, exceptions to

3037:

by ensuring that we provide no positive coverage whatsoever, and instead mention only the controversy surrounding her.

2069: 2007: 1875:(Emphasis added), or similar web content that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7) 1753: 1708: 1459:

per LaraLove. It seems strange to me that we're even having this conversation! Obviously a blatant vio of NFCC #10a. ~

636: 574: 129: 17: 954: 242: 192: 150: 2436:

A redirect is not the same as a deletion, it is an editorial decision that stands apart from the deletion process. --

1318: 4595: 4449: 4351: 4238:

trumps its specific terms: it is manifestly incorrect to claim that the policy actually requires us to violate our

4115: 3533:

Arguing that an article should be deleted because the redirect target of a shortcut has been changed is the sort of

1525: 1493: 1137: 1101: 4594:

historic notability. The fact reliable sources are given for her history before the controversy just proves this.--

4518:

said that we needed a justification for making this exception and I didn't see any good ones.) DGG and others were

1912: 1856: 670: 653: 595: 519: 4300: 4223: 4196: 3749: 3595: 3534: 3283: 3231: 1848: 1787: 1782: 1118:

Works are automatically copyrighted unless the copyright holder specifically releases it into the public domain.

1061: 1791: 1625: 862: 3344: 3282:

information concerning a person relates to their participation in negative events, we cannot, consistent with

1506:

We can't use images based on implications. Either the copyright has been explicitly waived, or it's non-free.

1309:

Hmm, perhaps my wording was a little ambiguous - there is a distinction between the author and the source. No

3185:

to the subject matter, without considering whether the general mandate of the policy to strictly adhere to a

1674: 1657: 1430: 4577:

Minor change: replaced "John Hinckley" with "Sirhan Sirhan" -- Hinckley was notable for more than one event.

1569: 1376: 1254: 3218: 3190: 2049:

the case. The fact that reliable sources have picked up on these details is supportive of this argument. –

1164: 970: 891: 2054: 1816: 1774: 621: 4204: 2987: 2974: 1394:

Source added to the image page! (formatting is confusing, hopefully someone with more knowledge can fix)

3821:, and a judgement by the administrator closing the AFD discussion that the article did not constitute a 2360: 1992: 1908: 1852: 1843:, which "applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, 1172: 4444: 4168:

relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability

4159: 4136: 4111: 3972: 3924: 3868: 3825:

violation. Rather than edit warring any further with the users engaging in page-blanking, I will list

3502: 3420: 3248: 3162: 2863: 2669: 2258: 2254: 2176: 2038: 1839:

I don't think speedy deletion of a page about an MMORPG under active development was appropriate under

1333:

author is not known, but not necessairily a deal-breaker. Thus the extensive discussion of fair use...

1157:, is the expectation - indeed the hope - that these things will spread around, and maybe even become a 4342: 4323: 4183: 4100: 4079: 4056: 4021: 3988: 3966: 3951: 3936: 3895: 3880: 3862: 3833: 3737: 3706: 3686: 3670: 3640: 3619: 3589: 3525: 3452: 3377: 3362: 3322: 3269: 3225: 3097: 3079: 3060: 3041: 3023: 2998: 2948: 2913: 2849: 2796: 2777: 2760: 2733: 2713: 2700: 2656: 2633: 2604: 2581: 2565: 2552: 2533: 2520: 2454: 2440: 2405: 2276: 2236: 2058: 1996: 1979: 1948: 1916: 1895: 1860: 1742: 1697: 1678: 1661: 1640: 1609: 1582: 1555: 1483: 1466: 1451: 1434: 1403: 1389: 1359: 1342: 1304: 1289: 1267: 1084: 1065: 1044: 1029: 1014: 946: 933: 886: 873: 845: 812: 789: 773: 754: 742: 716: 625: 563: 539: 491: 478: 458: 291: 233: 118: 3358: 2982:

policy should be deleted, the determination of whether any particular article actually constitutes a

2792: 2756: 2696: 2684:

is not an appropriate deletion rationale, but the application of policy is incontrovertibly correct.

1738: 1479: 1057: 882: 805: 154: 3720: 2862:

side really hasn't done it's job in providing those arguments while the common-sense application of

2159:-based case for deletion. Closing admin has discussed and defended the close and recommends review 1882: 958: 3424: 3416: 2307: 1201: 857: 854: 827: 768: 410: 348: 4528: 950: 4234:, and leaves us with only a mention of her involvement in a scandal. The general purpose of the 4017: 3702: 3445: 1576: 1383: 1261: 559: 535: 379: 4439: 4210: 3625: 3599: 3554: 3542: 3476: 3243: 3182: 2347: 2209: 3173:'s career, mentioning the controversy only briefly. An important aspect of the enforcement of 2479:. Your view is of course important Doc but as an admin you are probably aware that at point 7 1851:

of the deleting admin, KnowledgeOfSelf, not realizing he/she has retired from Knowledge (XXG).

978: 796:

Furthermore, I note that the original argument that the image was replaceable presented in the

4583: 4572: 4555: 4369: 4338: 4179: 4144: 4096: 4075: 4048:. Ensuring that our coverage of living people is accurate, fair, and balanced should be what 3984: 3962: 3947: 3932: 3891: 3876: 3682: 3665: 3630:

Knowledge (XXG):Biographies_of_living_persons#Articles_about_people_notable_only_for_one_event

3615: 3521: 3510: 3403:

any mention of people who are mentioned in nationwide journalistic coverage of notable events.

3373: 3265: 3126: 3093: 3056: 3019: 2909: 2845: 2652: 2628: 2600: 2576: 2547: 2515: 2496: 2450: 2423: 2232: 2221: 2094: 2050: 1890: 1596: 1447: 899: 801: 782: 617: 454: 398: 336: 4052:

enforcement is all about, not trying to find reasons to delete as many articles as possible.

3306:, is the precisely the sort of negatively biased coverage that is incompatible with both our 3253: 3214: 3181:. Arguments for the deletion of this article focused on a largely mechanical application of 2932: 2901: 2872: 2681: 1425:

The Image Documents one of Anonymous's main propaganda images. It is relevant and fair use --

1322: 1295: 387: 4315:

I strongly disagree with highly technical interpretations of the policy which require us to

3258:

Arguments that contradict policy, ... or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted

2994:

violation as to warrant deletion against consensus, the AFD discussion was properly closed.

2923:, redirect and/or delete, without casting aspersions on the good faith of anyone involved. 2562: 2530: 2437: 2381: 2351: 1988: 1944: 1168: 738: 367: 229: 114: 97: 4563: 4464: 4330: 4253:

Knowledge (XXG) page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere

4215: 4189: 4155: 4049: 4033: 3976: 3906: 3822: 3716: 3607: 3603: 3570: 3538: 3495: 3488: 3482: 3239: 3235: 3178: 2991: 2983: 2924: 2827: 2819: 2511: 2299: 1904: 1840: 982: 418: 356: 3351: 3341: 2904:

was followed, therefore the closing was outside deletion policy and should be overturned.

2785: 2749: 2689: 2377: 1940: 1734: 1475: 1460: 734: 246: 225: 110: 93: 2139: 1957: 1823: 694: 199: 4038:

John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008#Alleged_inappropriate_involvement_with_lobbyists

3844:

John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008#Alleged_inappropriate_involvement_with_lobbyists

3075:

other established users, including other administrators, partipating in the discussion.

1023:

Nothing's going to be an official logo, thus presents a POV issue if it's used as such.

986: 2304: 1961: 1693: 1605: 1551: 1399: 1355: 1338: 1285: 1230: 1198: 1080: 1040: 1010: 994: 929: 841: 823: 765: 442:

What do we call bands that use elements of electronica and rock, but aren't dance-punk?

3902: 3569:, thereby ensuring that our coverage of her remains fair and balanced, as required by 990: 4559: 4262: 4040:, to the detriment of our coverage of well-sourced, favorable information concerning 4013: 3732: 3726: 3698: 2943: 2937: 2773: 2729: 2402: 2262: 2180: 1562: 1369: 1247: 1002: 555: 531: 473: 467: 4174:) If this person were notable, we wouldn't be in this kind of a ridiculous dilemma. 3715:

I disagree. It is contested that the close failed to reflect policy as expressed in

554:, where the related cat is being discussed. It may still be a case for AfD though.-- 4579: 4568: 4365: 4334: 4320: 4231: 4227: 4175: 4140: 4092: 4071: 4053: 4041: 3980: 3958: 3943: 3928: 3887: 3872: 3859: 3851: 3847: 3830: 3762: 3757: 3678: 3637: 3611: 3586: 3566: 3558: 3550: 3517: 3506: 3449: 3441: 3432: 3407: 3386: 3369: 3319: 3299: 3291: 3287: 3261: 3222: 3194: 3170: 3118: 3089: 3076: 3052: 3038: 3034: 3015: 2995: 2905: 2841: 2710: 2648: 2596: 2446: 2419: 2326: 2243: 2228: 2217: 2086: 2028: 1595:

Ahh ok, well here is a bit of quick background information to get you up to speed:

1508: 1443: 1325:

10a states (emphasis mine), "It is important that you list the author of the image

1300: 1120: 1025: 895: 809: 786: 750: 712: 487: 450: 394: 332: 4473:

of persons and events. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it

3805: 3406:

Any argument predicated upon such an inappropriate action as completely redacting

3156: 2973:-- the task of an administrator in closing an AFD discussion is to effectuate the 2124: 1808: 321: 276: 184: 4415:

cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography

3396:(2) It is likely that any effort to redact the name would not achieve consensus. 2343: 527: 515: 511: 363: 352: 283: 3748:

to the facts in question. Users supporting deletion have engaged in extensive

3193:" is thereby effectuated. Is it seriously contended that limiting coverage of 1035:

how most traditional organizations (most big corporations have several logos).

4036:

violation, as it would thereby place undue weight on the scandal described in

3855: 3400: 3337: 3033:

policy, as the deletion would compromise our neutrality and fair treatment of

2179:

references seem rather strenuous considering the significance of the event. —

1933: 1778: 727: 547: 507: 503: 499: 414: 383: 238: 218: 146: 103: 86: 81: 76: 4133:

It's not intended to mean a person has to be notable for more than one event.

3810:

in an apparent attempt to undermine the arguments that I have presented here

2398: 962: 390:, concern was: Appears to be nonexistant genre, product of original research) 4012:, Delete and Redirect per Guy, Doc and others above as an obvious BLP case. 3481:

oops. Corrected at the time noted at bottom. I miswrote it when I called it

3275: 2544:

no consensus to delete perhaps, but certainly a consensus to merge/redirect)

1689: 1601: 1547: 1395: 1351: 1334: 1281: 1226: 1076: 1036: 1006: 925: 837: 1931:. If it ever does become notable, it can be unsalted at that future time. 4350:

wasn't a lobbyist, well, she probably would never have been in the news.--

4207:

discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.

2768: 2724: 2346:

and we have the only thing she is notable for covered as the "event" per

1881:

and did meet CSD A7 in my opinion - specifically it also had elements of

1907:, which mentions "web content" but not the broader term "online game". 998: 4258: 3942:

reporting has largely ceased and it doesn't seem to have hurt McCain.

3819:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy

3487:), despite the fact that it has "BLP" in it, no longer directs to the 3286:, have an article about other aspects of their life. Our coverage of 3072:

Knowledge (XXG):Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus

3067:

Knowledge (XXG):Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus

3012:

Knowledge (XXG):Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus

1280:

determined that it was fair use even though no source could be found.

4554:

license to violate it any time we damn well please but in cases like

3634:

Knowledge (XXG):Notability_(people)#People_notable_only_for_one_event

2834:-- nor for that matter should it be used to rehash the debate if you 2561:

No, the AfD was closed as no consensus to delete. I did not delete.--

3744:

What is in dispute here, however, is the correct application of the

3561:

instead serves the vital purpose of placing the events described in

1871:

an article about a web site, blog, online forum, webcomic, podcast,

1220:: The article the image in question is to be used in was created to 1021:

I saw four logos on /b/ within the sapce of 5 minutes last Saturday.

919:: The article the image in question is to be used in was created to 524:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of Rocktronica musicians

1770: 1729: 1154: 991:

logo of the time, note dodge/chrysler vs. xenu.net/anon similarity

3636:, and anywhere else the same policy provision has been restated. 3541:. This article is not comprised of the sort of material of that 2664:

None of the "keep" arguments provided a rationale that overrides

2459:

Could you stop attacking people who disagree with you, please? --

3302:

from our encyclopedia, and describe only her involvement in the

1158: 785:, which is not likely to be released in a freely licensed form. 3662:

I looked very carefully at the various points of view expressed

3298:

in context. To exclude any well-sourced favorable coverage of

2766:

has been repeatedly expressed on this one, and it shoud stand.

4364:

DA's disagreement is primarily with with policy, not with me.

3314:

policies. This is only "wikilawyering" to the extent that the

552:

Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 27

2342:. The notability of this individual is already decreasing to 546:

I've interpreted above as reasonable contention and restored

4066:

I'm a bit disturbed by the discussion above this one DRVing

3485:, which DOES direct to WP:BLP, and how's THAT for confusion? 3169:

is without merit, as the article focuses almost entirely on

2747:, which is the article specifically addressing the event. 2324:- we cover the event, we don't need to cover the person. 3475:

I only found out after a closer review of this AfD that

3332:

article were described as a pair of "disillusioned" and

1845:

not articles on their books, albums, software and so on.

445:

If we can't do the above, is it possible to undelete it?

3815: 3813: 3811: 3801: 3797: 3793: 3654: 3423:, because it provided exceedingly negative coverage of 3152: 3148: 3144: 2592: 2160: 2120: 2116: 2112: 1804: 1800: 1796: 678: 674: 666: 658: 317: 313: 309: 272: 268: 264: 180: 176: 172: 3610:

guideline that your shortcut points to? I'm confused.

3545:

is designed to prohibit. If we had an article on the

3399:(3) There is actually little precedent for completely 3817:, despite a clear consensus to retain the article in 4044:, which should likewise be included to maintain our 1903:

The text in the template conflicts with the text of

4522:making the point that this was an exception due to 3858:the article would be massively against consensus.) 3756:requires us to cover only the controversy in which 3752:to argue the downright bizarre conclusion that the 2155:Closed as no consensus despite very well supported 1153:I agree. The inherent nature of Anon's bases, like 764:, this is not a logo. It's replaceable fair use. -- 3867:Who you gonna believe, people: John254 or our own 3598:applies to my comment, John? And when you mention 3209:about the positive aspects of her career, somehow 836:), a free-use alternative could be used instead. 1350:post 52888075 (about 1/4 the way down the page). 530:should better be prepared first in user space. -- 4384:The bare fact that someone has been in the news 4110:Arguments given for deletion seemed to focus on 2931:as pretended biographies (which are essentially 2840:with the outcome. Am I wrong about any of this? 1317:where the image was obtained would be trivial. 4164:editors should exercise restraint and include 1879:Massively multiplayer online role-playing game 885:was nice enough to release it under the GFDL! 4086:I totally agree. I've added my voice over at 3175:Knowledge (XXG):Biographies of living persons 8: 4088:Talk:John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 3656:here in response to the initial question by 3557:violation. However, our present article on 2361:stats for "John McCain lobbyist controversy" 1313:can be found, although I'm sure listing the 4247:biographical material about a living person 4203:. Disagreements should be resolved through 4032:of this article would constitute a serious 3594:Which of the items on the numbered list of 3205:the controversial aspects of her life, and 2068:The following is an archived debate of the 1752:The following is an archived debate of the 635:The following is an archived debate of the 128:The following is an archived debate of the 4135:Except that there's absolutely nothing in 3765:have resorted to blanking and redirecting 3658:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 2961:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 2822:this isn't the proper forum for that, and 2625:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 2589:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 2461:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 2365:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 2164:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 2021: 1722: 588: 69: 4245:Editors must take particular care adding 3431:and little else. Our article concerning 3290:presents a particular set of issues: our 2336:Overturn and compromise at merge redirect 439:What makes it non-existant when it's not? 4028:That's correct -- it's obvious that the 3581:of this article, if we are to cover the 3419:, for example, was deleted as a genuine 3230:This falls under the 2-4 definitions at 41: 50: 2815:We can do anything we damn well please 2376:The tool, of course, suffers from the 33: 4467:policy was ignored (emphases added): 4319:do anything mandated by its purpose. 2359:Hey, I like that tool! Look at this: 7: 4236:biographies of living persons policy 4220:Special:Undelete/Crystal Gail Mangum 3975:would also have to be exceptions to 3754:biographies of living persons policy 3746:biographies of living persons policy 3575:biographies of living persons policy 3316:biographies of living persons policy 2986:violation is to be made by means of 1294:If no source can be found, it fails 1019:Yes, but read my supplemental note. 484:Recreate synthrock, endorse the rest 84:restored, others deletion endorsed. 4625:of the page listed in the heading. 4564:"People who are relatively unknown" 4158:, the subsection immediately above 4156:"People who are relatively unknown" 2399:the stats for the article on McCain 2010:of the page listed in the heading. 1711:of the page listed in the heading. 577:of the page listed in the heading. 4390:remains of essentially low profile 3553:, this would constitute a genuine 3429:2006 Duke University lacrosse case 28: 4419:. Marginal biographies on people 2542:Fair enough your edit summary of 1960:. This had nothing of the sort. 1885:indicating in its lead paragraph 502:as contested prod. The redirects 4551:John McCain lobbyist controversy 4396:avoid having an article on them. 4139:to support that interpretation. 4068:John McCain lobbyist controversy 3842:remains blanked and redirected, 3840:John McCain lobbyist controversy 3827:John McCain lobbyist controversy 3768:John McCain lobbyist controversy 3583:John McCain lobbyist controversy 3573:. I therefore contend that the 3563:John McCain lobbyist controversy 3547:John McCain lobbyist controversy 3412:John McCain lobbyist controversy 3391:John McCain lobbyist controversy 3389:'s name is currently present in 3304:John McCain lobbyist controversy 3296:John McCain lobbyist controversy 3199:John McCain lobbyist controversy 3167:John McCain lobbyist controversy 2745:John McCain lobbyist controversy 2686:Cover the event, not the person. 2678:John McCain lobbyist controversy 2340:John McCain lobbyist controversy 2322:Cover the event, not the person. 2248:John McCain lobbyist controversy 2214:link corrected; time stamp below 2205:John McCain lobbyist controversy 4621:The above is an archive of the 3549:masquerading as a biography of 3537:that is strongly disfavored by 2006:The above is an archive of the 1707:The above is an archive of the 573:The above is an archive of the 421:: Redirect to nonexistent page) 359:: Redirect to nonexistent page) 18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review 4469:Knowledge (XXG) considers the 4421:with no independent notability 3437:Special:Undelete/Alison Stokke 3084:"For example", "including" in 596:Image:AnonymousDemotivator.jpg 1: 4575:) 18:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC) ( 4329:found in other policies. See 4224:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability 3596:Knowledge (XXG):Wikilawyering 3515:corrected link as noted above 3513:) 18:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC) ( 3312:biographies of living persons 3284:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability 3232:Knowledge (XXG):Wikilawyering 3116:Additionally, the claim that 3031:biographies of living persons 2980:biographies of living persons 2224:) 18:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC) ( 654:File:AnonymousDemotivator.jpg 550:as well as mentioned this at 520:List of Rocktronica musicians 30: 4265:and to our content policies: 3829:at deletion review as well. 2645:User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP 1927:created multiple times also 879:This image depicts the group 607:(notice capital "A") placed 101:01:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC) – 4417:is unlikely to be warranted 2647:for more about this issue. 2487:consensus to keep is needed 1347:Here is a (non-ED) source: 4648: 3201:article, thereby covering 4604:19:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 4588:18:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 4458:02:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 4374:17:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 4360:02:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 4343:17:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 4324:02:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 4184:01:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 4149:01:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 4124:21:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 4101:21:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 4080:20:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 4057:19:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 4022:18:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 3989:18:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 3967:21:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 3952:21:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 3937:20:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 3896:18:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 3881:17:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 3863:15:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 3834:13:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 3738:12:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 3707:06:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 3687:18:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC) 3671:00:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 3641:19:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 3620:18:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 3602:are you referring to the 3590:18:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 3565:in the larger context of 3526:19:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 3453:21:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 3378:20:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 3363:20:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 3323:19:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 3270:19:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 3226:18:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 3098:16:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 3080:20:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 3061:19:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 3042:18:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 3024:18:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 2999:17:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 2964:17:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 2949:17:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 2914:17:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 2877:"Rough Consensus" section 2850:16:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 2797:20:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 2778:17:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 2761:16:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 2734:15:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 2714:15:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 2701:15:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 2657:14:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 2634:14:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 2605:13:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 2582:13:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 2566:13:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 2553:12:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 2534:12:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 2521:12:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 2502:12:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 2489:- it in fact states that 2485:it does not state that a 2464:12:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 2455:12:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 2441:12:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 2428:12:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 2406:13:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 2385:12:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 2368:12:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 2355:12:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 2331:11:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 2313:11:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 2277:19:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 2237:19:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 2195:07:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 2167:06:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 2059:01:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 1997:20:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 1980:20:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 1949:19:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 1917:09:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 1896:10:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 1861:07:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 1743:01:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 1698:01:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 1679:21:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 1662:11:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC) 1641:10:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC) 1610:09:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC) 1583:06:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC) 1556:03:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC) 1534:03:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC) 1513:23:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 1502:20:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 1484:18:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 1467:13:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 1452:12:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 1435:11:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 1404:14:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 1390:13:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 1360:11:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 1343:10:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 1305:09:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 1290:07:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 1268:22:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 1235:18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 1207:22:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 1181:08:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC) 1146:01:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 1125:21:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 1110:21:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 1085:02:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 1066:18:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 1045:14:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 1030:14:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 1015:13:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 934:18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 887:12:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 874:07:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 846:07:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 813:20:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 790:20:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 774:20:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 755:19:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 743:19:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 717:15:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 626:15:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 564:14:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 540:14:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 492:21:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 479:12:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 459:21:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 234:04:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 119:01:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC) 4628:Please do not modify it. 3886:override such concerns. 3651:Comment by closing admin 3427:'s participation in the 2075:Please do not modify it. 2013:Please do not modify it. 1759:Please do not modify it. 1714:Please do not modify it. 1474:per LaraLove and Riana. 642:Please do not modify it. 580:Please do not modify it. 449:Thank you for your time 393:09:43, 27 February 2008 362:09:24, 27 February 2008 331:06:58, 15 February 2008 135:Please do not modify it. 43:Deletion review archives 3494:but now directs to the 3473:WP:BLP1E as a shortcut' 2445:Anything you say, Doc. 522:, has been deleted per 4392:themselves, we should 4314: 4304: 4294: 4269: 4268: 4209: 3577:actually requires the 2242:I don't think merging 2072:of the article above. 1869:article was tagged as 1756:of the article above. 1733:– Deletion endorsed – 639:of the article above. 132:of the article above. 4524:historical notability 4471:historical notability 4307: 4297: 4290:Neutral point of view 4286: 4267: 4243: 4240:neutral point of view 4214:actual, substantive, 4193: 3719:, which no amount of 3308:neutral point of view 3187:neutral point of view 2662:Overturn and redirect 1298:10a. Simple as that. 4596:The Devil's Advocate 4450:The Devil's Advocate 4438:One should consider 4411:If reliable sources 4352:The Devil's Advocate 4311:No original research 4116:The Devil's Advocate 2879:states very clearly: 2378:Heisenberg Principle 1526:The Devil's Advocate 1494:The Devil's Advocate 1138:The Devil's Advocate 1102:The Devil's Advocate 4195:Follow the spirit, 3838:Of course, even if 3425:Crystal Gail Mangum 3417:Crystal Gail Mangum 3213:the application of 2824:WP:Ignore All Rules 2477:Comment for clarity 1626:dihydrogen monoxide 1472:Overturn and delete 1457:Overturn and delete 1244:Overturn and delete 820:Overturn and delete 762:Overturn and delete 4386:does not in itself 4190:WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY 3668: 3539:WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY 3446:The New York Times 3276:straw man argument 3179:WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY 2631: 2579: 2550: 2518: 2499: 2397:Also interesting: 2344:"yesterday's news" 1893: 1058:Chris (クリス • フィッチ) 432:(original request) 4635: 4634: 4556:Lee Harvey Oswald 4188:Fortunately, per 3736: 3666: 3467:Convenience break 3361: 3065:Yes, the text of 2947: 2795: 2759: 2699: 2629: 2577: 2548: 2516: 2497: 2310: 2020: 2019: 1947: 1891: 1721: 1720: 1667:Endorse retention 1639: 1597:Anonymous (group) 1579: 1386: 1319:WP:Citing Sources 1264: 1183: 1167:comment added by 999:Half-Life ad site 907: 894:comment added by 804:. This argument 802:Anonymous (group) 783:Anonymous (group) 779:Endorse retention 741: 587: 586: 477: 433: 232: 117: 100: 60: 59: 4639: 4630: 4218:violation. See 4162:. WP:NPF states 3809: 3791: 3730: 3357: 3354: 3280:reliably sourced 3160: 3142: 2941: 2791: 2788: 2755: 2752: 2695: 2692: 2308: 2296:Read the article 2267: 2185: 2142: 2128: 2110: 2077: 2022: 2015: 1985:Endorse deletion 1977: 1974: 1971: 1968: 1958:reliable sources 1954:Endorse deletion 1939: 1936: 1924:Endorse deletion 1909:Matt Fitzpatrick 1867:Endorse deletion 1853:Matt Fitzpatrick 1826: 1812: 1794: 1761: 1723: 1716: 1629: 1580: 1578: 1574: 1567: 1464: 1423:Endorse and Keep 1387: 1385: 1381: 1374: 1265: 1263: 1259: 1252: 1204: 1162: 967:logo of the time 955:logo of the time 889: 870: 865: 860: 771: 733: 730: 697: 683: 682: 644: 589: 582: 471: 431: 325: 307: 280: 262: 224: 221: 202: 188: 170: 137: 109: 106: 92: 89: 70: 56: 36: 31: 4647: 4646: 4642: 4641: 4640: 4638: 4637: 4636: 4626: 4623:deletion review 4205:consensus-based 4108:Endorse closure 3782: 3766: 3694:Endorse closure 3352: 3292:present article 3234:. Interpreting 3133: 3117: 2971:Endorse closure 2786: 2750: 2690: 2591:has decided to 2288:Endorse closure 2274: 2263: 2253:Again, I think 2192: 2181: 2151: 2145: 2138: 2137: 2131: 2101: 2085: 2073: 2070:deletion review 2011: 2008:deletion review 1975: 1972: 1969: 1966: 1934: 1835: 1829: 1822: 1821: 1815: 1785: 1769: 1757: 1754:deletion review 1712: 1709:deletion review 1635: 1621:Overturn/Delete 1577: 1570: 1563: 1462: 1384: 1377: 1370: 1262: 1255: 1248: 1202: 881:]... and look! 868: 863: 858: 806:proves too much 769: 728: 706: 700: 693: 692: 686: 656: 652: 640: 637:deletion review 578: 575:deletion review 298: 282: 253: 237: 219: 211: 205: 198: 197: 191: 161: 145: 133: 130:deletion review 104: 87: 68: 61: 54: 34: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 4645: 4643: 4633: 4632: 4617: 4616: 4615: 4614: 4613: 4612: 4611: 4610: 4609: 4608: 4607: 4606: 4539: 4538: 4537: 4536: 4535: 4534: 4533: 4532: 4508: 4507: 4506: 4505: 4504: 4503: 4502: 4501: 4490: 4489: 4488: 4487: 4486: 4485: 4484: 4483: 4431: 4430: 4429: 4428: 4427: 4426: 4403: 4402: 4401: 4400: 4399: 4398: 4380: 4379: 4378: 4377: 4376: 4347: 4346: 4345: 4305: 4295: 4277: 4276: 4275: 4274: 4273: 4272: 4271: 4270: 4257:to the law in 4197:not the letter 4127: 4126: 4104: 4103: 4083: 4082: 4060: 4059: 4025: 4024: 4006: 4005: 4004: 4003: 4002: 4001: 4000: 3999: 3998: 3997: 3996: 3995: 3994: 3993: 3992: 3991: 3901:definition of 3846:also mentions 3836: 3741: 3740: 3710: 3709: 3690: 3689: 3648: 3647: 3646: 3645: 3644: 3643: 3606:policy or the 3530: 3529: 3464: 3463: 3462: 3461: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3457: 3456: 3455: 3404: 3397: 3394: 3383: 3382:I observe that 3380: 3346: 3330:New York Times 3242:(your link to 3161:is somehow a " 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3088:. 'Nuff said. 3002: 3001: 2968: 2967: 2966: 2917: 2916: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2890: 2881: 2880: 2852: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2738: 2737: 2716: 2703: 2659: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2585: 2584: 2569: 2568: 2556: 2555: 2537: 2536: 2524: 2523: 2505: 2504: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2431: 2430: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2371: 2370: 2333: 2315: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2270: 2251: 2226:corrected link 2198: 2197: 2188: 2153: 2152: 2149: 2143: 2135: 2129: 2080: 2079: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2047:inherited from 2018: 2017: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1982: 1962:Andrew Lenahan 1951: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1837: 1836: 1833: 1827: 1819: 1813: 1764: 1763: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1719: 1718: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1682: 1681: 1664: 1643: 1633: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1486: 1469: 1454: 1437: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1321:, linked from 1271: 1270: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1113: 1112: 1097: 1096: 1088: 1087: 1069: 1068: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 975:Batman Returns 939: 938: 937: 936: 911: 910: 909: 908: 848: 816: 815: 798:IfD discussion 793: 792: 776: 759: 758: 757: 708: 707: 704: 698: 690: 684: 647: 646: 631: 630: 629: 628: 585: 584: 569: 568: 567: 566: 543: 542: 494: 481: 447: 446: 443: 440: 436: 435: 427: 425: 424: 423: 422: 391: 360: 281: 236: 213: 212: 209: 203: 195: 189: 140: 139: 124: 123: 122: 121: 67: 62: 58: 57: 49: 40: 29: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4644: 4631: 4629: 4624: 4619: 4618: 4605: 4601: 4597: 4592: 4591: 4589: 4585: 4581: 4578: 4574: 4570: 4565: 4561: 4560:Sirhan Sirhan 4557: 4552: 4547: 4546: 4545: 4544: 4543: 4542: 4541: 4540: 4530: 4525: 4521: 4516: 4515: 4514: 4513: 4512: 4511: 4510: 4509: 4498: 4497: 4496: 4495: 4494: 4493: 4492: 4491: 4482: 4480: 4476: 4472: 4466: 4461: 4460: 4459: 4455: 4451: 4446: 4441: 4437: 4436: 4435: 4434: 4433: 4432: 4425: 4422: 4418: 4414: 4409: 4408: 4407: 4406: 4405: 4404: 4397: 4395: 4391: 4387: 4381: 4375: 4371: 4367: 4363: 4362: 4361: 4357: 4353: 4348: 4344: 4340: 4336: 4332: 4327: 4326: 4325: 4322: 4318: 4313: 4312: 4306: 4303: 4302: 4301:Verifiability 4296: 4293: 4291: 4285: 4284: 4283: 4282: 4281: 4280: 4279: 4278: 4266: 4264: 4263:United States 4260: 4256: 4252: 4248: 4241: 4237: 4233: 4229: 4225: 4221: 4217: 4212: 4208: 4206: 4202: 4198: 4191: 4187: 4186: 4185: 4181: 4177: 4173: 4169: 4167: 4166:only material 4161: 4157: 4152: 4151: 4150: 4146: 4142: 4138: 4134: 4131: 4130: 4129: 4128: 4125: 4121: 4117: 4113: 4109: 4106: 4105: 4102: 4098: 4094: 4089: 4085: 4084: 4081: 4077: 4073: 4069: 4065: 4062: 4061: 4058: 4055: 4051: 4047: 4043: 4039: 4035: 4031: 4027: 4026: 4023: 4019: 4015: 4011: 4008: 4007: 3990: 3986: 3982: 3978: 3974: 3970: 3969: 3968: 3964: 3960: 3955: 3954: 3953: 3949: 3945: 3940: 3939: 3938: 3934: 3930: 3926: 3922: 3918: 3917: 3912: 3908: 3904: 3899: 3898: 3897: 3893: 3889: 3884: 3883: 3882: 3878: 3874: 3870: 3866: 3865: 3864: 3861: 3857: 3853: 3849: 3845: 3841: 3837: 3835: 3832: 3828: 3824: 3820: 3816: 3814: 3812: 3807: 3803: 3799: 3795: 3790: 3786: 3781: 3777: 3773: 3769: 3764: 3759: 3755: 3751: 3750:wikilawyering 3747: 3743: 3742: 3739: 3734: 3729: 3728: 3722: 3718: 3714: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3708: 3704: 3700: 3695: 3692: 3691: 3688: 3684: 3680: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3669: 3663: 3659: 3655: 3652: 3642: 3639: 3635: 3631: 3627: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3617: 3613: 3609: 3605: 3601: 3597: 3593: 3592: 3591: 3588: 3584: 3580: 3576: 3572: 3568: 3564: 3560: 3556: 3552: 3548: 3544: 3540: 3536: 3535:wikilawyering 3532: 3531: 3527: 3523: 3519: 3516: 3512: 3508: 3504: 3500: 3497: 3493: 3490: 3486: 3484: 3478: 3474: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3454: 3451: 3447: 3443: 3438: 3434: 3430: 3426: 3422: 3418: 3413: 3410:'s name from 3409: 3405: 3402: 3398: 3395: 3392: 3388: 3384: 3381: 3379: 3375: 3371: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3360: 3356: 3355: 3347: 3345: 3342: 3339: 3335: 3331: 3326: 3325: 3324: 3321: 3317: 3313: 3309: 3305: 3301: 3297: 3293: 3289: 3285: 3281: 3277: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3267: 3263: 3259: 3255: 3250: 3245: 3241: 3237: 3233: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3224: 3220: 3216: 3212: 3208: 3204: 3200: 3196: 3192: 3188: 3184: 3180: 3176: 3172: 3168: 3164: 3158: 3154: 3150: 3146: 3141: 3137: 3132: 3128: 3124: 3120: 3115: 3099: 3095: 3091: 3087: 3086:1st paragraph 3083: 3082: 3081: 3078: 3073: 3068: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3058: 3054: 3049: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3040: 3036: 3032: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3021: 3017: 3013: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3004: 3003: 3000: 2997: 2993: 2989: 2985: 2981: 2976: 2972: 2969: 2965: 2962: 2957: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2945: 2940: 2939: 2934: 2930: 2926: 2922: 2919: 2918: 2915: 2911: 2907: 2903: 2898: 2894: 2891: 2889: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2878: 2874: 2869: 2865: 2861: 2856: 2853: 2851: 2847: 2843: 2839: 2838: 2833: 2829: 2825: 2821: 2817: 2816: 2811: 2808: 2807: 2798: 2794: 2790: 2789: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2775: 2771: 2770: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2758: 2754: 2753: 2746: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2735: 2731: 2727: 2726: 2720: 2717: 2715: 2712: 2707: 2704: 2702: 2698: 2694: 2693: 2687: 2683: 2679: 2675: 2671: 2667: 2663: 2660: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2641: 2640:endorse close 2638: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2632: 2626: 2622: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2590: 2587: 2586: 2583: 2580: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2567: 2564: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2554: 2551: 2545: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2535: 2532: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2522: 2519: 2513: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2503: 2500: 2493: 2488: 2484: 2483: 2478: 2475: 2474: 2465: 2462: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2452: 2448: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2439: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2429: 2425: 2421: 2416: 2413: 2412: 2407: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2386: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2369: 2366: 2362: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2353: 2349: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2334: 2332: 2329: 2328: 2323: 2319: 2316: 2314: 2311: 2306: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2286: 2285: 2278: 2273: 2268: 2266: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2249: 2245: 2241: 2240: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2227: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2206: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2196: 2191: 2186: 2184: 2178: 2174: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2165: 2161: 2158: 2148: 2141: 2134: 2126: 2122: 2118: 2114: 2109: 2105: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2078: 2076: 2071: 2066: 2065: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2035: 2031: 2030: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2016: 2014: 2009: 2004: 2003: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1983: 1981: 1978: 1963: 1959: 1955: 1952: 1950: 1946: 1942: 1938: 1937: 1930: 1925: 1922: 1918: 1914: 1910: 1906: 1902: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1894: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1877:- Wakfu is a 1876: 1874: 1868: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1846: 1842: 1832: 1825: 1818: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1793: 1789: 1784: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1762: 1760: 1755: 1750: 1749: 1744: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1731: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1717: 1715: 1710: 1705: 1704: 1699: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1684: 1683: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1671:24.181.243.82 1668: 1665: 1663: 1659: 1655: 1654:82.32.195.193 1651: 1647: 1644: 1642: 1637: 1628: 1627: 1622: 1619: 1618: 1611: 1607: 1603: 1598: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1584: 1581: 1575: 1573: 1568: 1566: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1544: 1541: 1540: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1524:in the IfD.-- 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1514: 1511: 1510: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1499: 1495: 1490: 1487: 1485: 1482: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1470: 1468: 1465: 1458: 1455: 1453: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1438: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1427:81.133.62.215 1424: 1421: 1420: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1388: 1382: 1380: 1375: 1373: 1367: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1357: 1353: 1349: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1303: 1302: 1297: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1287: 1283: 1278: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1269: 1266: 1260: 1258: 1253: 1251: 1245: 1242: 1241: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1223: 1222:differentiate 1219: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1208: 1205: 1200: 1196: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1182: 1178: 1174: 1170: 1166: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1143: 1139: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1126: 1123: 1122: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1098: 1093: 1090: 1089: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1074: 1071: 1070: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1052: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1028: 1027: 1022: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1004: 1000: 996: 992: 988: 984: 980: 976: 972: 968: 964: 960: 956: 952: 948: 944: 941: 940: 935: 931: 927: 922: 921:differentiate 918: 915: 914: 913: 912: 905: 901: 897: 893: 888: 884: 880: 877: 876: 875: 871: 866: 861: 856: 852: 849: 847: 843: 839: 835: 832: 829: 825: 822:, I agree w/ 821: 818: 817: 814: 811: 807: 803: 799: 795: 794: 791: 788: 784: 780: 777: 775: 772: 767: 763: 760: 756: 753: 752: 746: 745: 744: 740: 736: 732: 731: 724: 721: 720: 719: 718: 715: 714: 703: 696: 689: 680: 676: 672: 668: 664: 660: 655: 651: 650: 649: 648: 645: 643: 638: 633: 632: 627: 623: 619: 615: 610: 606: 602: 598: 597: 593: 592: 591: 590: 583: 581: 576: 571: 570: 565: 561: 557: 553: 549: 545: 544: 541: 537: 533: 529: 525: 521: 517: 513: 509: 505: 501: 498: 495: 493: 490: 489: 485: 482: 480: 475: 470: 469: 463: 462: 461: 460: 456: 452: 444: 441: 438: 437: 430: 429: 428: 420: 416: 412: 409: 406: 403: 400: 396: 392: 389: 385: 381: 378: 375: 372: 369: 365: 361: 358: 354: 350: 347: 344: 341: 338: 334: 330: 329: 328: 327: 326: 323: 319: 315: 311: 306: 302: 297: 293: 289: 285: 278: 274: 270: 266: 261: 257: 252: 248: 244: 240: 235: 231: 227: 223: 222: 208: 201: 194: 186: 182: 178: 174: 169: 165: 160: 156: 152: 148: 144: 143: 142: 141: 138: 136: 131: 126: 125: 120: 116: 112: 108: 107: 99: 95: 91: 90: 83: 79: 78: 74: 73: 72: 71: 66: 63: 53: 48: 44: 39: 32: 23: 19: 4627: 4620: 4576: 4523: 4519: 4478: 4474: 4470: 4468: 4420: 4416: 4412: 4410: 4393: 4389: 4385: 4383: 4316: 4308: 4298: 4287: 4254: 4250: 4246: 4244: 4232:Vicki Iseman 4228:Vicki Iseman 4194: 4171: 4165: 4163: 4132: 4107: 4063: 4042:Vicki Iseman 4029: 4009: 3920: 3915: 3914: 3910: 3852:Vicki Iseman 3848:Vicki Iseman 3763:Vicki Iseman 3758:Vicki Iseman 3725: 3693: 3661: 3650: 3649: 3578: 3567:Vicki Iseman 3559:Vicki Iseman 3551:Vicki Iseman 3514: 3498: 3491: 3480: 3472: 3466: 3465: 3442:Vicki Iseman 3433:Vicki Iseman 3408:Vicki Iseman 3387:Vicki Iseman 3350: 3333: 3329: 3300:Vicki Iseman 3288:Vicki Iseman 3257: 3210: 3206: 3202: 3195:Vicki Iseman 3171:Vicki Iseman 3119:Vicki Iseman 3046: 3035:Vicki Iseman 2970: 2955: 2936: 2928: 2920: 2892: 2886: 2867: 2859: 2854: 2836: 2835: 2831: 2814: 2813: 2809: 2784: 2767: 2748: 2723: 2718: 2705: 2688: 2685: 2673: 2665: 2661: 2639: 2620: 2619: 2543: 2490: 2486: 2480: 2476: 2414: 2335: 2325: 2321: 2317: 2295: 2291: 2287: 2264: 2244:Vicki Iseman 2225: 2213: 2182: 2172: 2154: 2087:Vicki Iseman 2074: 2067: 2051:IronGargoyle 2046: 2042: 2033: 2029:Vicki Iseman 2027: 2012: 2005: 1984: 1965: 1953: 1932: 1928: 1923: 1900: 1886: 1872: 1870: 1866: 1844: 1838: 1758: 1751: 1728: 1713: 1706: 1685: 1666: 1652:nomination? 1649: 1645: 1624: 1623:- NFCC 10a. 1620: 1571: 1564: 1542: 1507: 1488: 1478: 1471: 1456: 1440:Endorse keep 1439: 1422: 1378: 1371: 1365: 1330: 1326: 1314: 1310: 1299: 1276: 1256: 1249: 1243: 1221: 1217: 1194: 1150: 1119: 1092:Endorse keep 1091: 1072: 1053: 1024: 1020: 951:Coca-Cola ad 943:Endorse keep 942: 920: 916: 851:Endorse keep 850: 830: 819: 778: 761: 749: 726: 722: 711: 709: 641: 634: 618:IronGargoyle 614:first source 613: 608: 604: 600: 594: 579: 572: 496: 486: 483: 466: 448: 426: 407: 401: 376: 370: 345: 339: 217: 214: 134: 127: 102: 85: 75: 65:1 March 2008 64: 4465:WP:NOT#NEWS 4445:WP:ONEEVENT 4331:WP:NOT#NEWS 4201:ignore them 4160:WP:ONEEVENT 4137:WP:ONEEVENT 4112:WP:ONEEVENT 3977:WP:NOT#NEWS 3973:WP:ONEEVENT 3925:WP:ONEEVENT 3628:I refer to 3503:WP:ONEEVENT 3249:WP:ONEEVENT 2864:WP:ONEEVENT 2670:WP:ONEEVENT 2259:WP:ONEEVENT 2255:WP:ONEEVENT 2177:WP:ONEEVENT 2043:revealed by 2039:WP:ONEEVENT 1989:TerriersFan 1873:online game 1561:copyright? 1169:Soonlaypale 1163:—Preceding 890:—Preceding 528:Rocktronica 516:Rocktronica 512:Rocktronica 386:‎ (Expired 353:Rocktronica 284:Rocktronica 38:February 29 4046:neutrality 3869:lyin' eyes 3721:WP:ILIKEIT 3353:Horologium 3338:Dan Schnur 3219:do no harm 3191:do no harm 3165:" for the 2875:where the 2787:Horologium 2751:Horologium 2691:Horologium 2575:to you. -- 2492:confusion. 1945:count/logs 1883:WP:Crystal 1735:Eluchil404 739:count/logs 548:Synth rock 508:Synth rock 504:Synth Rock 500:Synth rock 415:Synth Rock 413:) deleted 384:Synth rock 382:) deleted 351:) deleted 239:Synth rock 230:count/logs 147:Synth Rock 115:count/logs 98:count/logs 82:Synth Rock 77:Synth Rock 47:2008 March 4529:WP:USEFUL 4394:generally 3916:one event 3911:one event 3856:censoring 3579:retention 3499:guideline 3483:WP:BLP#1E 3401:censoring 3274:That's a 2988:consensus 2975:consensus 2933:coatracks 2621:Protected 2512:Video Ref 2305:Sjakkalle 1905:WP:CSD A7 1849:talk page 1650:bad faith 1648:Surely a 824:Coredesat 609:this work 605:Anonymous 518:, namely 4477:not be. 4440:WP:BLP1E 4255:strictly 4211:WP:BLP1E 4030:deletion 4014:Eusebeus 4010:Overturn 3699:Alansohn 3626:WP:BLP1E 3600:WP:BLP1E 3585:at all. 3555:WP:BLP1E 3543:WP:BLP1E 3477:WP:BLP1E 3421:coatrack 3244:WP:BLP1E 3211:furthers 3183:WP:BLP1E 3163:coatrack 2956:involved 2921:Overturn 2855:Overturn 2706:Overturn 2595:anyway. 2593:redirect 2495:wishes-- 2348:WP:BLP1E 2318:Overturn 2309:(Check!) 2265:xDanielx 2210:WP:BLP1E 2183:xDanielx 2045:but not 1366:overturn 1327:if known 1177:contribs 1165:unsigned 987:Dodge ad 963:Apple ad 904:contribs 892:unsigned 834:contribs 556:Tikiwont 532:Tikiwont 405:contribs 374:contribs 343:contribs 20:‎ | 4580:Noroton 4569:Noroton 4448:case.-- 4424:person. 4366:Noroton 4335:Noroton 4321:John254 4259:Florida 4176:Noroton 4141:Noroton 4093:Noroton 4072:JoshuaZ 4064:comment 4054:John254 3981:Noroton 3959:JoshuaZ 3944:Noroton 3929:Noroton 3888:JoshuaZ 3873:Noroton 3860:John254 3831:John254 3785:protect 3780:history 3679:Noroton 3638:John254 3612:Noroton 3587:John254 3518:Noroton 3507:Noroton 3450:John254 3370:JoshuaZ 3320:John254 3262:Noroton 3254:WP:DGFA 3223:John254 3215:WP:NPOV 3207:nothing 3197:to the 3136:protect 3131:history 3090:Noroton 3077:John254 3053:Noroton 3039:John254 3016:Noroton 2996:John254 2906:Noroton 2902:WP:DGFA 2873:WP:DGFA 2842:Noroton 2812:Unless 2810:Comment 2719:endorse 2711:Spartaz 2682:WP:COAT 2649:JoshuaZ 2597:BusterD 2447:BusterD 2420:BusterD 2229:Noroton 2218:Noroton 2173:Endorse 2133:restore 2104:protect 2099:history 1901:Comment 1817:restore 1788:protect 1783:history 1686:Comment 1646:Comment 1543:Comment 1489:Comment 1444:Theymos 1323:WP:NFCC 1296:WP:NFCC 1277:Comment 1218:Comment 1195:Comment 1073:Comment 917:Comment 896:Sceptre 855:King of 810:John254 787:John254 723:Comment 688:restore 667:history 497:Restore 451:Titan50 395:East718 333:East718 301:protect 296:history 256:protect 251:history 193:restore 164:protect 159:history 52:March 2 4292:(NPOV) 4216:WP:BLP 4050:WP:BLP 4034:WP:BLP 3907:WP:ORG 3823:WP:BLP 3789:delete 3717:WP:BLP 3608:WP:BIO 3604:WP:BLP 3571:WP:BLP 3496:WP:BIO 3492:policy 3489:WP:BLP 3359:(talk) 3334:former 3240:WP:BIO 3236:WP:BLP 3140:delete 2992:WP:BLP 2984:WP:BLP 2925:WP:BLP 2868:policy 2828:WP:DRV 2820:WP:BLP 2793:(talk) 2757:(talk) 2697:(talk) 2674:policy 2666:policy 2415:Recuse 2300:WP:BLP 2203:Since 2108:delete 1841:CSD A7 1792:delete 1461:Riana 1331:source 1315:source 1311:author 1054:delete 995:Anon 6 983:Anon 5 971:Anon 3 959:Anon 2 947:Anon 1 510:) and 419:CSD R1 364:Jmlk17 357:CSD R1 305:delete 260:delete 168:delete 3921:event 3806:views 3798:watch 3794:links 3733:Help! 3217:and " 3189:and " 3157:views 3149:watch 3145:links 2944:Help! 2837:agree 2140:cache 2125:views 2117:watch 2113:links 1935:Jerry 1824:cache 1809:views 1801:watch 1797:links 1771:Wakfu 1730:Wakfu 1572:_Love 1480:Cobra 1476:Glass 1379:_Love 1257:_Love 1203:desat 1155:4chan 883:David 770:desat 729:Jerry 695:cache 675:watch 671:links 474:Help! 322:views 314:watch 310:links 277:views 269:watch 265:links 220:Jerry 200:cache 185:views 177:watch 173:links 105:Jerry 88:Jerry 55:: --> 16:< 4600:talk 4584:talk 4573:talk 4454:talk 4413:only 4370:talk 4356:talk 4339:talk 4180:talk 4145:talk 4120:talk 4097:talk 4076:talk 4018:talk 3985:talk 3963:talk 3948:talk 3933:talk 3903:WP:N 3892:talk 3877:talk 3802:logs 3776:talk 3772:edit 3703:talk 3683:talk 3616:talk 3522:talk 3511:talk 3385:(1) 3374:talk 3310:and 3266:talk 3203:only 3153:logs 3127:talk 3123:edit 3094:talk 3057:talk 3020:talk 2910:talk 2866:, a 2860:Keep 2846:talk 2774:talk 2730:talk 2653:talk 2601:talk 2482:here 2451:talk 2424:talk 2327:Will 2246:and 2233:talk 2222:talk 2162:. -- 2121:logs 2095:talk 2091:edit 2055:talk 1993:talk 1941:talk 1929:salt 1913:talk 1857:talk 1805:logs 1779:talk 1775:edit 1739:talk 1694:talk 1690:Cast 1675:talk 1658:talk 1606:talk 1602:Z00r 1565:Lara 1552:talk 1548:Z00r 1530:talk 1509:Will 1498:talk 1448:talk 1431:talk 1400:talk 1396:Z00r 1372:Lara 1356:talk 1352:Z00r 1339:talk 1335:Z00r 1301:Will 1286:talk 1282:Z00r 1250:Lara 1231:talk 1227:Cast 1199:Core 1173:talk 1159:meme 1151:Keep 1142:talk 1121:Will 1106:talk 1081:talk 1077:Cast 1062:talk 1041:talk 1037:Z00r 1026:Will 1011:talk 1007:Z00r 1003:logo 997:vs. 985:vs. 979:logo 973:vs. 961:vs. 949:vs. 930:talk 926:Cast 900:talk 842:talk 838:Cirt 828:talk 766:Core 751:Will 735:talk 713:Will 679:logs 663:talk 659:edit 622:talk 560:talk 536:talk 506:(to 488:Will 455:talk 411:logs 399:talk 388:PROD 380:logs 368:talk 349:logs 337:talk 318:logs 292:talk 288:edit 273:logs 247:talk 243:edit 226:talk 181:logs 155:talk 151:edit 111:talk 94:talk 35:< 4558:or 4549:in 4520:not 4475:may 4317:not 4251:any 4249:to 3905:or 3727:Guy 3624:By 3238:or 3221:"? 3048:it. 2938:Guy 2929:not 2769:DGG 2725:DGG 2672:is 2563:Doc 2531:Doc 2514:.-- 2438:Doc 2403:Avb 2382:Doc 2380:.-- 2352:Doc 2338:to 2292:not 2157:BLP 2147:AfD 2034:and 1973:bli 1889:.-- 1831:AfD 702:IfD 601:are 468:Guy 417:‎ ( 207:AfD 22:Log 4602:) 4590:) 4586:) 4531:). 4456:) 4372:) 4358:) 4341:) 4333:. 4309:* 4299:* 4288:* 4261:, 4182:) 4147:) 4122:) 4099:) 4078:) 4020:) 3987:) 3965:) 3950:) 3935:) 3894:) 3879:) 3804:| 3800:| 3796:| 3792:| 3787:| 3783:| 3778:| 3774:| 3705:) 3685:) 3667:VS 3632:, 3618:) 3524:) 3448:. 3376:) 3268:) 3260:. 3256:: 3155:| 3151:| 3147:| 3143:| 3138:| 3134:| 3129:| 3125:| 3096:) 3059:) 3022:) 2959:-- 2912:) 2848:) 2830:: 2776:) 2732:) 2668:. 2655:) 2630:VS 2603:) 2578:VS 2549:VS 2517:VS 2498:VS 2453:) 2426:) 2401:. 2320:- 2275:\ 2239:) 2235:) 2193:\ 2123:| 2119:| 2115:| 2111:| 2106:| 2102:| 2097:| 2093:| 2057:) 1995:) 1976:nd 1970:ar 1967:St 1964:- 1943:¤ 1915:) 1892:VS 1859:) 1807:| 1803:| 1799:| 1795:| 1790:| 1786:| 1781:| 1777:| 1741:) 1696:) 1677:) 1660:) 1608:) 1554:) 1532:) 1500:) 1450:) 1433:) 1402:) 1358:) 1341:) 1288:) 1233:) 1179:) 1175:• 1144:) 1108:) 1083:) 1064:) 1043:) 1013:) 1001:, 993:; 989:, 981:; 977:, 969:; 965:, 957:; 953:, 932:) 906:) 902:• 872:♠ 844:) 737:¤ 677:| 673:| 669:| 665:| 661:| 624:) 562:) 538:) 457:) 320:| 316:| 312:| 308:| 303:| 299:| 294:| 290:| 275:| 271:| 267:| 263:| 258:| 254:| 249:| 245:| 228:¤ 183:| 179:| 175:| 171:| 166:| 162:| 157:| 153:| 113:¤ 96:¤ 80:– 45:: 4598:( 4582:( 4571:( 4452:( 4368:( 4354:( 4337:( 4178:( 4143:( 4118:( 4095:( 4074:( 4016:( 3983:( 3961:( 3946:( 3931:( 3890:( 3875:( 3808:) 3770:( 3735:) 3731:( 3701:( 3681:( 3614:( 3528:) 3520:( 3509:( 3479:( 3393:. 3372:( 3264:( 3159:) 3121:( 3092:( 3055:( 3018:( 2946:) 2942:( 2908:( 2844:( 2772:( 2736:. 2728:( 2651:( 2599:( 2449:( 2422:( 2272:C 2269:/ 2231:( 2220:( 2212:( 2190:C 2187:/ 2150:) 2144:| 2136:| 2130:( 2127:) 2089:( 2053:( 1991:( 1911:( 1855:( 1834:) 1828:| 1820:| 1814:( 1811:) 1773:( 1737:( 1692:( 1673:( 1656:( 1638:) 1636:0 1634:2 1632:H 1630:( 1604:( 1550:( 1528:( 1496:( 1463:⁂ 1446:( 1429:( 1398:( 1354:( 1337:( 1284:( 1229:( 1171:( 1140:( 1104:( 1079:( 1060:( 1039:( 1009:( 928:( 898:( 869:♣ 864:♦ 859:♥ 840:( 831:· 826:( 705:) 699:| 691:| 685:( 681:) 657:( 620:( 558:( 534:( 476:) 472:( 453:( 408:· 402:· 397:( 377:· 371:· 366:( 355:( 346:· 340:· 335:( 324:) 286:( 279:) 241:( 210:) 204:| 196:| 190:( 187:) 149:(

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 1 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index