271:
that discussion, and the community determined that the article did not violate BLP. If an editor wishes to redirect an article that is of a form substantially similar to that that survived AfD, they may surely do so, and just as surely may another editor revert that redirect; thereafter discussion ensues. If, though, the former editor maintains that the article('s existence) contravenes BLP and must be redirected and suggests that the redirect should not be reversed in the absence of a talk page consensus for reversal, he has reversed our general presumption against deletion/redirection (which, contrary to certain misapplications of
531:. Talk page discussion over redirection probably won't work, because it is a binary decision, as to which no compromise is possible: either the article is redirected, or it isn't. It's not as though we can discuss a new version of the article that might resolve objections to previous competing versions. The only process which has been shown to be amenable to resolving such a matter is an XfD discussion, closed, in controversial cases, by an administrator, and not being subject to unilateral reversal.
541:
abide by the consensus and may consider their action disruptive etc. etc. (We have caveat's for G4 such as things changing substantially, the same true for consensus discussion elsewhere). xFD pages having the decision recorded are not magical, the significant part if the consensus reached, that is what we deal with and "enforce". If consensus is reached on the articles talk page it is every bit as enforceable/unenforcable as being reached anywhere else. --
276:
keep material where such a discussion has already been had and where the burden is properly on those suggesting that that discussion reached the wrong conclusion; DRV, then, is as a good a venue as any to discuss what amounts to a rejection of the AfD as being contrary to established policy, at least until those who believe a redirect to be appropriate permit reversion to the version that survived AfD and
565:
the outcome, so far (at least) there hasn't been a need to provide for such closure of these debates, if there is then it needs to be discussed and the best way of achieving that established (e.g. asking an admin to close a debate on the talk page after a suitable period of time or whatever), trying to reuse an existing process setup for something quite different is unlikely to be the optimal solution --
967:
Jere, which is the primary language of 64,000 people in
Nigeria. And in regard to the lack of official recognition, it might be a good idea to add that link you identified to the article on Jèrrais, because there is absolutely no reference to official recognition of the language anywhere in the article, except for a brief mention of local support for signage and a school course.
84:- redirection is not deletion unless the history is deleted (redirection has never been considered deletion). As such, this is not within the scope of DRV, as there is no deletion to review. any discussion that could be had here should be had on the article's talk page, as redirecting is editorial, and this redirect was not the direct result of a deletion debate.
430:
outcome here any better?) If the community believes the article should stand, then it'll be a slam dunk wherever it gets discussed. What deletion process would we be reviewing here? The editorial decision to redirect is simple, did someone edit it to a redirect? Yes, process is fine, since that is the defined process. Such things are part of the
504:; the user(s) responsible for recreating the offending material may be warned, and, if necessary, blocked. Likewise, editors who fail to respect a decision here to un-redirect the article may be warned and blocked. While redirection may be discussed at AFD again, users will be forced to stop unilaterally blanking and redirecting the article.
1731:. eOnline is just one source, not multiple sources. The others all fall under "Trivial Coverage." The San Francisco Gate offers only a brief description (3); the Seattle Post-Intelligencer merely mentions the name (1); and the Kansas City Star contains MileyWorld in a Letter to the Editor, which is unreliable. --
475:. Such a process is necessary to avoid a protracted edit war over the redirection of this article. There is no "land grab over editing decisions/discussions" here, since blanking and redirection in this context is tantamount to deletion, and in no way comparable to any ordinary dispute over article content.
88:: From what I have read, the article was kept in its AFD, then someone else redirected it. Anyone could have reverted this redirect, and asked the person who inserted the redirect to discuss it on the talk page. This is essentially a content dispute, which is not in the scope of DRV and never has been. –
2013:
This page needed a little work. It was not advertising but informing those who could use it. I believe this page to be no different than the pages created for
Facebook, MySpace, Revolutionary Health, or any other company for that matter. I don't quite understand why it was deleted, and if I make any
1256:
two people participated in the debate and both found sources lacking, seems fairly clear. Notability is not inherited even if the single has arguably become notable (I wouldn't believe it has), doesn't make the album which it may feature on also automatically notable. As the album is unreleased seems
499:
A decision made at an XfD discussion actually carries with it a great deal of authority. Suppose for instance, that an article is deleted as a result of an AFD discussion. Does that deletion thereby technically prevent a user from recreating exactly the same article? No. However, if deleted content
2147:
I advised the original aurthor of such affect, that the he can get the copy of the original article and continue working on it in his sandbox, if he so desires. When I first saw the article I did not believe that CSD was prudent but AFD should have been the route. But being that the article has been
1209:
partly on principle (because few things piss me off more than fans of minor bands creating A7 articles and then asking for review every time another copy is sold, as it were) but mostly because there is no suggestion above that independent reliable sources exist, regardless of one track making it to
966:
are recognized as one of the definitive language groups out there, as they hold consultative status with UNESCO. FWIW, ISO 639-3 defines 7,589 languages, 6,912 of which are listed in
Ethnologue's 15th edition. "jer", which was being used as the code for the category, is for another obscure language,
564:
Consensus is recorded in the discussion, the close is merely a summary and has no impact on the actual consensus reached. This is the way merge/redirect and lots of editorial decisions have been made for years without the need for someone to declare an administrative closure for people to be sure of
540:
G4 is just a recognition of consensus. In the case of G4 is was a consensus reached on xFD. If someone isn't willing to abide by the consensus, it maybe considered disruptive and action taken. This is absolutely no different to a consensus being reached on an articles talk page, we expect people to
407:
Standard stuff, all right, and wrong. Redirects that amount to the deletion of a substantial article are in effect deletions, and its time we recognized this. this particular one is an obvious attempt to reverse the decision just 3 days ago that the article was not BLP--the views of a few people at
270:
at the talk page. Of course, John reverted here (albeit, AFAICT, without a substantive talk page note thereafter) and was himself reverted by Will. Surely it is submitted that when an action is undertaken for BLP reasons, associated issues ought to be discussed before reversion, but, well, we had
2128:
of an advertorial-style article on a company of questionable importance, written by someone whose username matches that of the CEO of the subject (Bob
Klosterman), and whose only contributions are this article and promoting the subject in another article. Userfy for Igor if he wants to work on it
2104:
After taking a look at the deleted article, I can say that whether or not it was advertising, there wasn't any assertion of notability, and therefore qualified for SD under A7. I can't support restoring this, as it would certainly be deleted following an AfD. However, if someone would like to have
949:
system, it was classified as "roa", which is "romance language (other)", but the far more extensive and precise ISO 639-3 system doesn't include Norman.) I finally found information for Jèrrais by searching the
Ethnologue database by country, and reading all of the languages and dialects listed in
429:
has no special authority, a decision here is no better or worse than a decision elsewhere. (If we truly believe the original deletion debate represents the communities desire to maintain an article (rather than the substantive information), and people don't respect that, why would they respect the
275:
and certain misunderstandings of the "do no harm" provisions of BLP, exists even for articles that are substantially biographies of living persons or that otherwise have significant BLP implications) and essentially annulled the AfD, requiring that a community consensus-based discussion be had to
470:
The virtue of considering the matter here is that, if a decision to un-redirect the article is reached, it will be implemented administratively. If, next week, editors assert that consensus has changed and that the article needs to be blanked and redirected again, they may not simply remove the
389:
standard stuff, no deletion buttons have been pressed and redirecting is an editiorial decision, nothing to review. Similarly AFD debate outcomes aren't binding decisions on the community (Though in the immediate space of time following the debate it is indicative of the commuity feeling, a
513:
AFD has special authority with regard to delete/do not delete decisions (administrative actions), not editorial decisions. Editorial decisions implemented through AFD or DRV have no special authority and can be revisited at any time at the article talk page. Reverting a redirect is not an
323:, we should not assert that, because one source questions the accuracy of reporting by other reliable sources, that the allegations are unfounded, and that the article therefore merits deletion. Our purpose is to characterize controversies such as this, not to take sides. The article is
950:
the fairly extensive list of United
Kingdom languages. I finally found it, listed as a dialect of French. (The Ethnologue link I provided above links to the main page on French; scroll down to the section on the United Kingdom for the notation of Jèrrais and the essentially similar
484:
Nope, a decision here has no special authority. Here is no different to anywhere else and doesn't make and enforce binding decisions. This page makes decisions the sameway as everywhere else, by consensus, the same consensus can be reached anywhere else and has the same force.
604:
article. If Iseman is deleted at DRV, then this article should be retained as it existed before redirection. If the Iseman article is retained, than this article should be redirected to it; there is no need to have two articles that substantially relate to a single event.
526:
If we contend that "editorial decisions implemented through AFD or DRV have no special authority", and that redirection really is an "editorial decision", not a deletion, we are essentially approving intractable edit warring over redirections, of the type considered in
446:. If the community perceive it to be quite such a problem, they are quite capable of generating new policy for redirections to explicitly cater for such situations. I agree that this sort of thing is frustrating to the editors, but it would also be frustrating if
860:
is NOT a dialect of French, but a dialect of the Norman language dating back hundreds of years (with a rich written tradition). After
Midnight's claim that it has "no official status anywhere" is also incorrect; Jèrriais is recognized officially as a
873:
is also expected to launch soon in Jersey to supplement the current Jèrriais teaching program there. None of us who were listed in the category were contacted for comment, either; this would have helped clear up much of the confusion, I expect.
408:
an article against general consensus expressed elsewhere in a proper forum that it does not challenge BLP should be respected. This is wikilawering at the most extreme--experienced people using a gap in the procedures to violate clear consensus.
1705:(these are all wholly different articles; there are repeats in other notable newspapers like the Washington Post0. This is multiple non-trivial mentions, and does not qualify for speedy deletion. PS. If undeletion is chosen, then please fix
1800:- the page could also have been deleted as a G11. There was no indication of importance in the article. The content is unsourced and, judging by the reference provided by the nominator, quite possibly inaccurate.
374:
would have been respected, rather than blanking and redirecting it anyway (editors participating in the AFD discussion would have supported merging, not outright retention, had there been a consensus to do so.)
371:
202:
185:
442:. Wikilawyering I can see what you are getting at, not quite the term, but yes using "the rules" in a precise form to force a view point, again though that's a behavioural issue and should be subject to
424:
Not sure what you think needs recognising, materially what is the difference between discussing the merge/redirect/whatever on the articles talk page and declaring it a deletion and discussing it here?
847:
555:
Because talk pages discussions do not have administrative closure in controversial cases, they often do not have ascertainable outcomes. If we can't know what the consensus is, it cannot be enforced.
528:
358:
1834:. See this sentence, "Being a member of www.mileyworld.com, you get a chance to enter contests to win clothes Miley wore, signed guitars, and more." That has promotional written all over it... --
1160:
2014:
further changes to this page or regarding this page, I will be careful not to appear as though it was advertising. My appologies. I request that this page be restored. Thanks,
227:
893:? My intention in asking this question is whether knowledge of Jèrriais could assist translation efforts directed toward the improvement of articles (e.g. translating a source).
643:, per Doc. Take this to the talk page, please, where so far as I can tell it has not been brought up; and if you don't like the redirect, you seem quite capable of reverting it.
2148:
reviewed for notability, it has met my satisfaction of the process. Now it is up to the author of the article to improve it, if the interest is there. Thank you for the review.
142:
137:
230:
146:
2035:
171:
129:
1333:
until the album is released, VH-1 have information on their previous release. Forbes have covered the announcement of this album's release date (see reply to Guy).
500:
is recreated in a "substantial identical" form which does "not address the reasons for which the material was deleted" it is subject to speedy deletion pursuant to
626:
per DGG and
Horologium. I don't know if it was intended to be so but this certainly looks like an attempt to get around the AfD. The consensus to keep was clear.
1117:
1112:
1680:
51:
37:
1121:
205:, in which there was a clear consensus, and a judgment by the closing administrator, that the article concerned a notable topic, and did not constitute a
46:
1146:
1104:
501:
293:
The article was nominated for BLP concerns. Most of the keeps failed to factor that in. The truthfulness and verfiabliness has further questioned by
1236:
514:
administrative action and anyone can rerevert at any time; that's why the recent revert battle in which you involved yourself wasn't a wheel war.
1538:. The article didn't say a thing about why this business was notable; it just listed the four main people and some of their previous activities.
1186:
450:
went for some sort of land grab over editing decisions/discussions, when there are already numerous forums to address those particular issues. --
1475:
1432:
1427:
133:
1745:
1436:
1329:
Nominator made a string of poor nominations to Afd, this was must have slipped through the cracks. If nothing else this should redirect to
1690:
42:
1485:
1461:
1419:
1258:
908:
833:
566:
542:
486:
451:
391:
1989:
988:- If a Knowledge (XXG) doesn't exist or is unlikely to ever exist in a particular dialect, then we don't need a category for it.
301:, and make sure future incarnations of discussion about the story focus on NYT's journalistic ethics rather than McCain himself.
125:
76:
2105:
what was there so that they could work on improving the article in their userspace, I'd be happy to give them the deleted text.
21:
2113:
343:
This is forum shopping, take it to the talk page. We don't review redirects or merges here. If we open those floodgates.....--
1637:
1632:
1108:
712:- and I have done so. This is an attempt at whitewashing and ignoring a major political issue. The controversy is real, the
1946:
1941:
1693:(text is from eOnline, but it was in several newspapers, apparently), directly stating this is a notable website. There's
1641:
1950:
647:
518:
2207:
1912:
1853:
1603:
1558:
1398:
1353:
1083:
1034:
782:
736:
108:
17:
1666:
1624:
675:
as there's nothing to review here. DRV doesn't have a remit to review merging or redirection, only actual deletion.
2106:
1975:
1933:
1714:
438:
as a "process"? Isn't the failure of editors on one side or another to do that a behavioural issue best suited to
1100:
1055:
370:
Of course, if we're actually concerned about "forum shopping", the consensus to retain the article expressed in
357:, instead of implementing it unilaterally? Why, the massive edit wars over redirection that are the subject of
2045:
1768:
1740:
294:
80:– Speedily closing - whether the redirect could be considered "deletion" or not does not change the fact that
1779:. No independent sources establishing notability, article seems to have been promotional not encyclopaedic.
1694:
1543:
1489:
1423:
808:
644:
515:
2019:
2003:
1805:
1317:
1262:
1191:. I don't think there was enough consensus to delete, because only one person participated in the debate.
1068:
912:
570:
546:
490:
455:
434:, it should simply be reverted by the interested editors and discussion ensues. Are we then reviewing the
395:
2162:
Please delete the article. I tried to tag it for deletion but an admin prevented me and reverted my tag.
1706:
1710:
879:
866:
682:
226:
This entry seems to have nothing to do with deletion. Redirection and merging are editing decisions. --
2064:
1415:
1374:
799:
757:
272:
2190:
2174:
2157:
2142:
2120:
2096:
2068:
2048:
2023:
2007:
1901:
1842:
1826:
1809:
1792:
1771:
1751:
1718:
1592:
1547:
1530:
1493:
1387:
1342:
1321:
1304:
1283:
1266:
1246:
1223:
1210:
a low place on the
Billboard charts. Try a userspace writeup and see how it goes. Sourcing is key.
1200:
1072:
1023:
1009:
997:
980:
916:
899:
883:
771:
725:
702:
687:
665:
650:
635:
618:
574:
559:
550:
535:
521:
508:
494:
479:
459:
419:
399:
379:
365:
347:
335:
307:
284:
261:
248:
220:
97:
2186:
2182:
2170:
2166:
2163:
2153:
2149:
2092:
2088:
2085:
2081:
1840:
1801:
1628:
1588:
1383:
1313:
976:
767:
614:
1937:
889:
Is there a distinct written form of Jèrriais? If so, can it be understood by those knowledgeable in
2129:
and completely rewrite to remove the spamminess and add proper sourcing establishing significance.
2042:
2037:
which would have been taken into account had the article gone through the full deletion process at
1765:
1735:
1732:
1338:
1242:
907:
appears to be the closing admin rather than the nominator, so it isn't After
Midnight's claim... --
904:
816:
721:
240:
redirects are an editorial decision to be worked out on the talk page. Go there. If that fails try
92:
2060:
1295:
has recreated this article as of 21:55, March 5, 2008. As such I have tagged it for Speedy G4. --
316:
The controversy has been reported extensively in a large number of reliable sources -- please see
1539:
1292:
1279:
1196:
993:
1620:
1579:
1177:
because it was unreleased and not notable, but the release date was imminent. The lead single, "
1174:
716:
is not a tabloid. We need to discuss the reports and the criticism in a balanced, NPOV fashion.
1929:
1874:
2015:
1999:
1822:
1064:
1019:
959:
895:
862:
631:
320:
1897:
875:
678:
344:
245:
2077:
2055:
2038:
2030:
1879:
1728:
1514:
1510:
1506:
695:
472:
435:
431:
426:
354:
328:
267:
254:
206:
1893:
1835:
1584:
1379:
969:
938:
890:
763:
607:
209:
violation. Some editors are now insisting on blanking and redirecting the article anyway
1982:
1698:
1673:
1468:
1153:
840:
447:
443:
439:
241:
178:
1334:
1330:
1300:
1238:
1170:
1060:
931:
717:
713:
89:
253:
Redirection may be editorial in form, but it amounts to a deletion in character. Per
2137:
2131:
1787:
1781:
1525:
1519:
1275:
1218:
1212:
1192:
1006:
989:
415:
281:
280:
take their case to the article's talk page (perhaps with a content RfC) or to BLP/N.
1818:
699:
662:
627:
601:
556:
532:
505:
476:
376:
362:
332:
303:
258:
217:
1967:
1727:. Unfortunately, the news articles you provided did not qualify the website under
1702:
1658:
1453:
1138:
163:
1761:
951:
857:
1583:– Speedy deletion endorsed. No action taken on redirect currently in place. –
1885:
963:
927:
661:. I hardly think that continued reversion would resolve this issue, however.
1296:
946:
942:
955:
937:
information on Jèrrais at first, since it is described as a variation of
410:
1760:. The Miley Cyrus official fan club web site should be discussed in the
257:, an action which effectively results in deletion may be reviewed here.
698:, actions which effectively constitute deletions may be reviewed here.
1509:
criteria A7 and G11. Yet another article on a Brand New Company by a
372:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy
203:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy
1232:
1496:
856:
Reviewer's rationale was based on primarily incorrect information.
471:
article unilaterally, but would instead need to bring the matter to
1484:(CSD A7: Article about subject that does not assert significance.)
353:
Then we might actually have to discuss blanking and redirection at
2084:
Also the article author has notified the admin of deletion review
1178:
529:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2
359:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2
216:. Has consensus really changed in this much in last three days?
2034:. The article did have at least one independent reliable source
1882:. Author has been given a copy for improvement in userspace. –
1189:
870:
1231:
Very few minor bands have their upcoming albums announced on
1017:
per Horologium, pending a response to my initial question.
390:
merge/redirect/whatever decision can still be reached). --
2076:
I have asked the deleting admin for restore and list at
2179:
2041:. The article should not have been speedily deleted. --
1963:
1959:
1955:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1449:
1445:
1441:
1134:
1130:
1126:
824:
820:
812:
804:
324:
317:
214:
212:
210:
195:
159:
155:
151:
327:, concerns notable events, and does not constitute a
361:
might actually have been prevented. How horrible!.
2086:User_talk:SchuminWeb#Deletion_Review_for_CareFlash
201:This article was recently retained as a result of
266:But, more simply, the proper response here is to
600:. The condition is based upon the fate of the
1764:article rather than in a separate article. --
1513:. No sources, no claim of notability, likely
1188:and the album is set for release on April 29
244:. There is no deletion here to be reviewed.--
196:The article prior to blanking and redirection
8:
2082:User_talk:SchuminWeb#Deleted_Page:_CareFlash
1059:– Deletion endorsed, but create redirect to
1911:The following is an archived debate of the
1602:The following is an archived debate of the
1397:The following is an archived debate of the
1082:The following is an archived debate of the
933:) I had a great deal of difficulty finding
926:The claim was mine, based on data found in
781:The following is an archived debate of the
107:The following is an archived debate of the
1867:
1572:
1367:
1274:per Guy & agree with his frustration.
1048:
750:
228:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The
69:
1497:http://en.wikipedia.org/Universal_Artists
1257:a bit of crystal ball gazing going on. --
1312:- significant sources are still needed.
1173:. Album was thought to have have failed
41:
2164:User_talk:NawlinWiki#CareFlash_deletion
268:revert the redirection and then discuss
50:
1689:Website is notable. See, for example,
33:
7:
2210:of the page listed in the heading.
1856:of the page listed in the heading.
1561:of the page listed in the heading.
1356:of the page listed in the heading.
1037:of the page listed in the heading.
739:of the page listed in the heading.
28:
945:classification. (Under the older
657:Yes, I reverted the redirection
126:John McCain lobbyist controversy
77:John McCain lobbyist controversy
2206:The above is an archive of the
1878:– Endorse deletion as a proper
1852:The above is an archive of the
1557:The above is an archive of the
1352:The above is an archive of the
1033:The above is an archive of the
735:The above is an archive of the
598:Conditional Keep and unredirect
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
1185:#59 on the Billboard Hot 100,
1:
2080:but request is being ignored
30:
760:(and associated categories)
2233:
1699:Seattle Post-Intelligencer
440:normal dispute resolution?
2191:13:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
2175:13:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
2158:12:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
2143:12:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
2121:11:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
2097:10:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
2069:05:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
2049:02:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
2024:02:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
2008:02:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
1902:13:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
1843:23:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
1827:18:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
1810:17:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
1793:12:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
1772:07:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
1752:07:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
1719:05:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
1593:00:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
1548:14:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
1531:12:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
1494:07:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
1388:00:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
1343:21:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
1322:00:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
1305:23:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
1284:18:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
1267:12:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
1247:21:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
1224:12:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
1201:11:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
1101:The Truth (Cherish album)
1073:15:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
1056:The Truth (Cherish album)
1024:21:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
1010:16:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
998:03:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
981:19:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
917:16:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
900:16:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
884:12:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
772:00:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
726:21:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
703:18:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
688:18:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
666:18:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
651:18:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
636:18:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
619:17:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
575:19:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
560:19:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
551:18:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
536:18:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
522:18:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
509:18:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
495:18:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
480:17:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
460:17:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
432:bold revert discuss cycle
420:17:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
400:16:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
380:14:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
366:14:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
348:14:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
336:14:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
308:14:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
285:18:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
262:14:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
249:14:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
231:14:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
221:13:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
98:22:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
2213:Please do not modify it.
1918:Please do not modify it.
1859:Please do not modify it.
1609:Please do not modify it.
1564:Please do not modify it.
1404:Please do not modify it.
1359:Please do not modify it.
1181:", has so far peaked at
1089:Please do not modify it.
1040:Please do not modify it.
788:Please do not modify it.
742:Please do not modify it.
114:Please do not modify it.
43:Deletion review archives
299:overturn AFD and delete
1915:of the article above.
1606:of the article above.
1511:single-purpose account
1401:of the article above.
1378:– Deletion endorsed –
1086:of the article above.
1005:per above and UCFD. --
941:, which also lacks an
785:of the article above.
762:– Deletion endorsed –
111:of the article above.
82:no history was deleted
1709:so it's not deleted.
867:British-Irish Council
2059:per Metropolitan. --
2054:Restore and list at
2029:Restore and list at
1817:per King of Hearts.
1707:Image:Mileyworld.jpg
1515:conflict of interest
297:. In short, i would
905:User:After Midnight
1695:San Francisco Gate
1169:Sophmore album by
696:WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY
645:Christopher Parham
516:Christopher Parham
255:WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY
242:dispute resolution
2220:
2219:
2141:
2118:
1900:
1866:
1865:
1791:
1571:
1570:
1529:
1416:Universal_Artists
1375:Universal_Artists
1366:
1365:
1222:
1047:
1046:
979:
960:SIL International
924:Endorse deletion.
863:regional language
800:Category:User jer
758:Category:User jer
749:
748:
617:
295:this news article
60:
59:
2224:
2215:
2135:
2126:Endorse deletion
2117:
2114:
2111:
1998:Deletion Review
1985:
1971:
1953:
1920:
1892:
1891:
1888:
1868:
1861:
1815:endorse deletion
1798:Endorse deletion
1785:
1777:Endorse deletion
1758:Endorse deletion
1748:
1743:
1738:
1711:The Evil Spartan
1703:Kansas City Star
1676:
1662:
1644:
1611:
1573:
1566:
1536:Endorse deletion
1523:
1503:Endorse deletion
1471:
1457:
1439:
1406:
1368:
1361:
1310:Endorse deletion
1272:Endorse deletion
1216:
1207:Endorse deletion
1156:
1142:
1124:
1091:
1049:
1042:
1015:Endorse deletion
986:Endorse Deletion
975:
972:
843:
829:
828:
790:
751:
744:
686:
613:
610:
181:
167:
149:
116:
95:
70:
56:
36:
31:
2232:
2231:
2227:
2226:
2225:
2223:
2222:
2221:
2211:
2208:deletion review
2115:
2107:
1994:
1988:
1981:
1980:
1974:
1944:
1928:
1916:
1913:deletion review
1886:
1883:
1857:
1854:deletion review
1754:(closing admin)
1746:
1741:
1736:
1685:
1679:
1672:
1671:
1665:
1635:
1619:
1607:
1604:deletion review
1562:
1559:deletion review
1480:
1474:
1467:
1466:
1460:
1430:
1414:
1402:
1399:deletion review
1357:
1354:deletion review
1165:
1159:
1152:
1151:
1145:
1115:
1099:
1087:
1084:deletion review
1038:
1035:deletion review
970:
876:The Jade Knight
852:
846:
839:
838:
832:
802:
798:
786:
783:deletion review
740:
737:deletion review
676:
624:keep/unredirect
608:
448:deletion review
190:
184:
177:
176:
170:
140:
124:
112:
109:deletion review
93:
68:
61:
54:
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
2230:
2228:
2218:
2217:
2202:
2201:
2200:
2199:
2198:
2197:
2196:
2195:
2194:
2193:
2123:
2099:
2071:
2051:
2043:Metropolitan90
2026:
1996:
1995:
1992:
1986:
1978:
1972:
1923:
1922:
1907:
1906:
1905:
1904:
1864:
1863:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1829:
1812:
1795:
1774:
1766:Metropolitan90
1755:
1687:
1686:
1683:
1677:
1669:
1663:
1614:
1613:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1569:
1568:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1533:
1482:
1481:
1478:
1472:
1464:
1458:
1409:
1408:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1364:
1363:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1331:Cherish (band)
1324:
1307:
1286:
1269:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1167:
1166:
1163:
1157:
1149:
1143:
1094:
1093:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1061:Cherish (band)
1045:
1044:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1012:
1000:
983:
920:
919:
902:
854:
853:
850:
844:
836:
830:
793:
792:
777:
776:
775:
774:
747:
746:
731:
730:
729:
728:
714:New York Times
706:
705:
691:
690:
669:
668:
654:
653:
638:
621:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
465:
464:
463:
462:
402:
383:
382:
368:
341:
340:
339:
338:
311:
310:
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
234:
233:
192:
191:
188:
182:
174:
168:
119:
118:
103:
102:
101:
100:
67:
62:
58:
57:
49:
40:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2229:
2216:
2214:
2209:
2204:
2203:
2192:
2188:
2184:
2181:
2178:
2177:
2176:
2172:
2168:
2165:
2161:
2160:
2159:
2155:
2151:
2146:
2145:
2144:
2139:
2134:
2133:
2127:
2124:
2122:
2119:
2112:
2110:
2103:
2100:
2098:
2094:
2090:
2087:
2083:
2079:
2075:
2072:
2070:
2066:
2062:
2058:
2057:
2052:
2050:
2047:
2044:
2040:
2036:
2033:
2032:
2027:
2025:
2021:
2017:
2012:
2011:
2010:
2009:
2005:
2001:
1991:
1984:
1977:
1969:
1965:
1961:
1957:
1952:
1948:
1943:
1939:
1935:
1931:
1927:
1926:
1925:
1924:
1921:
1919:
1914:
1909:
1908:
1903:
1899:
1895:
1890:
1889:
1881:
1877:
1876:
1872:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1862:
1860:
1855:
1850:
1849:
1844:
1841:
1839:
1838:
1833:
1830:
1828:
1824:
1820:
1816:
1813:
1811:
1807:
1803:
1799:
1796:
1794:
1789:
1784:
1783:
1778:
1775:
1773:
1770:
1767:
1763:
1759:
1756:
1753:
1749:
1744:
1739:
1734:
1730:
1726:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1716:
1712:
1708:
1704:
1700:
1696:
1692:
1682:
1675:
1668:
1660:
1656:
1652:
1648:
1643:
1639:
1634:
1630:
1626:
1622:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1612:
1610:
1605:
1600:
1599:
1594:
1590:
1586:
1582:
1581:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1567:
1565:
1560:
1555:
1554:
1549:
1545:
1541:
1540:Sam Blacketer
1537:
1534:
1532:
1527:
1522:
1521:
1516:
1512:
1508:
1504:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1477:
1470:
1463:
1455:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1438:
1434:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1407:
1405:
1400:
1395:
1394:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1376:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1362:
1360:
1355:
1350:
1349:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1325:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1308:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1294:
1290:
1287:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1270:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1255:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1237:
1234:
1230:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1220:
1215:
1214:
1208:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1187:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1162:
1155:
1148:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1123:
1119:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1092:
1090:
1085:
1080:
1079:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1057:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1043:
1041:
1036:
1031:
1030:
1025:
1022:
1021:
1016:
1013:
1011:
1008:
1004:
1001:
999:
995:
991:
987:
984:
982:
978:
974:
973:
965:
961:
957:
953:
948:
944:
940:
936:
932:
929:
925:
922:
921:
918:
914:
910:
906:
903:
901:
898:
897:
892:
888:
887:
886:
885:
881:
877:
872:
868:
864:
859:
849:
842:
835:
826:
822:
818:
814:
810:
806:
801:
797:
796:
795:
794:
791:
789:
784:
779:
778:
773:
769:
765:
761:
759:
755:
754:
753:
752:
745:
743:
738:
733:
732:
727:
723:
719:
715:
711:
708:
707:
704:
701:
697:
693:
692:
689:
684:
680:
674:
671:
670:
667:
664:
660:
656:
655:
652:
649:
646:
642:
639:
637:
633:
629:
625:
622:
620:
616:
612:
611:
603:
599:
596:
595:
576:
572:
568:
563:
562:
561:
558:
554:
553:
552:
548:
544:
539:
538:
537:
534:
530:
525:
524:
523:
520:
517:
512:
511:
510:
507:
503:
498:
497:
496:
492:
488:
483:
482:
481:
478:
474:
469:
468:
467:
466:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
441:
437:
433:
428:
423:
422:
421:
417:
413:
412:
406:
403:
401:
397:
393:
388:
385:
384:
381:
378:
373:
369:
367:
364:
360:
356:
352:
351:
350:
349:
346:
337:
334:
330:
326:
322:
318:
315:
314:
313:
312:
309:
306:
305:
300:
296:
292:
286:
283:
279:
274:
269:
265:
264:
263:
260:
256:
252:
251:
250:
247:
243:
239:
236:
235:
232:
229:
225:
224:
223:
222:
219:
215:
213:
211:
208:
204:
199:
198:
197:
187:
180:
173:
165:
161:
157:
153:
148:
144:
139:
135:
131:
127:
123:
122:
121:
120:
117:
115:
110:
105:
104:
99:
96:
91:
87:
86:Clarification
83:
79:
78:
74:
73:
72:
71:
66:
63:
53:
48:
44:
39:
32:
23:
19:
2212:
2205:
2130:
2125:
2108:
2101:
2073:
2053:
2028:
2016:Klostermankl
2000:Klostermankl
1997:
1917:
1910:
1884:
1873:
1858:
1851:
1836:
1831:
1814:
1797:
1780:
1776:
1757:
1725:Keep deleted
1724:
1691:this article
1688:
1608:
1601:
1578:
1563:
1556:
1535:
1518:
1502:
1486:96.224.30.35
1483:
1403:
1396:
1373:
1358:
1351:
1326:
1309:
1291:- Note that
1288:
1271:
1259:81.104.39.63
1253:
1228:
1211:
1206:
1182:
1168:
1088:
1081:
1065:IronGargoyle
1054:
1039:
1032:
1020:Black Falcon
1018:
1014:
1002:
985:
968:
954:, spoken on
934:
923:
909:81.104.39.63
896:Black Falcon
894:
855:
787:
780:
756:
741:
734:
709:
672:
658:
640:
623:
606:
602:Vicki Iseman
597:
567:81.104.39.63
543:81.104.39.63
487:81.104.39.63
452:81.104.39.63
409:
404:
392:81.104.39.63
386:
342:
325:well sourced
302:
298:
277:
238:Speedy close
237:
200:
194:
193:
113:
106:
85:
81:
75:
65:2 March 2008
64:
2183:Igor Berger
2167:Igor Berger
2150:Igor Berger
2089:Igor Berger
1762:Miley Cyrus
952:Dgernesiais
679:Gavia immer
331:violation.
273:WP:BLPUNDEL
1898:count/logs
1837:Smashville
1802:BlueValour
1701:, and the
1621:MileyWorld
1585:Eluchil404
1580:MileyWorld
1380:Eluchil404
1314:BlueValour
971:Horologium
964:Ethnologue
928:Ethnologue
764:Eluchil404
710:Unredirect
609:Horologium
47:2008 March
2109:faithless
1930:CareFlash
1880:WP:CSD#A7
1875:CareFlash
1335:Catchpole
1239:Catchpole
947:ISO 639-2
943:ISO 639-3
718:FCYTravis
641:No action
1327:Overturn
1276:Eusebeus
1193:Admc2006
1175:WP:MUSIC
1007:Kbdank71
990:VegaDark
956:Guernsey
858:Jèrriais
20: |
2102:Comment
2074:Comment
2061:Veritas
1976:restore
1947:protect
1942:history
1832:Endorse
1819:JoshuaZ
1733:King of
1667:restore
1638:protect
1633:history
1462:restore
1433:protect
1428:history
1289:Comment
1254:Comment
1229:Comment
1171:Cherish
1147:restore
1118:protect
1113:history
1003:Endorse
865:by the
834:restore
813:history
700:John254
663:John254
628:JoshuaZ
557:John254
533:John254
506:John254
477:John254
405:comment
387:Comment
377:John254
363:John254
333:John254
321:WP:NPOV
319:. Per
259:John254
218:John254
172:restore
143:protect
138:history
52:March 3
38:March 1
2078:WP:AFD
2056:WP:AFD
2046:(talk)
2039:WP:AFD
2031:WP:AFD
1951:delete
1769:(talk)
1729:WP:WEB
1642:delete
1507:WP:CSD
1505:, per
1437:delete
1293:Cedead
1233:Forbes
1122:delete
977:(talk)
939:Norman
891:Norman
648:(talk)
615:(talk)
519:(talk)
502:CSD G4
436:WP:BRD
427:WP:DRV
329:WP:BLP
207:WP:BLP
147:delete
2138:Help!
1983:cache
1968:views
1960:watch
1956:links
1887:Jerry
1788:Help!
1674:cache
1659:views
1651:watch
1647:links
1526:Help!
1469:cache
1454:views
1446:watch
1442:links
1219:Help!
1179:Killa
1154:cache
1139:views
1131:watch
1127:links
869:. A
841:cache
821:watch
817:links
673:Close
444:WP:DR
179:cache
164:views
156:watch
152:links
94:desat
55:: -->
16:<
2187:talk
2180:here
2171:talk
2154:talk
2093:talk
2065:talk
2020:talk
2004:talk
1964:logs
1938:talk
1934:edit
1894:talk
1823:talk
1806:talk
1715:talk
1655:logs
1629:talk
1625:edit
1589:talk
1544:talk
1490:talk
1450:logs
1424:talk
1420:edit
1384:talk
1339:talk
1318:talk
1301:talk
1297:Kesh
1280:talk
1263:talk
1243:talk
1197:talk
1135:logs
1109:talk
1105:edit
1069:talk
1063:. –
994:talk
962:and
913:talk
880:talk
871:GCSE
848:UCFD
825:logs
809:talk
805:edit
768:talk
722:talk
694:Per
683:talk
659:once
632:talk
571:talk
547:talk
491:talk
456:talk
416:talk
396:talk
304:Will
278:then
160:logs
134:talk
130:edit
90:Core
35:<
2132:Guy
1990:AfD
1782:Guy
1681:AfD
1520:Guy
1476:AfD
1213:Guy
1183:#66
1161:AfD
958:.)
935:any
930:. (
473:AFD
411:DGG
355:AFD
345:Doc
282:Joe
246:Doc
186:AfD
22:Log
2189:)
2173:)
2156:)
2116:()
2095:)
2067:)
2022:)
2006:)
1966:|
1962:|
1958:|
1954:|
1949:|
1945:|
1940:|
1936:|
1896:¤
1825:)
1808:)
1750:♠
1717:)
1697:,
1657:|
1653:|
1649:|
1645:|
1640:|
1636:|
1631:|
1627:|
1591:)
1546:)
1517:.
1492:)
1452:|
1448:|
1444:|
1440:|
1435:|
1431:|
1426:|
1422:|
1386:)
1341:)
1320:)
1303:)
1282:)
1265:)
1245:)
1235:.
1199:)
1137:|
1133:|
1129:|
1125:|
1120:|
1116:|
1111:|
1107:|
1071:)
996:)
915:)
882:)
823:|
819:|
815:|
811:|
807:|
770:)
724:)
677:—
634:)
573:)
549:)
493:)
485:--
458:)
418:)
398:)
162:|
158:|
154:|
150:|
145:|
141:|
136:|
132:|
45::
2185:(
2169:(
2152:(
2140:)
2136:(
2091:(
2063:(
2018:(
2002:(
1993:)
1987:|
1979:|
1973:(
1970:)
1932:(
1821:(
1804:(
1790:)
1786:(
1747:♣
1742:♦
1737:♥
1713:(
1684:)
1678:|
1670:|
1664:(
1661:)
1623:(
1587:(
1542:(
1528:)
1524:(
1488:(
1479:)
1473:|
1465:|
1459:(
1456:)
1418:(
1382:(
1337:(
1316:(
1299:(
1278:(
1261:(
1241:(
1221:)
1217:(
1195:(
1164:)
1158:|
1150:|
1144:(
1141:)
1103:(
1067:(
992:(
911:(
878:(
851:)
845:|
837:|
831:(
827:)
803:(
766:(
720:(
685:)
681:(
630:(
569:(
545:(
489:(
454:(
414:(
394:(
189:)
183:|
175:|
169:(
166:)
128:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.