2815:
sure that the custom and practise is that merge material requires sourcing and I'm positive I'm not the only admin who closes on that basis. To draw the conclusion that because you don't like my position on this I shouldn't close fiction AFDs is perverse. You need to back up a statement like that with reference to something that supports the position that merge material can be sourced to itself. I do not have a record of my closes being reversed for poor judgement. I do have a good record of listening to concerns raised and re-reviewing my closes if there are valid issues to look at. I don't accept that this is an environment for you to reasonably argue that I'm some kind of rogue admin with an agenda on fiction to push. I find this rather an offensive claim but not surprising given your recent slide into routinely attacking the motives of closing admins at DRV discussions. Frankly this is something that doesn't reflect well on you. If you want to discuss this further I suggest you raise it at my talk page but I'd also expect you to provide some evidence to back up your claim.
2757:
a particular case, that;s what we have article talk pages for. The task of an admin is to close deletion debates, not ruling whether one policy is right or wrong or preempts another, but on the basis of the reasonable policy based views from established editors--he's a moderator, not a judge. If, as the closer did, he thinks that one policy is more important, he should join in the debate. He should not close the article to favor his own view. it is just as wrong for him to do so as it would be have been for me to close it as keep. People who have decided opinion about fiction articles should probably not close contested fiction debates at al, unless they close them against their own view--that sort of known neutral position is the basis by which administrative actions are accepted by the community. Even if the closing is right, it is better is someone else does it. If anyone thinks this principle is wrong, I suppose they wouldn't mind if I close the next evenly divided fiction debate in favor of my own view.
2019:) is plainly trivial." This failure to properly apply our guidelines is grounds for overturning the close and deleting the article. I put to you the same challenge that I put during the AFD and explain how these two- and three-sentence mentions in multi-hundred page documents, which do little or nothing beyond establishing the existence of the character, the actor who played him and a recounting of the plot, satisfy the aforementioned guidelines as anything other than plainly trivial mentions and how the failure to give appropriate weight to our guidelines in favor of exalting trivia is not reversible error. The closing admin clearly did not evaluate the relative strengths of the keep vs delete arguments and apparently just closed it on the basis of 3-2 being close to a tie, despite the keep !voters being unable to persuade anyone to agree with them following the relist as opposed to the delete arguments which gained additional support.
419:). I contacted the deleting admin, who restored it very briefly (during overnight hours) simply to delete it again. This time he said it was for G12 copyright infringement but the material within quotation marks is public domain and is also posted with permission of the original writer. I have tried to resolve with the deleting admin, but he cites policy that articles removed for copyright infringement are not allowed to be restored to a workspace for editing. I have since had it restored to my workspace for editing by an admin who was willing to help me work through the problem, but I would still like a review of the original material for the reasons stated above. I'm happy to make necessary changes to conform to Knowledge rules but am beginning to suspect a personal vendetta from the deleting admin since it seems that this entry is being singled out from the other listings under its general heading.
2964:
core policies NOR and V. DGG states above he disagrees with this but hasn't cited any policy or guidelines to support that view and now you say that I'm biased and that my judgement is poor - no doubt because of the comments that DGG made earlier. I think there has been more then enough support for my close from other users to show that while there may be a valid discussion to be had about the sourcing of merge material the decision I made was a rational outcome from the choices available - given that policy is silent on the question. I don't think it is valid for you to simply state that I appear biased (why?) and that my judgement was poor (why?) without providing evidence to detail to support the statements.
178:. But the plot wasn't copy-pasted from twitchfilm.com, the plot description is from the official movie's promotional materials and that is where twitchfilm.com copied their plot from as well which they clearly state on their webpage. Furthermore, a movie's promotional materials are provided by the copyright holder to be used by third parties to promote a movie and reprinting them is considered fair use. But regardless of anyone's perceived copyright issues with the plot description that was used on the Live Evil page, a horror film that stars Tim Thomerson, Ken Foree, Tiffany Shepis, et al, defintely has enough merit to be listed in Knowledge so the whole listing shouldn't have been deleted.
911:- The speedy deletion history seems to show some disagreement, which in itself would seem to take the articles out of speedy deletion. It may be best to let AfD decide this one, particularly since Hannah Job included A7 importance/significance "best known for her role as 'Jas' in the BBC Three Sitcom, Coming of Age (2008 TV series)" and Tony Bignell included A7 importance/significance "best known for his role as 'Matt' in the BBC Three Sitcom, Coming of Age." Also, both articles had A3 prose content relevant to the topic and no other speedy deletion criteria seems to apply. Also, if either article is to be redirected, that is something AfD should decide, not DRV, particluarly since
1748:
films, the individuals participating in the most recent AfD overwhelmingly found that there was no evidence to support notability, nor did those supporting retention supply reliable and verifiable sources to support such a claim. There appears to be nothing out of process here or any reason to overturn the result. As noted elsewhere, despite a request that the article be salted, there is no reason that bigger parts (or even appearing a little further from the edge of the screen for a few more microseconds), increased media coverage or actually winning an award could establish notability. I will also question the edit history of the editor
1005:, but see above. Redirect works just fine, nothing further needed. Since the article on the show is also in dire shape, particularly for sources, and since 100% of the show's entire fanbase already appears to be active there, perhaps they could start by fixing that article up before starting non-articles on the individual actpersons. Might be a while before they make it big, "Coming of Age was called by one critic 'the worst TV programme in broadcast history'" according to our article, and it's got some pretty stiff competition there. Meanwhile, nothing to see here, move along please.
2930:
is that the process is, and LOOKS objective to everyone else. In this case, it doesn't. Not a crime, but a judgement error either in thought or in wording. Again, I don't see bad faith and I HATE voting to overturn because I know I can't be inside your head, but I do see something that might be better closed by someone else, even if they came to the same result. It isn't about punishing you as there is no need to. At this time, it looks like I am the only one who thinks this is the best solution, so I wouldn't let it trouble you too much. It isn't personal.
2796:
holds some view about WP:N that is outside consensus and that he is using his role as an admin to force that view on the content. If, for example, he thought that all articles must have 7 sources, each from a peer reviewed journal, that would count as a heterodox view on WP:N. Instead, if he held the opinion that WP:N should be roughly applied as it is currently written, that would be in line with community consensus. So, in response to your last offer, if you think your view about inclusion of articles matches the community consensus, close away.
961:... which I read as "British Actress virtually unknown despite her role in a low budget graveyard slot sitcom on a low viewing digital-only channel". Where are the non-trivial independent sources? In fact, non-trivial content would be good. There are fewer than 10,000 Google hits for the show and only 91 unique Googles for the actress, of which all seem to relate to the series, so a redirect seems absolutely fine at this point. No need to waste any further time as that is an editorial decision.
1455:
were said were false. I have DVD's of the show "In Our Lives" and I can prove it if you would like. Those news articles in Google News not appearing? why yes, since most if not all of the news articles were published in the early - mid 1980's and therefore would not have been published online. I can try get scanned copies of those articles if you would like. I can't do an IP check on him, but
2920:
well. The o´nly reason why I haven't changed it is because I don't believe its right to change it while the discussion is on. My thoughts and conclusions are in my response here and they reflect the discussion against policy so if your only basis for overturning is 4 obscure words in a closing I would respectfully rwwuest you review the close in the context of my statement here.
2679:. The closer's decision was reasonable given the case stated during the AfD. Personally, I think if the OR is stripped away there would be little more than a stub left. Anyone could have done (and still can do) a "merge" of any verifiable content. The Google cache is still available so can I suggest that whoever wants the content retained goes ahead and does it?
894:, there was an assertion of significance in both articles, making them inappropriate targets for speedy deletion. I agree that the likely result is a redirect, but there is no reason that Knowledge editors should not be allowed to come to that conclusion for themselves. The ends do not justify the means, even with the best of intentions.
2150:- the closer interpreted the discussion correctly. Even simple logic says that there is a likelihood of reliable source material for the topic. The film the character was in was a popular film that has been around 72 years! Somebody is going to write something about the character. Simple string searches of Google
2094:. Aside from DGG, the only "keep" point made was by our friend 63.3.X.X--which just amounted to ILIKEIT anyways. Then we have to weigh the nominator's argument and the two arguments supporting deletion. However, it doesn't seem outside the realm of the admin's discretion to declare that there was no consensus.
3318:, which would just be a huge waste of your time. I suggest withdrawing this nomination and waiting for sufficient reliable, third party sources to write about the band before recreating the article. I won't stop you if you want to do otherwise, but I know you probably won't like the outcome. Cheers.
2756:
There never was any reason not to. Spartaz is absolutely wrong that content to be merged into another article needs to be sourced from secondary sources--for this sort of material primary sourcing from the work itself is quite acceptable, and probably in most cases preferable. . If it's challenged in
2305:
Look like a perfectly logical conclusion with 3 deletes and 2 keeps, with both sides presenting reasonable arguments that differed mainly in how they interpreted "significant" sources. Considering the small number of people participating, there didn't appear to be strong feelings one way or another.
2277:
Thank you for acknowledging that you engaged in simple vote-counting majority rule. That's not how closing admins are supposed to decide AFDs and is reversible error. But with that being your criterion for closing the AFD, note that the majority was in favor of deletion and that the majority position
3376:
Would have been better if it had gone to AFD, where everyone would have said "speedy delete" because it is a well formatted and nonreliably sourced article on a non-notable band. The claim of notability was a theoretically sourced 'soon to be released' album, which is weak enough that I can see why
2973:
My original statement still reflects my perspective. I am not going to do a line by line argument with you on this as I do not feel that it will be productive. We simply disagree and no amount of discussion will change that. You, the closing admin, and anyone else is free to completely discount my
2929:
I do not think I know your biases, and I made i clear I trusted your faith in the closing. Whether it was not being objective, or just making it LOOK like you were not objective, it was bad judgement to close that way regardless of your biases, motives or thoughts on the subject matter. My concern
2617:
Discuss the nomination, not the nominator. This could have been a no-consensus close, but it could have been a delete close. Spartaz is right that sources have to be available on the subject--it isn't sufficient to say that "the show won an emmy, therefore the characters are notable". For most of
2185:
I guess it's easier to count Google hits and make assumptions than it is to, you know, read. Did you know that other
Dracula movies completely unrelated to this movie have a character called "Father Sandor" in them? Did you take that into account as you were counting raw Google hits? No? Oh. And I'm
2037:
The source support a claim of notability, which is established by multiple reliable and verifiable sources. Remember, this is a matter of notability here, where sources cannot be simply ignored. I appreciate your efforts to refight the AfD all over again, but the closing administrator was within his
1747:
The original close of the first AfD was predicated on the premise that he had won two Emmy awards, which I would agree is a pretty strong claim of notability. That this claim was found to be incorrect meant that there had to be some other claim of notability. While he may well have appeared in many
2795:
by operating under this assumption that we can make the claim that bias over content can influence a debate. In other words, if we assume that spartaz doesn't care about a particular style of content, it is a bigger hurdle to jump in showing that he has some "bias". We would have to show that he
2646:
would have been perfectly valid in this case, and is preferable to full deletion. I agree with
Protonk that this could equally have been a "no consensus" closure (and would have closed it that way myself), but that delete is possible as a close as well. And, given what I've seen at ANI about TTN
1454:
I was looking for information on Aaron
Michael Lacey and I noticed it got deleted it for lack of notability simply because he did not win an Emmy. Since when does notability require someone to win an Emmy? I looked at a the deletion review page and I can provide proof of half of those claims that
2963:
Why on earth do you think the close was bad judgement? I had two choices per policy from the discussion - Merge or Delete. I ruled merge out because the material to be merged was not sourced. This is not a perverse position. Other admins also take the same view and its a line consistent with our
2919:
Why do people who have never interacted with me think they know what my biases and intentions were when I closed the discussion?´If you check my talk you will already see a note from DGG to alert me that my closing statement was obscure and a note from me confirming that I hadn't expressed myself
2814:
I saw this last night and spent some time checking policy but decided to sleep on the reply. Both V and MERGE are silent on the subject of required sourcing for merged data but In would very much like to see the guideline that states that unsourced material can be merged to an article. I'm pretty
1078:
and redirect. Clear assertion of notability makes these invalid A7's. Better to leave the history intact in case a future writer wants to use it in the event that they become notable. No need for AfD since
Redirect is a species of Keep if the history is intact and there seems no reason that it
3165:
The band has been cited with sources such as Bobby Reeves of Adema/Level along side of fullthrottleradio.com and is listed on a
Portuguese radio station, the person who performed the deletion stated no reason for her deletion other than the sources guidelines, after I pointed out the sources she
2777:
I don't agree with this. Let's put aside the merger issues and focus on the claim that
Spartaz should not be closing afd's on fictional characters because he has some opinion about them. I don't think that the admonition should be worded that strongly. Closing AfD's where the admin has some
2881:
as a close should be. By claiming "it is inadequately sourced", you are ignoring that wp:v says it must be verifiable not already verfied and putting yourself into the debate. This is not the objective role that closing requires. I don't see any bad faith, but it does look like you made a
2778:
opinion on the subject is on the spectrum of subjectivity, but it is much closer to impartial than, say, if
Spartaz were to have an actual "conflict of interest". If spartaz worked for Marvel and closed DC character AfDs, I would protest. Having an opinion about whether or not we apply a
3355:. There was no real claim to notability in the deleted article, other than members of the band saying how unique it is on the band's own MySpace. Technically, including a quote from the band saying they are "truly unique" is a claim to notability. It is, however, worthless in context.
1903:
in favor of a handful of trivial mentions of the character in a couple of books. Everything offered by the keepers including the one- and two-sentence "sources" was refuted by an analysis of the proffered sources and the closing admin erred in giving any weight to the refuted arguments.
2585:
I have several reasons for listing this. First, 4 voted for "keep" while only 3 had "delete" (1 had "merge"). Second, the keep reasons were pretty valid (I read through it), and the last is she was a pretty notable character. I concede that this article either comes back (as well as
1728:, there was a clear consensus in support of deletion. As Otto suggests above, the article can be re-created at a later date if sources that clearly establish notability are found. The subject may become notable in the future even though he doesn't seem to have achieved that yet.
2790:
broadly defined) where any impression of impartiality can be implied, but that standard of behavior is neither universal nor expected. Furthermore, the prevailing assumption about deletionists is that we use the rules as "cover" for a dislike of fan/trivial/etc content. It is
1992:
means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive....Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on
2663:
Huh? Doesn't anyone bother discussing these days before raising a DRV? With regard to the close had there been any kind of sourcing a merge would have been the result but since unsourced unverifiable material is plain original research we don't merge that.
2739:. When the number of editors on each side of an AFD is close, the administrator who closes the discussion is entitled to look at the strength of the arguments and at Knowledge policies, before coming to a decision. Spartaz acted within policy.
3166:
redirected me here. I do not see why this has become an issue months after the creation of the article. The article was backed by plenty of credible sources and had enough information to state relevance to the music articles of wikipedia. --
1467:. Also, i read a comment on the page that he "hasn't done anything but extra roles for the last 15 years or so." 15 years back only goes into the early 90's. That ignores all of his work in the 1980's from which "In Our Lives" was aired.
1530:
I will attempt to get the newspaper articles stating him as soon as I can. If i manage to scan those and upload them will it matter where they are uploaded as long as the date, paper, and other verifying information is displayed?
405:
1421:
2641:
I'd thought that merging was the accepted compromise in these situations, so I don't see why we can't do that here, if there's a good target (such as a "list of ______ characters" article). I believe that closing as
3377:
someone would say it isn't even a claim of notability at all. This was a judgment call that pushes A7 to its limit, but I don't see any abuse and can see why he chose this method of delete, even if I wouldn't have.
2556:
434:
The church of god website says "Copyright ©2007 COG All Rights
Reserved." Where is their content released to the public domain and if the notice isn't there, where has it been released to CC or the GFDL elsewhere?
1725:
1385:
2622:
be created (No one would spend pages and pages in a RS on these shows, for the most part). Therefore it doesn't work for us to assume that significant coverage exists, editors need to show where it exists. I
1704:
I actually have talked with the actor personally and he has admitted and shown to not have the computer literacy to create all of those sites. In fact, he has come to me for some computer technical help.
265:. Topic's can't supply material for their Knowledge article. They have to do something that motivates independent publishers to write about them. Then, Knowledge will summarize those secondary sources. --
222:
We cannot have copyrighted text. If the text is properly released then we can consider using it as a basis for an actually neutral article. But even then it is far from clear that this movie would escape
2361:
As you have been generous in your time to reply to every single comment in this discussion, I had already discerned that this was your opinion before I entered my observations. But thank you anyway.
983:
The absence of reliable sources would be a lovely argument at AfD, once the close is overturned. The question is here is if the original speedy deletions of these articles were justified under CSD A7.
1045:
Better still, can you point to any sources independent of the series? No? If you can't, then a redirect (whihc is what we have right now) is just fine, and this debate is a complete waste of time.
1965:
1988:, which states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article....
369:
364:
1881:
373:
415:
Was at first speedy deleted under CSD G11 (Blatant
Advertising), but there was no advertising (the non-profit organization had a listing exactly like all the other organizations in this list:
1679:, he also was in Forrest Gump, Transformers, Live Free or Die Hard, Red Dragon, The Good Shepherd, The Kingdom, The Recruit, Evan Almighty, Clear and Present Danger, Dave, Road House. etc. A
1027:
Appearing in 'the worst TV programme in broadcast history' might well be a strong claim of notability. Can you point to the portion of BLP that would justify speedy deletion of this article?
397:
356:
2249:
That's OK, I'm used to being lonely in my correctness. Just out of curiosity, which of the 1-3 line sentence mentions in multi-hundred page texts do think qualify as substantive coverage?
2111:
Not sure that's how I would have closed it given the opportunity but it is a reasonable close and there are academic sources talking about the character which goes a long way in my view.
2186:
sorry, what part of our policy and guidelines say that the assumption that there are probably offline sources, in the absence of any actual sources, is sufficient to sustain an article?
830:
per DGG as being on a TV series is an assertion of notability. However, also as DGG says, they're unlikely to survive at AFD. A redirect to the series is probably a decent compromise.
1969:
1504:- no procedural error in the AFD. The article was not deleted simply because this person didn't win an Emmy. It was deleted because of a lack of reliable sources that demonstrate
2723:. Deletion debates are closed using a rough consensus that is measured again comparing the arguments raised against policy. We don't count heads at all - or shouldn't anyway.
1415:
1376:
2550:
1980:
is one sentence on a website with no apparent reputation for reliability. The procedural errors made by the closing admin are: closing admin did not appropriately apply
3018:. "Inadequately sourced for an independent article" does not mean that deletion is the only option on the table. Merging seemed to have stronger support than deletion.
2516:
1845:
1840:
164:
449:
We don't restore copyright violations, unless it can conclusively be shown that it was not originally a violation of copyright. I suggest following the steps listed
3334:
Not strictly valid for speedy deletion, but there's no point in undeleting this only to redelete it again at AFD, as it doesn't really stand much of a chance there.
2064:
but I offered an analysis of them during the course of the AFD to explain why they do not support the independent notability of this character per he plain text of
1961:
1849:
772:
3314:
yet. So, while I would have to !vote to overturn the deletion on these grounds, I can tell you all that will happen afterward is that it will be deleted again at
51:
37:
1984:, which states "There are notability prerequisites to be met by all subjects to warrant articles specifically about them"; closing admin did not correctly apply
1586:
Stifle, why does that make a difference? Suppose someone argued: This article was written 7 months ago and nobody protested. Therefore it should not be deleted.
1516:
that includes the reliable sourcing. Once the article draft meets the appropriate guidelines for inclusion, it can be moved from your userspace to articlespace.
1225:
Has been speedy deleted under A7, but provides a reasonable indication of why the subject might be notable (having appeared on a TV show on a major TV channel).
715:
Has been speedy deleted under A7, but provides a reasonable indication of why the subject might be notable (having appeared on a TV show on a major TV channel).
1957:
1873:
1832:
1512:. If you have reliable sources that are substantively about this person, then I suggest writing a new draft of the article on a subpage of your user page, e.g.
1922:
as no consensus. The article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim of notability, which is the appropriate rebuttal to claims of
1215:
683:
46:
744:
Not what I'd call A7 material, but unless someone's willing to work on them it's unlikely to pass an AfD in their latest form. So, while I'd be happy to
1340:
1335:
2343:
In the face of a guideline that specifically excludes the proffered sources as "significant", the closer erred in giving those arguments weight.
1457:
if it does not match the area of
Sterling, VA, then you can safely say that it wasn't the actor writing the page, and therefore does not violate
1752:
whose entire edit history (with an exception or two) seems to revolve around this one article as an apparent SPA, if not a possible sockpuppet.
3204:
In response to this, it is not under the name of Step Zero, it is under the singer's name Martin Harp because he is the one who submitted it.--
1973:
1344:
2877:
I hate overturning, but don't have much of a choice here. The closing argument actually sounds like a !vote within the discussion, making it
793:
and redirect unless/until someone fancies expanding them. Not very good articles it's true, but not what CSD#A7 is supposed to be used for.
2480:
2475:
1368:
1327:
128:
123:
2162:
reveal enought reliable source material from which to mine a Knowledge article. There also is a likelihood of offline source material. --
2484:
936:
When article was tagged and deleted A7 on 1 November, its whole text was as follows (copy-pasted here from the history, wlink and all):
132:
3398:
2995:
2951:
2907:
2382:
2327:
1607:; deletions are usually contested here very soon afterwards, whereas articles are regularly AFDed having existed for months or years.
730:
Undeleted for DRV. I'm neutral on the merits but if this offers a claim of significance I'm less clear that it will survive an AfD.
2508:
2467:
1836:
360:
261:
Ditto the above. Plus, if the material was from a movie's promotional materials, it is not independent of the topic as specifiec at
174:
Was deleted under speedy delete G12 (Copyright Infringement) because someone alleged that the plot description was copy-pasted from
156:
115:
42:
1436:
2207:. There was no consensus to delete, and deletion review is not for use just because you disagree with the outcome of the debate.
1179:
1174:
647:
642:
1403:
621:
3152:
2860:
2571:
1183:
651:
352:
310:
2538:
2159:
808:
768:
585:
580:
2848:
I think this should have been closed as a "no consensus", but what's been done's been done, so I suggest it be at the least
1485:
on myself as I did not write the article. I only met him recently, and am intrigued by him. I want to know his history.
3116:
3111:
2221:
This is not about disagreeing with the outcome. This is about your failure to correctly apply black-and-white guidelines.
1207:
1166:
675:
634:
589:
494:
21:
1513:
3120:
2155:
1828:
1793:
847:. No sense in jumping through an extra set of hoops so someone can prove some sort of point: these won't survive AFD. --
613:
572:
3310:
I would say this goes beyond what A7 is capable of, but given everything I've seen so far the band is definitely not
1550:. The closing admin called the consensus right, so I see no reason to overturn. A lot of effort went into providing
1397:
2710:
Are you all forgetting there were only 3 delete votes against 4 keep votes? That should qualify for a no consensus.
2697:
Looks a reasonable close to me. A merge into some sort of List of... article would also have been unexceptionable.
2151:
3144:
3103:
424:
2532:
1668:
1557:
and he has no WP article despite 30 years of literally hundreds of appearances, so I see no inconsistency either.
3416:
3083:
3038:
2447:
2404:
1812:
1772:
1307:
1260:
1146:
1099:
852:
552:
512:
477:
336:
289:
249:
95:
17:
2590:, which had a lack of comments on the AFD discussion), or no WB cartoon character gets their own page (not even
1393:
1736:
486:
Well... some people do not believe in what is told to them unless two more people yell the same thing... sigh.
1331:
748:, I would rather wait until someone comes forward to work on them first, to avoid unnecessary AfDs. Cheers.
2528:
1680:
3343:
2833:
2744:
2433:
2268:
2240:
2212:
1647:
1612:
1577:
880:
835:
3405:
3368:
3347:
3329:
3297:
3271:
3257:
3233:
3213:
3193:
3170:
3072:
3027:
3002:
2968:
2958:
2924:
2914:
2865:
2837:
2819:
2805:
2768:
2748:
2727:
2714:
2703:
2689:
2671:
2658:
2636:
2611:
2436:
2389:
2352:
2334:
2287:
2272:
2258:
2244:
2230:
2216:
2195:
2175:
2138:
2120:
2103:
2077:
2051:
2028:
1935:
1913:
1801:
1761:
1739:
1714:
1696:
1651:
1633:
1616:
1597:
1581:
1567:
1540:
1525:
1494:
1476:
1443:
1296:
1249:
1234:
1135:
1088:
1058:
1036:
1018:
992:
974:
952:
928:
903:
882:
856:
839:
822:
799:
781:
759:
739:
724:
709:
541:
501:
481:
464:
444:
428:
420:
325:
278:
253:
236:
214:
187:
84:
3394:
2991:
2947:
2903:
2687:
2647:
before, a ban discussion about him isn't likely to get anywhere fast, so I'll just ignore that. Cheers.
2378:
2323:
1565:
183:
1323:
1281:
2578:
2471:
450:
119:
1603:
I'm not raising it as a process objection; I am just curious because it is unusual. Your argument is a
1170:
638:
1891:
Closer seems to have ignored the policy- and guideline-based arguments for deletion as a violation of
3068:
2698:
2607:
1710:
1629:
1536:
1490:
1472:
1230:
1084:
848:
776:
720:
473:
245:
3107:
2883:
2882:
judgement call outside of the discussion/consensus. By the way, someone has already recreated it at
227:
anyways. One is of course welcome to work in userspace on writing a draft of a non-copyvio article.
3293:
3253:
3189:
3181:
3022:
2720:
2564:
2263:
Just like any other consensus/voting process, you're only as correct as a majority thinks you are.
2061:
2060:
Clearly, I did not ignore the proffered sources since I not only reviewed all of them in expanding
1733:
1683:
for him brings up an impressive list of websites. Seems to be working overtime to get exposure. --
1464:
1429:
948:
807:, but unless more material is added about their career they will very likely be deleted at afd. Is
322:
1162:
1120:
868:
630:
3324:
3263:
3225:
3205:
2653:
2430:
2348:
2283:
2254:
2226:
2191:
2134:
2073:
2047:
2024:
1931:
1909:
1757:
1521:
1463:
From my personal talks with him almost daily, I can almost safely say that he is not at all like
1409:
1291:
1130:
1032:
988:
899:
876:
754:
459:
1977:
1554:
during the AfD and none were turned up. As an example I looked up a "notable" extra, Pat Gorman
3099:
3059:
1624:
I brought the deletion up because I had not previously known about the actor before this time.
3380:
2977:
2933:
2889:
2801:
2680:
2632:
2618:
these disney shows, it is entirely possible that significant coverage of the characters would
2544:
2364:
2309:
2116:
2099:
1558:
1245:
735:
498:
440:
232:
179:
80:– We don't undelete copyvios. Please feel free to try again without using copyrighted text. –
3267:
3229:
3209:
3167:
2463:
2425:
2166:
1687:
919:
700:
269:
111:
76:
3311:
3064:
2711:
2603:
2429:– DGG's argument did tug at my heartstrings, but I think the result is to endorse this. –
1749:
1706:
1625:
1532:
1486:
1468:
1226:
1080:
938:
Hannah Job is a British Actress, bet known for her Role as 'Jas' in the BBC Three Sitcom,
716:
576:
3148:
2512:
2008:
1877:
1372:
1211:
679:
617:
401:
160:
3289:
3249:
3185:
3019:
2854:
1672:
1079:
shouldn't be. Nor have any BLP issues requiring deletion of the history been raised.
944:
790:
319:
194:
3363:
3357:
3319:
3315:
2783:
2764:
2648:
2599:
2344:
2279:
2250:
2222:
2187:
2130:
2069:
2043:
2020:
1985:
1981:
1949:
1927:
1905:
1900:
1896:
1753:
1729:
1593:
1517:
1509:
1482:
1458:
1286:
1125:
1053:
1047:
1028:
1013:
1007:
1002:
984:
969:
963:
939:
895:
891:
818:
749:
454:
224:
209:
203:
3285:
3245:
2965:
2921:
2816:
2797:
2724:
2668:
2628:
2112:
2095:
2013:
2002:
1923:
1892:
1798:
1551:
1241:
912:
731:
538:
491:
436:
228:
81:
3137:
2501:
1866:
1361:
1200:
668:
606:
390:
149:
3339:
3281:
2829:
2779:
2740:
2587:
2264:
2236:
2208:
2163:
2065:
1684:
1643:
1608:
1573:
1505:
916:
831:
795:
697:
266:
262:
2594:, as much as I like him). And if the deletions are overturned, I propose that
2591:
2129:
They don't "talk about" the character. They mention the character in passing.
864:
568:
533:
1960:
merely establishes the existence of the character and recounts the plot. The
175:
2786:
is not the same thing. I understand that you abstain from using the tools (
1604:
193:
So it violates a different copyright instead. And if not, then it violates
1572:
This deletion was seven months ago. Why such a long delay in listing here?
2759:
2595:
2038:
authority given the sources provided. Nor does putting multiple words in
1997:
are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band
1588:
813:
453:
to rewriting the article so that it doesn't violate copyright. Cheers.
3224:
Note, I have evidence of Bobby Reeve's endorsement if truly necessary.--
1676:
1555:
872:
3177:
3176:
Note, the only independent source cited in the deleted article is "
2852:
d. Both sides had valid points hence a compromise is appropriate.
2602:
from ever nominating a WB Animation-related article for deletion.
2235:
It looks like you're in a minority of one in having that opinion.
1926:. There appears to be no out-of-process issues with this close.
875:
were nothing major (read:work as extra) until this came along -
416:
1994:
1124:– Merged up; same situation and word-for-word rationale. –
3133:
3129:
3125:
2497:
2493:
2489:
1862:
1858:
1854:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1196:
1192:
1188:
693:
664:
660:
656:
602:
598:
594:
386:
382:
378:
145:
141:
137:
2563:
1428:
915:
would not be available to a DRV redirect outcome. --
3262:
It is a direct message from Bobby Reeves himself.--
1956:the sources listed as establishing notability. The
773:this AfD for another actor in the same programme
3180:," which does not mention the band at all. See
2278:picked up strength after the AFD was relisted.
1972:is three sentences out of a 216 page book. The
1642:this deletion; I'd recommend a userpace draft.
1638:Thanks for that. I'm going to have to go with
2577:
1442:
8:
3244:Unless it's published by an independent and
3082:The following is an archived debate of the
2446:The following is an archived debate of the
1976:is three sentences in a 474 page book. The
1811:The following is an archived debate of the
1306:The following is an archived debate of the
1145:The following is an archived debate of the
551:The following is an archived debate of the
335:The following is an archived debate of the
94:The following is an archived debate of the
3052:
3016:Overturn deletion, then redirect and merge
2875:Overturn, let someone independent close it
2418:
1786:
1274:
1113:
867:to show article, she's done nothing else.
526:
303:
197:(quoting promotional material directly).
69:
3378:
2975:
2931:
2887:
2362:
2307:
353:Church of God, an International Community
311:Church of God, an International Community
41:
50:
33:
417:http://en.wikipedia.org/Church_of_God
7:
3419:of the page listed in the heading.
3041:of the page listed in the heading.
2886:in spite of the existing redirect.
2407:of the page listed in the heading.
1775:of the page listed in the heading.
1514:User:Rootbear75/Aaron Michael Lacey
1285:– Deletion and closure endorsed. –
1263:of the page listed in the heading.
1102:of the page listed in the heading.
515:of the page listed in the heading.
292:of the page listed in the heading.
3248:, it can't be cited on Knowledge.
1952:which specifically and explicitly
873:the parts he had according to IMDB
28:
3178:http://www.fullthrottleradio.com/
2974:observations if they so choose.
1671:, looks like his big role was in
811:the only show they have been on?
1508:and no indication that he meets
1481:Additionally, you can not claim
1001:It's also a valid rationale per
3415:The above is an archive of the
3381:
3037:The above is an archive of the
2978:
2934:
2890:
2828:I concur with Spartaz on this.
2403:The above is an archive of the
2365:
2310:
2306:Nothing looks abnormal here.
2169:
1771:The above is an archive of the
1690:
1259:The above is an archive of the
1098:The above is an archive of the
922:
703:
511:The above is an archive of the
288:The above is an archive of the
272:
809:Coming of Age (2008 TV series)
769:Coming of Age (2008 TV series)
1:
3406:00:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
3369:20:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
3348:10:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
3330:21:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
3298:20:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
3272:19:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
3258:19:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
3234:19:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
3214:19:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
3194:19:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
3182:User_talk:Gwen_Gale#Step_Zero
3171:18:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
3073:01:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
3028:15:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
3003:01:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
2969:06:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
2959:01:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
2925:18:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
2915:13:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
2866:03:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
2838:10:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
2820:06:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
2806:02:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
2769:23:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
2749:10:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
2728:06:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
2715:00:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
2704:23:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
2690:22:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
2672:21:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
2659:21:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
2637:19:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
2612:06:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
2437:00:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
2390:01:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
2353:07:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
2335:00:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
2288:12:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
2273:14:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
2259:07:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
2245:10:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
2231:16:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
2217:10:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
2196:06:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
2176:04:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
2139:22:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
2121:22:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
2104:19:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
2078:21:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
2052:17:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
2029:08:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
2009:"Tough love child of Kennedy"
1968:is another plot summary. The
1936:07:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
1914:07:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
1802:06:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
1762:13:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
1740:05:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
1715:10:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
1697:00:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
1675:(1995) as WWI Sergeant. From
1652:12:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
1634:10:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
1617:10:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
1598:21:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
1582:10:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
1568:22:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
1541:10:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
1526:11:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
1495:11:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
1477:11:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
1297:00:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
1250:19:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
1235:14:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
1136:21:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
1089:02:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
1059:00:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
1037:13:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
1019:20:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
993:20:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
975:20:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
953:19:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
929:19:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
904:17:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
883:13:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
857:10:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
840:10:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
823:04:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
800:00:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
782:23:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
760:20:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
740:19:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
725:14:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
710:19:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
542:06:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
502:02:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
482:00:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
465:21:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
445:19:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
429:19:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
326:06:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
279:04:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
254:00:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
237:22:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
215:22:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
188:21:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
85:07:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
30:
2007:Martin Walker (1992-01-06).
1829:Sandor (fictional character)
1794:Sandor (fictional character)
789:and send to AfD, or just be
537:– Restored and redirected –
54:
34:
2719:No it doesn't. Please read
2627:this close, though weakly.
318:- copyright is paramount –
3442:
1948:the sources and then read
694:originally a separate DRV
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
3422:Please do not modify it.
3089:Please do not modify it.
3044:Please do not modify it.
2453:Please do not modify it.
2410:Please do not modify it.
1818:Please do not modify it.
1778:Please do not modify it.
1313:Please do not modify it.
1266:Please do not modify it.
1152:Please do not modify it.
1105:Please do not modify it.
890:Per the requirements of
558:Please do not modify it.
518:Please do not modify it.
342:Please do not modify it.
295:Please do not modify it.
101:Please do not modify it.
43:Deletion review archives
488:endorse (self-)deletion
472:, copyright violation.
244:, copyright violation.
3086:of the article above.
3063:– Deletion endorsed –
2784:widely accepted policy
2450:of the article above.
1990:"Significant coverage"
1815:of the article above.
1310:of the article above.
1149:of the article above.
555:of the article above.
339:of the article above.
98:of the article above.
1730:Consensus can change.
871:should be redirected
765:Overturn and redirect
2042:help your argument.
2780:community guideline
2205:Endorse own closure
1964:does the same. The
1797:– Close endorsed –
1324:Aaron Michael Lacey
1282:Aaron Michael Lacey
3403:
3000:
2956:
2912:
2387:
2332:
2062:Dracula's Daughter
2001:in a biography of
3429:
3428:
3402:
3389:
3385:
3379:
3367:
3051:
3050:
3025:
2999:
2986:
2982:
2976:
2955:
2942:
2938:
2932:
2911:
2898:
2894:
2888:
2666:Endorse own close
2417:
2416:
2386:
2373:
2369:
2363:
2331:
2318:
2314:
2308:
1785:
1784:
1273:
1272:
1112:
1111:
1057:
1017:
973:
712:
525:
524:
302:
301:
213:
60:
59:
3433:
3424:
3404:
3392:
3390:
3387:
3383:
3361:
3353:Endorse deletion
3156:
3141:
3123:
3091:
3053:
3046:
3023:
3001:
2989:
2987:
2984:
2980:
2957:
2945:
2943:
2940:
2936:
2913:
2901:
2899:
2896:
2892:
2737:Endorse deletion
2695:Endorse deletion
2685:
2677:Endorse deletion
2582:
2581:
2567:
2520:
2505:
2487:
2464:Shirley the Loon
2455:
2426:Shirley the Loon
2419:
2412:
2388:
2376:
2374:
2371:
2367:
2333:
2321:
2319:
2316:
2312:
2171:
2018:
1999:Three Blind Mice
1885:
1870:
1852:
1820:
1787:
1780:
1745:Endorse deletion
1722:Endorse deletion
1692:
1665:Endorse deletion
1563:
1552:reliable sources
1548:Endorse deletion
1502:Endorse deletion
1447:
1446:
1432:
1380:
1365:
1347:
1315:
1275:
1268:
1219:
1204:
1186:
1154:
1114:
1107:
1051:
1011:
967:
924:
705:
692:
687:
672:
654:
625:
610:
592:
560:
527:
520:
470:Endorse deletion
421:Richard Abrahams
409:
394:
376:
344:
304:
297:
274:
242:Endorse deletion
220:endorse deletion
207:
168:
153:
135:
112:Live Evil (film)
103:
77:Live Evil (film)
70:
65:16 November 2008
56:
36:
31:
3441:
3440:
3436:
3435:
3434:
3432:
3431:
3430:
3420:
3417:deletion review
3286:reliable source
3246:reliable source
3142:
3114:
3098:
3087:
3084:deletion review
3042:
3039:deletion review
2879:not independent
2863:
2681:
2524:
2506:
2478:
2462:
2451:
2448:deletion review
2408:
2405:deletion review
2172:
2006:
1871:
1843:
1827:
1816:
1813:deletion review
1776:
1773:deletion review
1750:User:Rootbear75
1693:
1559:
1389:
1366:
1338:
1322:
1311:
1308:deletion review
1264:
1261:deletion review
1240:Same as above.
1205:
1177:
1161:
1150:
1147:deletion review
1103:
1100:deletion review
925:
849:CalendarWatcher
706:
673:
645:
629:
611:
583:
567:
556:
553:deletion review
516:
513:deletion review
474:Kristen Eriksen
395:
367:
351:
340:
337:deletion review
293:
290:deletion review
275:
246:Kristen Eriksen
154:
126:
110:
99:
96:deletion review
68:
61:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
3439:
3437:
3427:
3426:
3411:
3410:
3409:
3408:
3371:
3350:
3332:
3307:
3306:
3305:
3304:
3303:
3302:
3301:
3300:
3260:
3237:
3236:
3221:
3220:
3219:
3218:
3217:
3216:
3197:
3196:
3159:
3094:
3093:
3078:
3077:
3076:
3075:
3049:
3048:
3033:
3032:
3031:
3030:
3013:
3012:
3011:
3010:
3009:
3008:
3007:
3006:
3005:
2884:Shirley McLoon
2871:
2870:
2869:
2868:
2864:
2859:
2857:
2845:
2844:
2843:
2842:
2841:
2840:
2823:
2822:
2809:
2808:
2772:
2771:
2751:
2733:
2732:
2731:
2730:
2707:
2706:
2692:
2683:Unusual? Quite
2674:
2661:
2639:
2523:
2458:
2457:
2442:
2441:
2440:
2439:
2431:Angus McLellan
2415:
2414:
2399:
2398:
2397:
2396:
2395:
2394:
2393:
2392:
2356:
2355:
2338:
2337:
2300:
2299:
2298:
2297:
2296:
2295:
2294:
2293:
2292:
2291:
2290:
2201:
2200:
2199:
2198:
2179:
2178:
2168:
2144:
2143:
2142:
2141:
2124:
2123:
2106:
2087:
2086:
2085:
2084:
2083:
2082:
2081:
2080:
2055:
2054:
2032:
2031:
1939:
1938:
1888:
1823:
1822:
1807:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1783:
1782:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1742:
1734:Metropolitan90
1719:
1718:
1717:
1689:
1673:Twelve Monkeys
1662:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1570:
1561:Unusual? Quite
1545:
1544:
1543:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1383:
1318:
1317:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1271:
1270:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1222:
1157:
1156:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1110:
1109:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1040:
1039:
1022:
1021:
996:
995:
978:
977:
956:
955:
931:
921:
906:
885:
859:
842:
825:
802:
784:
762:
742:
702:
690:
628:
563:
562:
547:
546:
545:
544:
523:
522:
507:
506:
505:
504:
484:
467:
447:
412:
347:
346:
331:
330:
329:
328:
300:
299:
284:
283:
282:
281:
271:
256:
239:
217:
176:twitchfilm.com
171:
106:
105:
90:
89:
88:
87:
67:
62:
58:
57:
49:
40:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3438:
3425:
3423:
3418:
3413:
3412:
3407:
3400:
3396:
3391:
3375:
3372:
3370:
3365:
3360:
3359:
3354:
3351:
3349:
3345:
3341:
3337:
3333:
3331:
3328:
3327:
3323:
3322:
3317:
3313:
3309:
3308:
3299:
3295:
3291:
3287:
3283:
3279:
3275:
3274:
3273:
3269:
3265:
3261:
3259:
3255:
3251:
3247:
3243:
3242:
3241:
3240:
3239:
3238:
3235:
3231:
3227:
3223:
3222:
3215:
3211:
3207:
3203:
3202:
3201:
3200:
3199:
3198:
3195:
3191:
3187:
3183:
3179:
3175:
3174:
3173:
3172:
3169:
3164:
3160:
3157:
3154:
3150:
3146:
3139:
3135:
3131:
3127:
3122:
3118:
3113:
3109:
3105:
3101:
3096:
3095:
3092:
3090:
3085:
3080:
3079:
3074:
3070:
3066:
3062:
3061:
3057:
3056:
3055:
3054:
3047:
3045:
3040:
3035:
3034:
3029:
3026:
3021:
3017:
3014:
3004:
2997:
2993:
2988:
2972:
2971:
2970:
2967:
2962:
2961:
2960:
2953:
2949:
2944:
2928:
2927:
2926:
2923:
2918:
2917:
2916:
2909:
2905:
2900:
2885:
2880:
2876:
2873:
2872:
2867:
2862:
2858:
2856:
2855:The Dominator
2853:
2851:
2847:
2846:
2839:
2835:
2831:
2827:
2826:
2825:
2824:
2821:
2818:
2813:
2812:
2811:
2810:
2807:
2803:
2799:
2794:
2789:
2785:
2781:
2776:
2775:
2774:
2773:
2770:
2766:
2762:
2761:
2755:
2752:
2750:
2746:
2742:
2738:
2735:
2734:
2729:
2726:
2722:
2718:
2717:
2716:
2713:
2709:
2708:
2705:
2702:
2701:
2696:
2693:
2691:
2688:
2686:
2684:
2678:
2675:
2673:
2670:
2667:
2662:
2660:
2657:
2656:
2652:
2651:
2645:
2640:
2638:
2634:
2630:
2626:
2621:
2616:
2615:
2614:
2613:
2609:
2605:
2601:
2597:
2593:
2589:
2583:
2580:
2576:
2573:
2570:
2566:
2562:
2558:
2555:
2552:
2549:
2546:
2543:
2540:
2537:
2534:
2530:
2527:
2526:Find sources:
2521:
2518:
2514:
2510:
2503:
2499:
2495:
2491:
2486:
2482:
2477:
2473:
2469:
2465:
2460:
2459:
2456:
2454:
2449:
2444:
2443:
2438:
2435:
2432:
2428:
2427:
2423:
2422:
2421:
2420:
2413:
2411:
2406:
2401:
2400:
2391:
2384:
2380:
2375:
2360:
2359:
2358:
2357:
2354:
2350:
2346:
2342:
2341:
2340:
2339:
2336:
2329:
2325:
2320:
2304:
2303:Endorse close
2301:
2289:
2285:
2281:
2276:
2275:
2274:
2270:
2266:
2262:
2261:
2260:
2256:
2252:
2248:
2247:
2246:
2242:
2238:
2234:
2233:
2232:
2228:
2224:
2220:
2219:
2218:
2214:
2210:
2206:
2203:
2202:
2197:
2193:
2189:
2184:<sigh: -->
2183:
2182:
2181:
2180:
2177:
2174:
2173:
2165:
2161:
2157:
2153:
2149:
2148:Endorse close
2146:
2145:
2140:
2136:
2132:
2128:
2127:
2126:
2125:
2122:
2118:
2114:
2110:
2109:endorse close
2107:
2105:
2101:
2097:
2093:
2092:weak overturn
2089:
2088:
2079:
2075:
2071:
2067:
2063:
2059:
2058:
2057:
2056:
2053:
2049:
2045:
2041:
2036:
2035:
2034:
2033:
2030:
2026:
2022:
2016:
2015:
2010:
2004:
2000:
1996:
1991:
1987:
1983:
1979:
1975:
1971:
1967:
1963:
1959:
1955:
1951:
1947:
1944:Try actually
1943:
1942:
1941:
1940:
1937:
1933:
1929:
1925:
1921:
1920:Endorse close
1918:
1917:
1916:
1915:
1911:
1907:
1902:
1898:
1894:
1889:
1886:
1883:
1879:
1875:
1868:
1864:
1860:
1856:
1851:
1847:
1842:
1838:
1834:
1830:
1825:
1824:
1821:
1819:
1814:
1809:
1808:
1803:
1800:
1796:
1795:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1788:
1781:
1779:
1774:
1769:
1768:
1763:
1759:
1755:
1751:
1746:
1743:
1741:
1738:
1735:
1731:
1727:
1723:
1720:
1716:
1712:
1708:
1703:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1695:
1694:
1686:
1682:
1681:google search
1678:
1674:
1670:
1666:
1663:
1653:
1649:
1645:
1641:
1637:
1636:
1635:
1631:
1627:
1623:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1614:
1610:
1606:
1602:
1601:
1599:
1595:
1591:
1590:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1579:
1575:
1571:
1569:
1566:
1564:
1562:
1556:
1553:
1549:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1534:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1511:
1507:
1503:
1500:
1496:
1492:
1488:
1484:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1474:
1470:
1466:
1465:User:AMLFILMS
1462:
1460:
1453:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1445:
1441:
1438:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1420:
1417:
1414:
1411:
1408:
1405:
1402:
1399:
1395:
1392:
1391:Find sources:
1387:
1381:
1378:
1374:
1370:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1346:
1342:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1320:
1319:
1316:
1314:
1309:
1304:
1303:
1298:
1295:
1294:
1290:
1289:
1284:
1283:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1269:
1267:
1262:
1257:
1256:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1223:
1220:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1185:
1181:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1164:
1159:
1158:
1155:
1153:
1148:
1143:
1142:
1137:
1134:
1133:
1129:
1128:
1123:
1122:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1108:
1106:
1101:
1096:
1095:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1077:
1074:
1073:
1060:
1055:
1050:
1049:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1020:
1015:
1010:
1009:
1004:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
994:
990:
986:
982:
981:
980:
979:
976:
971:
966:
965:
960:
959:
958:
957:
954:
950:
946:
943:
941:
940:Coming of Age
935:
932:
930:
927:
926:
918:
914:
910:
907:
905:
901:
897:
893:
889:
886:
884:
881:
878:
874:
870:
866:
863:
860:
858:
854:
850:
846:
843:
841:
837:
833:
829:
826:
824:
820:
816:
815:
810:
806:
803:
801:
798:
797:
792:
788:
785:
783:
780:
779:
774:
770:
766:
763:
761:
758:
757:
753:
752:
747:
743:
741:
737:
733:
729:
728:
727:
726:
722:
718:
713:
711:
708:
707:
699:
695:
688:
685:
681:
677:
670:
666:
662:
658:
653:
649:
644:
640:
636:
632:
626:
623:
619:
615:
608:
604:
600:
596:
591:
587:
582:
578:
574:
570:
565:
564:
561:
559:
554:
549:
548:
543:
540:
536:
535:
531:
530:
529:
528:
521:
519:
514:
509:
508:
503:
500:
496:
493:
489:
485:
483:
479:
475:
471:
468:
466:
463:
462:
458:
457:
452:
448:
446:
442:
438:
433:
432:
431:
430:
426:
422:
418:
413:
410:
407:
403:
399:
392:
388:
384:
380:
375:
371:
366:
362:
358:
354:
349:
348:
345:
343:
338:
333:
332:
327:
324:
321:
317:
313:
312:
308:
307:
306:
305:
298:
296:
291:
286:
285:
280:
277:
276:
268:
264:
260:
257:
255:
251:
247:
243:
240:
238:
234:
230:
226:
221:
218:
216:
211:
206:
205:
201:either way.
200:
196:
192:
191:
190:
189:
185:
181:
177:
172:
169:
166:
162:
158:
151:
147:
143:
139:
134:
130:
125:
121:
117:
113:
108:
107:
104:
102:
97:
92:
91:
86:
83:
79:
78:
74:
73:
72:
71:
66:
63:
53:
48:
47:2008 November
44:
39:
32:
23:
19:
3421:
3414:
3374:Weak endorse
3373:
3356:
3352:
3336:Keep deleted
3335:
3325:
3320:
3277:
3162:
3161:
3097:
3088:
3081:
3058:
3043:
3036:
3015:
2878:
2874:
2849:
2792:
2787:
2758:
2753:
2736:
2721:WP:CONSENSUS
2699:
2694:
2682:
2676:
2665:
2654:
2649:
2643:
2624:
2619:
2584:
2574:
2568:
2560:
2553:
2547:
2541:
2535:
2525:
2461:
2452:
2445:
2424:
2409:
2402:
2302:
2204:
2167:
2147:
2108:
2091:
2039:
2014:The Guardian
2012:
2003:Bill Clinton
1998:
1989:
1954:disqualifies
1953:
1945:
1919:
1890:
1826:
1817:
1810:
1792:
1777:
1770:
1744:
1721:
1701:
1688:
1669:Google books
1664:
1639:
1621:
1587:
1560:
1547:
1501:
1456:
1451:
1439:
1433:
1425:
1418:
1412:
1406:
1400:
1390:
1321:
1312:
1305:
1292:
1287:
1280:
1265:
1258:
1224:
1163:Tony Bignell
1160:
1151:
1144:
1131:
1126:
1121:Tony Bignell
1119:
1104:
1097:
1075:
1046:
1006:
962:
937:
933:
920:
908:
887:
869:Tony Bignell
861:
845:Keep deleted
844:
827:
812:
804:
794:
786:
777:
764:
755:
750:
745:
714:
701:
631:Tony Bignell
566:
557:
550:
532:
517:
510:
487:
469:
460:
455:
414:
350:
341:
334:
315:
309:
294:
287:
270:
258:
241:
219:
202:
198:
180:JohnnieYoung
173:
109:
100:
93:
75:
64:
3282:independent
3276:It must be
2588:Sweetie Pie
2551:free images
1416:free images
52:November 17
38:November 15
3065:Eluchil404
2712:FMAFan1990
2700:Black Kite
2604:FMAFan1990
2592:Bugs Bunny
1726:second AfD
1707:Rootbear75
1626:Rootbear75
1533:Rootbear75
1506:notability
1487:Rootbear75
1469:Rootbear75
1227:TigerShark
1081:Eluchil404
865:Hannah Job
778:Black Kite
717:TigerShark
569:Hannah Job
534:Hannah Job
3290:Gwen Gale
3278:published
3250:Gwen Gale
3186:Gwen Gale
3163:Undelete.
3100:Step Zero
3060:Step Zero
3020:Sjakkalle
1970:Humphries
1724:. In the
1640:endorsing
1605:straw man
1452:Undelete.
945:Gwen Gale
892:WP:CSD#A7
320:Peripitus
3321:lifebaka
3024:(Check!)
2650:lifebaka
2345:Otto4711
2280:Otto4711
2251:Otto4711
2223:Otto4711
2188:Otto4711
2131:Otto4711
2070:Otto4711
2044:Alansohn
2021:Otto4711
1966:Benshoff
1928:Alansohn
1906:Otto4711
1754:Alansohn
1702:Comment:
1622:Comment:
1518:Otto4711
1288:lifebaka
1127:lifebaka
1076:Overturn
1029:Alansohn
985:Alansohn
909:Overturn
896:Alansohn
888:Overturn
862:Redirect
828:Overturn
805:Overturn
787:Overturn
751:lifebaka
746:overturn
456:lifebaka
316:Endorsed
20: |
3312:notable
3145:restore
3117:protect
3112:history
2966:Spartaz
2922:Spartaz
2817:Spartaz
2798:Protonk
2725:Spartaz
2669:Spartaz
2629:Protonk
2625:endorse
2557:WP refs
2545:scholar
2509:restore
2481:protect
2476:history
2156:scholar
2113:JoshuaZ
2096:Protonk
2040:italics
1946:reading
1874:restore
1846:protect
1841:history
1799:Spartaz
1667:- From
1422:WP refs
1410:scholar
1369:restore
1341:protect
1336:history
1242:Protonk
1208:restore
1180:protect
1175:history
934:Comment
771:as per
732:Protonk
676:restore
648:protect
643:history
614:restore
586:protect
581:history
539:Spartaz
492:Pegasus
437:Protonk
398:restore
370:protect
365:history
259:Endorse
229:JoshuaZ
199:Endorse
195:WP:NPOV
157:restore
129:protect
124:history
82:Spartaz
3340:Stifle
3280:by an
3264:Jarrex
3226:Jarrex
3206:Jarrex
3168:Jarrex
3121:delete
2830:Stifle
2741:Stifle
2600:banned
2529:Google
2485:delete
2434:(Talk)
2265:Stifle
2237:Stifle
2209:Stifle
2164:Suntag
2158:, and
1986:WP:GNG
1982:WP:WAF
1978:Leeper
1974:Willis
1950:WP:GNG
1901:WP:GNG
1897:WP:WAF
1850:delete
1737:(talk)
1685:Suntag
1644:Stifle
1609:Stifle
1574:Stifle
1510:WP:BIO
1483:WP:COI
1459:WP:COI
1394:Google
1345:delete
1184:delete
1003:WP:BLP
917:Suntag
832:Stifle
796:Iain99
698:Suntag
652:delete
590:delete
374:delete
323:(Talk)
267:Suntag
133:delete
3384:ENNIS
3364:Help!
3149:cache
3138:views
3130:watch
3126:links
2981:ENNIS
2937:ENNIS
2893:ENNIS
2861:Edits
2850:merge
2754:Merge
2644:merge
2620:never
2572:JSTOR
2533:books
2513:cache
2502:views
2494:watch
2490:links
2368:ENNIS
2313:ENNIS
2152:books
1962:Klute
1924:WP:OR
1893:WP:OR
1878:cache
1867:views
1859:watch
1855:links
1437:JSTOR
1398:books
1386:AfD 2
1373:cache
1362:views
1354:watch
1350:links
1212:cache
1201:views
1193:watch
1189:links
1054:Help!
1014:Help!
970:Help!
680:cache
669:views
661:watch
657:links
618:cache
607:views
599:watch
595:links
402:cache
391:views
383:watch
379:links
210:Help!
161:cache
150:views
142:watch
138:links
55:: -->
16:<
3388:ROWN
3344:talk
3294:talk
3284:and
3268:talk
3254:talk
3230:talk
3210:talk
3190:talk
3134:logs
3108:talk
3104:edit
3069:talk
2985:ROWN
2941:ROWN
2897:ROWN
2834:talk
2802:talk
2793:only
2788:very
2765:talk
2745:talk
2633:talk
2608:talk
2565:FENS
2539:news
2498:logs
2472:talk
2468:edit
2372:ROWN
2349:talk
2317:ROWN
2284:talk
2269:talk
2255:talk
2241:talk
2227:talk
2213:talk
2192:talk
2160:news
2135:talk
2117:talk
2100:talk
2090:Eh,
2074:talk
2066:WP:N
2048:talk
2025:talk
1958:Kane
1932:talk
1910:talk
1899:and
1863:logs
1837:talk
1833:edit
1758:talk
1711:talk
1677:IMBD
1648:talk
1630:talk
1613:talk
1594:talk
1578:talk
1537:talk
1522:talk
1491:talk
1473:talk
1430:FENS
1404:news
1358:logs
1332:talk
1328:edit
1246:talk
1231:talk
1197:logs
1171:talk
1167:edit
1085:talk
1033:talk
989:talk
949:talk
900:talk
853:talk
836:talk
819:talk
791:bold
736:talk
721:talk
665:logs
639:talk
635:edit
603:logs
577:talk
573:edit
478:talk
451:here
441:talk
425:talk
387:logs
361:talk
357:edit
263:WP:N
250:talk
233:talk
184:talk
146:logs
120:talk
116:edit
35:<
3397:) (
3358:Guy
3316:AfD
3153:AfD
2994:) (
2950:) (
2906:) (
2782:or
2760:DGG
2598:be
2596:TTN
2579:TWL
2517:AfD
2381:) (
2326:) (
2068:.
1995:IBM
1882:AfD
1589:DGG
1444:TWL
1377:AfD
1216:AfD
1048:Guy
1008:Guy
964:Guy
877:Mgm
814:DGG
767:to
696:--
684:AfD
622:AfD
406:AfD
204:Guy
165:AfD
22:Log
3346:)
3338:.
3326:++
3296:)
3288:.
3270:)
3256:)
3232:)
3212:)
3192:)
3184:.
3151:|
3147:|
3136:|
3132:|
3128:|
3124:|
3119:|
3115:|
3110:|
3106:|
3071:)
2836:)
2804:)
2767:)
2747:)
2655:++
2635:)
2610:)
2559:)
2515:|
2511:|
2500:|
2496:|
2492:|
2488:|
2483:|
2479:|
2474:|
2470:|
2351:)
2286:)
2271:)
2257:)
2243:)
2229:)
2215:)
2194:)
2154:,
2137:)
2119:)
2102:)
2076:)
2050:)
2027:)
2011:.
1934:)
1912:)
1895:,
1880:|
1876:|
1865:|
1861:|
1857:|
1853:|
1848:|
1844:|
1839:|
1835:|
1760:)
1732:--
1713:)
1650:)
1632:)
1615:)
1600:]
1596:)
1580:)
1539:)
1524:)
1493:)
1475:)
1424:)
1388:)
1375:|
1371:|
1360:|
1356:|
1352:|
1348:|
1343:|
1339:|
1334:|
1330:|
1293:++
1248:)
1233:)
1214:|
1210:|
1199:|
1195:|
1191:|
1187:|
1182:|
1178:|
1173:|
1169:|
1132:++
1087:)
1035:)
991:)
951:)
913:G4
902:)
855:)
838:)
821:)
775:.
756:++
738:)
723:)
691:-
682:|
678:|
667:|
663:|
659:|
655:|
650:|
646:|
641:|
637:|
620:|
616:|
605:|
601:|
597:|
593:|
588:|
584:|
579:|
575:|
499:T»
495:«C
490:.
480:)
461:++
443:)
427:)
404:|
400:|
389:|
385:|
381:|
377:|
372:|
368:|
363:|
359:|
314:–
252:)
235:)
225:A7
186:)
163:|
159:|
148:|
144:|
140:|
136:|
131:|
127:|
122:|
118:|
45::
3401:)
3399:C
3395:T
3393:(
3386:B
3382:D
3366:)
3362:(
3342:(
3292:(
3266:(
3252:(
3228:(
3208:(
3188:(
3158:)
3155:)
3143:(
3140:)
3102:(
3067:(
2998:)
2996:C
2992:T
2990:(
2983:B
2979:D
2954:)
2952:C
2948:T
2946:(
2939:B
2935:D
2910:)
2908:C
2904:T
2902:(
2895:B
2891:D
2832:(
2800:(
2763:(
2743:(
2631:(
2606:(
2575:·
2569:·
2561:·
2554:·
2548:·
2542:·
2536:·
2531:(
2522:)
2519:)
2507:(
2504:)
2466:(
2385:)
2383:C
2379:T
2377:(
2370:B
2366:D
2347:(
2330:)
2328:C
2324:T
2322:(
2315:B
2311:D
2282:(
2267:(
2253:(
2239:(
2225:(
2211:(
2190:(
2170:☼
2133:(
2115:(
2098:(
2072:(
2046:(
2023:(
2017:.
2005:(
1930:(
1908:(
1887:)
1884:)
1872:(
1869:)
1831:(
1756:(
1709:(
1691:☼
1646:(
1628:(
1611:(
1592:(
1576:(
1535:(
1520:(
1489:(
1471:(
1461:.
1440:·
1434:·
1426:·
1419:·
1413:·
1407:·
1401:·
1396:(
1384:(
1382:)
1379:)
1367:(
1364:)
1326:(
1244:(
1229:(
1221:)
1218:)
1206:(
1203:)
1165:(
1083:(
1056:)
1052:(
1031:(
1016:)
1012:(
987:(
972:)
968:(
947:(
942:.
923:☼
898:(
879:|
851:(
834:(
817:(
734:(
719:(
704:☼
689:)
686:)
674:(
671:)
633:(
627:)
624:)
612:(
609:)
571:(
497:¦
476:(
439:(
423:(
411:)
408:)
396:(
393:)
355:(
273:☼
248:(
231:(
212:)
208:(
182:(
170:)
167:)
155:(
152:)
114:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.