Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2009 August 26

2529:

encyclopedia in history? We know the material is not a hoax, we know it is not libelous, and on the reverse we know it can be used to improve other articles and has been used to improve other articles. That is not using underhanded tactics, an allegation that borders on insulting if not a personal attack, but rather it is doing what we are supposed to do here. We are only expected to use AfDs and especially DRVS as an extreme last resort when it has become apparent that the content is dangerous to include or when no merge or redirection options exist--neither of which are the case here. A fictional island that appears in a half dozen games and is mentioned in the mainstream press is not some patent absurdity that urgently must be expunged from the project. In fact, the content is notable to many of your colleagues and we have other options to use it and have indeed used it accordingly like we are urged by

785:

and not widely enough supported" and therefore discarded as worthless. Most other admins only claim to give some unspecified lesser weight to votes they disagree with. At least you are willing to say flat out that you are actively throwing out in their entirety those arguments in conflict with your personal interpretation of Knowledge (XXG) policy. Consensus needs to be determined by the participants, not by the vote of the closing admin, with adequate respect for the possibility that "no consensus" was reached, which seems to be the far more reasonable interpretation of consensus here than "delete". That there is such rampant disrespect for consensus and disregard for the considered opinions of those who dare to differ with a closing admin's personal biases is what is the cause for so much of why CfD is so utterly dysfunctional.

2537:, etc to do. I cannot imagine why anyone would be so fixated on trying to remove it so as to just disregard his fellow editors' desire to use it to improve Knowledge (XXG)'s article that almost no editors would challenge including. You may not like me, but I have experience with DRVs and trust me in good faith when I say from experience that DRVs cannot and should not be used just because we disagree with the outcome. Any admin would reasonably close that one as no consensus or even merge and redirect. None would have cloed as delete and maybe only a few would have closed as keep. The administrator clearly acted within reason, ergo no justification for yet another discussion here. If you wish to participate in the proposed merge discussion that is fine. Sincerely, -- 1089:

by casting a supervote that overrides all contradictory opinions, which are summarily tossed into the trash heap. Admins who are unable to separate their own voting biases from their responsibilities as an admin shouldn't be closing anything. My simple rule for these XfDs is that if another closing admin could reasonably come along and close the decision in the opposite direction (perhaps by tossing out the exact same votes the first admin wants to rely upon and accepting the votes that would have been been tossed out), then what we have is a "no consensus". A little bit more intellectual rigor in accepting this possibility will lead to fewer CfDs being taken to DRV.

1268:. The !vote was 6 to 5 to delete. In light of the !votes being close and the existence of these RSes I think the best close would have been no consensus, with keep not being out of the question (it meets all of our inclusion guidelines after all). In the closing comments, discussion with the closer, and some of the !votes there seemed to be undue weight associated with the fact there was a recent AfD for the article (which was relisted due to a DrV action as more sources had been found). That fact isn't a reason to delete. Those !votes should have been discounted and certainly shouldn't have been a contributing factor in the admin's decision to delete. 586:, each XfD must be evaluated on its own merits. The fact that there is a "long, long line of eponymous categories which have been deleted over the years", built by arguing that XfD 2 must be closed as delete because a vaguely similar XfD 1 did before only shows that consensus is changing. That any closing admin believes he has been given the job of judge, jury and executioner, and can glibly disregard consensus is part of a long-festering problem at XfD and one that is a particular disaster at CfD. I do enjoy the line that "If you don't like 493:. This continued insistence on misrepresenting the arguments of other editors is tiresome. Admins are not required to write detailed explanations of their closes just because you want them to. Closing as simply "delete" or "keep" (although I can't seem to recall you ever griping about a single-word "keep" close) is perfectly reasonable. If an editor has questions about how an admin closed a CFD that editor is advised to contact the admin before opening a DRV (in fact the instructions for this page state that DRVs should be opened 1657:

actually told you to USERFY it and WAITuntil it's notable. instead, you just recreated it within 24 hours, and then it was deleted again. this is a waste of everyone's time, and you are abusing wikipedia for promotional purposes. this Currie guy has TRIVIAL degrees of notability at best. the independent coverage is a joke, the reliable sources are not widespread or in depth, just trivial and self promoting. the one article that supposedly was evidence of his notability was just a self promotion, probably written by him.

1047:

it appears to average about 20 or so CFDs per day. Looking back over the same timeframe at DRV, I see a grand total of four CFDs filed. Four out of approximately 600, or 0.67% of CFDs resulted in DRVs. This hardly rises to the level of damage and destruction implied by either you or Stifle. If the process is broken, it's broken at the level of allowing DRVs to go forward when the nominator has made no attempt to resolve the issue with the closer, as instructed in two different places.

2756:- a good example of how AfD is supposed to be an examination of the arguments, not bean counting. The nominator's point was never effectively countered in the discussion - instead we have a pile-on from the canvassed Rescue Squad (as above, again) which has made this piece of trivia a battlefront. Clearly a non-notable & trivial topic that has no real-world significance and should not stand independently as a spinout from the larger topic. A flawed close in my view. 871:, which states that "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, 'according to consensus' and 'violates consensus' are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action." Appropriate respect for actual consensus, rather than casting a supervote, will go a long way. 436:- Arguments for the categories: needed as a parent category; needed for material that might be created in the future; aids in navigation. Arguments against: small categories with little likelihood of expansion; eponymous categories which should be avoided in the absence of the volume of material that warrants it. The arguments for the category are general and vague and the arguments against it are concretely rooted in 466:

closing admin and a closing admin who can offer nothing more than that has cast a supervote that should be overturned. Consensus is an utterly worthless concept if we can allow closing admins to impose their personal biases. A helpful hint might be to consider "no consensus" as an option. As there is no semblance of policy having been observed here, the defective closes should be overturned.

820:" The assertion that the categories were 'not needed' was not the basis of the argument to delete, therefore the argument was flawed. Other than this there was a second editor, who supported retention for some of that day's nominated eponymous categories, and supported deletion for others. In each of the cases where he supported deletion, he accepted the basis of the 1859:. A valid close. Contra Umbralcorax, the closer did not ignore the sources provided; rather, he or she considered the arguments for those sources carefully and concluded that they had been rebutted by others within the discussion. This sort of reasoned close, rather than mere vote-counting, should be encouraged, and is well within the authority permitted to the closer. — 3285:- I'm not sure why I was not notified of this discussion, or even asked to explain my decision. That said, in my opinion, once a discussion is largely tainted by sockpuppets or other similar issues, it is impossible to fairly and reasonably form consensus. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with speedily renominating, but with a new discussion page. – 545:. It is disingenuous to characterise the nomination as being grounded in nothing more than a vague sentiment of 'not needed'. These were only some of a long, long line of eponymous categories which have been deleted over the years (list available on application), all according to the guidelines in force and the broad consensus of editors. 1732:]. This unknown, unnotable person whom Alan Roger Currie is affiliated with gets his own article from you, and within minutes a new editor is working on the article? Very nice. Off-wiki collusion or sockpuppetry? we only need to go to the original AFD for alan roger currie to see what kind of meatpuppetry tricks you are up to 726:). Only two eponymous categories were kept over the past two months and in neither case was either EPONYMOUS or SMALL questioned as still being a valid guideline. The arguments centered on whether they applied in those particular instances. The supposed shift in consensus that you've claimed here...doesn't actually exist. 2226:. Without access to the article, it's hard to tell, but I'm inclined to defer to the judgment of the several admins that participated here that at least part of the article was copyvio. As such, it would never be restored due to legal concerns. There's no way this DRV will overturn. BTW, DGG, you meant G12, right? 2089:- I deleted article as copyright violation following a previous deletion by another admin on the same article for copyright violation. I took the second paragraph and found it to be lifted directly (with the insertion of a few words) from the organisation's bylaws PDF. I did not check the rest of the article. 2384:

exception is the developer quotation, which really only says that it may or may not have been inspired by Lost--definitely not establishing notability. So yes, it is the common setting of a handful of games, but it is apparent that the setting itself is not a major aspect of the games, warranting an article.

3242:

Why I am being personally attacked for nominating this article, instead of discussing the deletion/keeping, as per requirement and subject of this case? It is the article and person whose notability is challenged to be discussed not the nominator. It in any case wouldn't affect the consensus. Doesn't

3237:

stated above that the consensus for deletion was made, despite the sockpuppets were involved who voted against my nomination (in favour of keeping the article), the decission be overturned and the article be deleted. I agree that sockpuppetry was involved but isn't there a overwhelming consensus made

3069:

I sympathize with the nominator's apparent rare form of dyslexia that prevents them from reading the first line of an article, and print it here for him and any others afflicted with this condition, possibly a Cherry-picking work-related ailment. "Dil Jan Khan (Urdu: دل جان خان) (born April, 1934) is

1335:

There wasn't any. At the previous Deletion Review, I said there was enough new material to relist. The revised article was stronger, and the AfD after relisting certainly had much more reasonable keep arguments than the first one did. I did not comment in it because I cannot myself decide whether

784:

and all its variations -- reviewed the categories under discussion and reached a consensus to keep most of the categories being considered. You cast your vote and deemed all those in disagreement with your personal bias in interpreting Knowledge (XXG) policy in regard to categories to be "both flawed

758:

Show me the discussion which established consensus that articles in a sub-cat are considered to be directly in the parent cat. I recall no such discussion and any number of musician, actor and other eponymous categories have been deleted with discussion that acknowledges that it holds sub-categories.

465:

Any administrator who can justify deleting anything based on an argument of "not needed" and can offer a one word "Delete" without any explanation for why consensus should be disregarded is disrespecting any definition of consensus. A one-word "Delete" (or "Keep") should be summarily disregarded by a

267:

simply put, there wasn't any. Apparently equally good arguments in either direction. If the closer wants to help move the discussion in a particular direction, he should join it. He gets to judge consensus, and throw out arguments not based on policy. He doesn't get a casting vote to determine evenly

2528:

DRV is not supposed to be AFD round 2. If we have information that multiple of your colleagues believes worthwhile, what is the big deal if they use it to actually improve other articles? Isn't that the whole purpose of what we are trying to do here, i.e. use content to make the most comprehensive

1088:

The issue that brings CfD closures to DRV has nothing to do with over/undercategorization and everything to do with how consensus is interpreted by closing admins. For once I'd love to see admins closing based on the consensus of the individuals participating in the CfD, or the lack thereof, and not

3495:

I would have voted to keep and agree that the claim of notability is valid and could be supported by reliable and verifiable sources. The article as it stands now is a bare paragraph unsupported by reliable sources to support the claims made therein. While the AfD was rather muddled by sockpuppetry

3388:

The osition is always held by bureaucrats from different countries. The position is not for the Ministers, Member Parliamnents or any higher position like those. Infact, a bureaucratic job. Tens of thousand of officers are heading UN Missions in entire world. Would wikipedia allow space for each of

2114:

Actually, according to CSD A12, you should not have deleted the article unless you found the rest was copyvio also. It may have been. I admit that I have sometimes deleted in similar cases when the rest of the article seems written in the same manner, but here the style in the rest seems much less

2070:

Deletion was based on listing the mission of the organization. I attempted to reword it some but left a lot the same so as to not lose the intent of it. Canterbury Tail offered no help or suggestions just the Speedy Delete. All information in the article was new and not on the organizations website

1393:

the first afd should have been clear enough. it was recreated and deleted again. the third party sources are weak and not widespread. the original afd voters barely returned for the second afd, and the original drv voters probably won't return for this one. critical examination of the sources shows

1065:

It's not really intended as a personal slight. Each of these CfDs seems to be a proxy for the larger battle of "over/under" categorization, which is what makes seeing and debating them extremely tiresome--we aren't debating facts or policies, we are voicing our opinions about what wikipedia should

1046:

I'm not even going to comment on the "it's the Otto vs Alansohn show" aspect of the above because it's not worth dignifying. I will comment on the "CFD is broken because of all the DRVs it generates" business. I'm not going to do the actual math but in eyeballing the last month's worth of CFD pages

701:

that EPONYMOUS is fully refuted and rejected here (which it clearly is not), that still leaves SMALL unanswered. Most of those advocating for the categories simply failed to respond to the substance of the nomination, choosing instead to focus on the words "not needed" and misrepresent "not needed"

2464:

I believe that the delete !voters established that the fictional article was not notable. However, A Nobody's counterarguments were effective. A Nobody has a very clear understanding of every single rule that might even hint in an article being kept at AfD, and he certainly employed most of them

1876:

I do appreciate the razor-thin logic that pushed the closing admin to delete, but the analysis used is more accurately reflective of the fact that there was no clear consensus and there do appear to be enough reliable and verifiable sources about the subject to merit a keep. When there is no clear

1753:

out of the entire deletion and deletion review process. At this point, I'm not even sure someone of Mr. Currie's caliber would even want their name associated with a site that allows editors such as yourself to delete their articles on a whim. This is a joke. And if you're going to be searching

1656:

even creating that article just to add his name. you are clearly here to promote this person. stop pretending otherwise. you've gotten these other editors to rally behind keeping this article which was deleted once, you immediately recreated it, and keep lying by saying i told you to do so, when i

577:

It's rather "bad form" to close an XfD with nothing more than the single word "Delete" as a justification. A far more detailed explanation is necessary when there is an unclear consensus and especially where actual consensus is for retention as was the case here. Leaving editors trying to read the

397:

that's not the argument; the argument i that the amount of material present in the category and its subcategories was sufficient, as contrasted to the delete argument that because almost all the material was in the subcategories there was no need for the parent category. Deleting a parent category

3055:

I am really disappointed by this second nomination by the same person who has some personal biases against this gentleman. Just to bring it on record the nominator of this AFD was banned for one week for using the same sock puppets who had tainted the earlier vote as his talk page is a witness to

2788:

Looking through the AfD there is no evidence of consensus to delete and where there is no evidence of consensus, a close of "no consensus" should be the result. Arguments based on how an individual would have voted at AfD are irrelevant in deciding whether the closing admin decided correctly, and

1520:

The reason I brought this here is that I object to the deletion of an article that clearly meets WP:N and where the discussion didn't show enough support for deletion to IAR. We've had admins delete articles (correctly IMO) against !vote consensus because sources don't exist. I don't see how we

1476:

I assume that you meant that, when closing, if the closing admin finds, after assessing the various arguments, xe's on the fence between a delete close and a no consensus close, xe should close as no consensus. Fair enough, and I agree. But here obviously the closer didn't think so, and I cannot

824:

argument, accepting that the small size of the category in question had a bearing on viability. In the cases where he voted to keep, his argument was based on these categories having (in his view and by his calculations) sufficient contents to pass this test. Bearing in mind that the case for

709:

Um...what? Small eponymous categories continue to be deleted and this continued deletion means that the general consensus against small eponymous categories is changing? Even your ally in the discussions, Debresser, acknowledges that EPONYMOUS remains valid consensus and indeed !voted to delete

501:

was made to discuss this with the closing admin before opening this DRV, nor was the admin notified of the DRV, another instruction that has bizarrely been deemed voluntary. There is no evidence here that the closing administrator "impose their personal biases" and accusing an admin of doing so

320:

But it's a fair point to make, though, isn't it? I mean, I wouldn't put it quite as strongly as Stifle (I don't think it's "utterly broken") but I do think there are substantial problems with CfD. At AfD, it's as easy to reverse a deletion as to perform it in the first place, there are a wide

1535:

My opinion is that the subject is trying to use Knowledge (XXG) as a publicity tool, and that the creator here is involved with the subject in some way. The articles were promotional, and my view of the references were that they were either in passing or promotional. The close was appropriate.

779:

The problem here could not have been better stated than "As User:DGG has said above the closing admin 'gets to judge consensus, and throw out arguments not based on policy' - my conclusion at the end of the debate was that the reasoning for the 'Keep' side was both flawed and not widely enough

692:

So what? Should the closing admin have ignored the only arguments based in WP guidelines because those who favored the category decide they aren't "an issue"? Of the people suggesting the category be kept, only one, Debresser, addressed the proffered reasons for deletion, and he only addressed

590:

then get involved and try and get consensus to change it". How about if consensus was respected at CfD and we stop relying on your arbitrary interpretation of policy in disagreement with consensus. Playing by your own rules will be an effective means to earn respect for your closes rather than

2574:

is policy (unlike notability, which is a guideline), and one of its most important purposes is to act as an obstacle for those people who would otherwise cut sourced content out of the encyclopaedia. I think an important principle is that when thinking about deleting an article for not being

2383:

is extremely clear about the requirement of significant coverage from multiple sources. Every single source cited in the article at present (and each and every Google News result mentioned by A Nobody) is a trivial name drop of the setting, with no further comment on its importance. The sole

1408:

Erb? Other than the unsupported statement (by you or in the AfD) that "critical examination of the sources shows trivial coverage at best" none of that is policy-based reason to delete. We aren't required or expected to notify previous participants about AfDs or DrVs. In any case, the AfD

987:

And I suggest we find some solution in DR for Otto and Alans because we can't really sustain a DRV every week or so which is just another dispute about over/under categorization between the two editors. I'm close to taking Stifle's option. CfD has serious problems not least of which are a

815:

Nonsense - I repeat, my conclusion at the end of the debate was that the reasoning for the 'Keep' side was both flawed and not widely enough supported to rebut the case made for deletion and to depart from the accepted guidelines. Other than your own reasoned arguments, the 'Keep' side was

2935:

The consensus, tally, to delete the page was 5 to 1, still the article wasn't deleted. Not only the tally but the article itself lacks to be notable as the article is about a simple bureaucrat. I would request a speedy deletion of the article, in regard of overlooking the previous deletion

2461:

I believe Axem Titanium's delete !vote was well-argued and carried considerable weight, but some of the other delete !voters were on less solid ground. That much discussion of whether the article "asserts" notability shows a confusion between AfD and CSD, which doesn't bode well for the

3326:

Though the article is re-nominated upon several suggestions and advices, I would like to request that the decission be made here if possible. As the tally was 15+/- the it is not hard to "drag-out" the comments and votes by sockpuppets. You could see, even here is a large consensus.

613:

Much as I might like to believe otherwise, I am not infallible; in this case I am happy to concede that it would have been desirable to add a justification to my closure, but you will excuse me if I am vaguely incredulous at the idea of a situation where all and sundry are trying to

1006:, while dealing with the "adminbacklog" issue by casting a vote almost four days after the previous one cast here. Why not just close both rather than pick and choose differing roles to play in two DRVs from the same day? Any explanation for the inconsistency would be appreciated. 1894:

Most of the sources were iffy and morning talk shows will interview anyone they can find. In AFDs, I really wish editors would just link to the "significant coverage" part from "reliable sources", instead of making it difficult by linking to trivial mentions + unreliable

2670:

The close was proper. The closer weighed the arguments and followed procedure. DRV is not to be AfD #2. Further, there is now no reason to undelete as the informations have been merged to where they do have context and notability. And I am saddened that any editor thinks

2378:

presented a number of straw man arguments throughout the AFD including its supposed multiple reliable sources and eventually resorting to WP:POINT-ily copying snippets of text from this article into others in order to keep it from being deleted because of GFDL concerns.

1725:

it's not personal. i do think you're a COI user who is adding promotional content that lacks notability, but i'm not trying to delete them because of you specifically, but because i don't think they meet the requirements of wikipedia. i welcome other users' input. e.g.

2115:

formal. . I think the thing to do here is simple, permit recreation in user space. If recreated, I remind ToyCharlie that he will need to show notability through references, according to WP:ORG--& I don't find the notability of this local festival very obvious.

1300:

I think that was a good AfD, containing plenty of critical analysis of the sources, and there was a lot to review. Marc Kupper's discussion of the sources was both thorough and helpful. I agree that the debate genuinely failed to reach consensus, so I'll run with

440:. Closing admin followed the clearly articulated guidelines, the hundreds of precedents for similar categories and the strength of the proffered arguments on both sides. The sub-categories in each of these, mostly categories for songs and albums, are parented in 383:

If the reason for this DRV boils down to "every category should be placed in at least one parent category", then I'll have to endorse. I can think of many ideas for categories that can be placed in a parent category but have no right being on wikipedia.

78:

After letting the debate simmer a bit in my head—and seeing the discussion devolve into something of a meta-debate—it seems clear that there is no consensus in this DRV. Specifically, there is no consensus that the closing admin's greater weighting of the

1066:

be. It's just as frustrating as the run of fiction related DRVs last summer. The solution there was to tell the editors listing those DRVs that future spurious listings would make the community of folks editing on DRV likely to side against the lister

2713:, it's hard to get a delete consensus from that discussion, even though I probably would have !voted delete or merge myself. A no consensus doesn't mean that we can't work out a merge or figure out a better way of presenting this information, though. 3257:

We must stuck ourselves to the subject / topic of the article, rather attacking each other personaly. If someone have something against me, he or she should contact an Administrator and adopt a procedure laid by Knowledge (XXG), rather abusing

780:

supported to rebut the case made for deletion and to depart from the accepted guidelines. This is exactly what was done." Several active editors, fully knowledgeable of Knowledge (XXG) policy and guidelines in regard to categories -- including

3181:

the closer's point that the discussion was irreparably tainted by the sock puppeting going on, and that a no-consensus close was correct. However, given that the discussion was screwy, allowing a relist is certainly a reasonable next step.

2774:" is not a valid reason for deletion, especially when concerning a non-trivial topic with real world significance. The nominator never made an effective point in the discussion and was only supported by inaccurate claims. Sincerely, -- 913:

and what it mandates. Perhaps you could indicate your reasoning for believing that yourself and the flawed argument of a second editor constitute consensus over multiple other contributors who thought deletion appropriate on ground of

1830:. Do I need to list others? Many celebrities know this guy. Mr. Currie worked in Hollywood, CA for six or seven years in the 90s. This guy has been an actor, stand-up comic, screenwriter, and now book author and dating expert. 706:

The fact that there is a "long, long line of eponymous categories which have been deleted over the years", built by arguing that XfD 2 must be closed as delete because a vaguely similar XfD 1 did before only shows that consensus is

484:

It is simply untrue to say that the argument against the category was "not needed". As was pointed out to you when you falsely claimed it during the CFDs, and has been pointed out again here, the arguments against the category were

554:

then get involved and try and get consensus to change it. CFD discussions are closed according to policy and consensus. If you have a problem with the policy, then that is where you ought to be, not creating more heat than light

1428:. There's no indication of procedural error. As to the substantive issues, while it would have been well within the closer's discretion to close this as a no consensus, I don't think it's clear error to close as a delete, either. 1919:

Sure, but 3 of them were reliable sources that provided significant coverage. 10 bad sources don't reduce the impact of 3 good ones. In fact those bad sources help show that the 3 good ones are a part of on-going coverage...

3496:

and irrelevant allegations of bias, the consensus there was to delete the article. There should be no prejudice to the article's recreation once the claims can be backed up by the appropriate reliable and verifiable sources.

3440:

The consensus was clear, with the voting tally by frequent editors other than involved in persoanl war. In my hmble opinion, I would agree with the logic users expressed while writing in favour of Overtunr & Deletion.

710:

several eponymous categories that were nominated at the same time as these (for Mopreme Shakur, Young Noble and from the above list Immortal Technique). Recent deletions include eponymous categories for the band Libido (

1506:- multiple AFDs have stated there's not enough consensus that he's notable, and I don't understand why we're going around and around and around on an article that's pretty much promotional, for pete's sake. Ridiculous. 90:

arguments was wholly inappropriate. Although it does not substantively affect my close of this discussion, there is considerable concern in the DRV regarding the CfD process. I strongly caution CfD closers to practice

1242: 95:

in the future when the contentious CfDs they close repeatedly become contentious DRVs. This may raise concerns about the community's support (or lack thereof) for various processes and guidelines (such as those for

3410:, the existing discussion is too tainted by socks to draw any firm conclusions from it, I think it would be best to start from scratch and watch carefully to make sure that the second discussion is not derailed. 536:

Process aside, onto the substance. These categories were not deleted under the pretext of IDONTLIKEIT, USELESS, or any other spurious dictum. They were deleted as a result of the sound policy arguments based on

2509:

tactics that I object to most about this whole incident. Since A Nobody knew his sources weren't substantial enough, he copy and pasted a sentence from this article into a few other articles in order to invoke

643:" It is not, as has been observed ad infinitum, a vote count - the reasons behind an editor's support for deletion/retention/renaming/merging are of as much importance as the fact of the support itself. As 527:. At the very outset I will point out that no attempt has been made to draw any of these concerns to my attention, neither was I informed that this DRV had been raised against my decision. That was left to 3306:

without prejudice to a renomination. The discussion is a complete mess with all the sock-puppetry. As such, there was no easy way to get a clear consensus and so a no-consensus decisions was correct. --

3344:

and I think if sufficient attention were paid to improving the article, it might be a clear keep. It is not "just a desk at UN, who he was head." It's an important intensation body that he's head of.

2835: 3078:." Having had a job at the United Nations is a big deal worldwide, and establishes a degree of notability for this article. The notability of Dil Jan Khan's cop job is quite irrelevant in comparison." 3458:. The "good faith" delete !votes would normally be enough for a delete consensus but our deletion processes not only need to be fair but must appear to be fair. They can't be when there are obvious 1619:, I'm not an employee of Alan Roger Currie, Mode One Book Publishing, ScreenTime Films, Miller Genuine Draft Beer or Zane's Strebor Books. Anyone interested in further discussion of this can go to 651:" - my conclusion at the end of the debate was that the reasoning for the 'Keep' side was both flawed and not widely enough supported to rebut the case made for deletion and to depart from the 3019:

and should be ignored on those grounds. There are many delete arguments made by established users, and I am loathe to throw out their !votes just because of a little sockpuppetry. Cheers.

2465:

there. I believe that A Nobody failed to establish that the sources he used were reliable, but, I also believe his arguments that the article should be merged rather than deleted because of

2353: 740:

A category with large subcategories is not small, as has been pointed out repeatedly. It is easy to find categories with no articles, only subcats, that no-one would argue about deleting, eg

2581:

was very strongly-worded indeed, and because policy should normally trumps guidelines, it made a bit of a mockery of notability. I added the last two paragraphs of the current version (in

1580:– I think the arguments for retention here were as valid and possibly outweighed the arguments for deletion in this case and showed more explicitly why the article should have been kept. 711: 694: 212: 2953:

I think you can take the article back to AfD immediately, if you wish. I also think Juliancolton would have told you that, if you had asked him on his talk page before listing this DRV.

2443:

and the closing admin. Perhaps in the case for the closure a little too importance has been given to the number of delete and keep "votes", rather than to their reasons, in my opinion.

2421:- I agree that no reliable source about this setting's notability has yet appeared: removing indirect mentions (often a single time in an article about something else) nothing remains. 715: 2134:; copyright violations are copyright violations. Recreation is of course permissible if proper permission is sent in for the text or it is rewritten without the copyright violation. 723: 719: 1286:- closer ignored the sourced provided in the article establishing notability when making their close. The consensus was for keep, and the sources provided backed up the consensus. 1521:

delete an article that does meet WP:N without clear consensus to do so. The only person who walked though every source in detail (and tossed out 8 of the 11) !voted to keep...

3423:

without prejudice to speedy renomination from scratch. This is very well within the closer's discretion in these circumstances. Not even error, IMO. Absolutely not clear error.

3252:

My sockpuppetry is never proved. One of the operator / Administrator has himself stated that the other sockpuppet who voted against me was infact nothing but a taunt to my nick.

1730:

is another article you created. oh, what a surprise, there is a direct link between tim alexander and alan roger currie. coincidence! and what another coincidence, you create

591:

appearing as supervotes over and over again. Realizing that "no consensus" is a valid option and using it where appropriate here, would also add credibility to these closes.

3015:. While there were a few socks involved, the only keep opinion doesn't bring up any points to refute the delete arguments, instead only saying that the nomination violates 1070:

should they keep it up. DRV should be for when process breaks down, not when the correct application of process results in some outcome which offends some grand principle.

3479:

The user who nominated this article for deletion and was behind this appeal has been finally blocked indefinitely for multiple reasons including placing bad faith AFDs. --

635:". Consensus, as informed by policy, was in favour of these closures - perhaps that is not what you wished consensus to be, but it was consensus nonetheless. Per 48: 34: 3137:– I'm not sure if, discounting the commentary by the socks, a consensus for deletion has been solidly formed. Would like to get a better gauge of consensus here. 2341: 3372:

is nominated by his or her country and is confirmed by the UN Secretary General. So it is a big deal for a person like him who came from a humble background. --

1024:

an opinion and so I voiced it rather than close the debate. I'm sorry if that offends you in some way. You may petition to have my pay reduced if you like.

3368:

as a consultant for 2 years, I can safely say that the position which this gentleman was heading was an election by the member countries and every member to

3238:

beside the sockpuppets' votes? Wasn't there a valuable discussion made to delete the article by users? I would also like to make some other comments that:

2951:

That discussion was irretrievably sock-tainted, and Juliancolton's decision there was, effectively, to decline to close it. I don't blame him in the least.

1002:

Note that I did not start this DRV or anything but a small fraction of the Deletion Reviews related to CfD. Any explanation for closing the previous DRV of

43: 1259:

In the discussion there were 3 sources which were largely undisputed REes and some 8 others which were weaker. Two of the RSes are from the Post-Tribune (

2194: 2553:

close. Article cannot be deleted due to merges, votes for deletion were not as persuasive as those to keep. Excellent close! Good job! Sinceerely, --

2371: 1711:, is out of control. Now, he or she is going around challenging every article I've started. This is not objective on his/her part, this is "personal." 829:, was in each case supported by a further 3 to 4 editors, I do not see these debates represent the sea-change in consensus which you hold them out to be. 1020:

Because I didn't have a strong opinion about the article under discussion below and consensus (or lack thereof) seemed easy enough to suss out. Here I

2362: 975: 1481:, which means that I'm not going to !vote to overturn, even if a no consensus close IMO would be better, a question on which I express no opinion. 2620:

11 people thought it was worth Keeping. Slightly less than that said delete. Everyone felt their own arguments were valid. It closed properly.

1230: 2701: 1364: 200: 2514:, which seems to be a case of following solely the letter of the law and completely ignoring its spirit and what it was meant to be used for. 759:

There has never been consensus that having songs and albums sub-cats establishes the necessity of an eponymous category. Comparing Ja Rule to

3071: 2189:

With that said, if you indeed own the copyright to the material, you may release said information from copyright and license them under the

497:

if the editor and the admin are unable to come to an understanding, but somehow that instruction is interpreted as voluntary). I note that

39: 2479:

I hope the eventual outcome is that the article's content is trimmed and merged, but that's an editorial decision, not a matter for DRV.—

3177:- We're here to discuss whether or not the close was correct, not to re-hash whether or not the article should be kept. In this case, I 971: 3530:

or void the entire discussion, I do not see how a decision to keep or remove content from Knowledge (XXG) could be based on that mess.

2908: 2071:

except the mission statement. Note: I find it tacky that Canterbury Tail also had to then go tag another of my articles for deletion.

1251: 327:

I think Stifle's remark does not hurt you, it is not disruptive behaviour to express an opinion, and he's entitled to make his point.—

578:

mind of the closing admin to figure out why consensus is being ignored is "bad form" at its most egregious. We are all familiar with

221: 3462:

saying "delete". Julian made the right call but he should have added "with leave to speedy renominate" to his closing statement. --

2980: 2598: 2492: 1318: 340: 321:

variety of intelligible criteria and rules on which to base a decision, and there's usually enough participation that it isn't a

21: 2176:. Once you hit that "save page" button, they become the community's articles. As it says right below the "save page" button, 1107:

More whining about CFDs that close against your personal opinion, disregarding the good faith comments from other editors.

237:" for all of these, with no further explanation. Other comments were mixed. But all of these should have been kept because 2923: 2618: 3550: 2858: 2809: 2291: 2246: 1991: 1942: 1180: 1135: 120: 17: 3393:

must consult the UN's official site or could verify through an e-mauil the status of the position and job. Regards, --

2041: 1911: 238: 3108:

I suppose I should add that president of an agency like that is notable -- just having "a job" at the UN isn't.

2697: 2311: 2151:

chiming in here: I was the first admin to delete the article (as it stood then, it was a definite copyvio). I echo

1360: 1674:- You're becoming a wee bit "emotional" over all this, aren't you Theserialcomma? My response will be over at my 2680: 2097: 2053: 445: 418:

So it's "overturn this because this is a parent category"? If so, still endorse. Or am I missing something? --

144: 3267:

I would request deletion of the article, as it is not meeting the notability criteria set by Knowledge (XXG). --

816:

consistently represented by one other editor, the substance of whose contribution was to repeatedly state that "

2374:

to the closing admin, this article has one problem and one problem only: it does not establish its notability.

1864: 1839: 1740: 1733: 1727: 1716: 1683: 1675: 1662: 1628: 1599: 1562: 1399: 441: 2307: 2267: 1409:

concluded that of the 11 sources, 8 were trivial or not reliable and 3 were acceptable for purposes of WP:N.

3446: 3398: 3389:

them? Only in Pakistan, theer are more than 29 missions of UN and 120+ missions of different countries. The

3332: 3272: 3000: 2941: 2519: 2389: 1592:

if anyone is curious as to why Chicago Smooth is so interested in this article, you might want to read this

1478: 1448:

if it's equally balanced between a delete and no-consensus, we can not say there is consensus to delete.

1200: 2206:

Also, if you can't read that mumjo-jumbo about the CC-BY-SA there, here's a very simplified overview of it

1899: 357:

Yes, he can certainly make his point. Eventually, however, making his point does or will become making his

170: 3294: 2843: 2411: 2276: 2178:

if you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.

2062: 1976: 254: 105: 149: 3539: 3522: 3505: 3487: 3471: 3467: 3450: 3432: 3414: 3402: 3380: 3356: 3336: 3316: 3296: 3276: 3212: 3208: 3191: 3187: 3163: 3141: 3119: 3097: 3047: 3030: 3004: 2987: 2945: 2847: 2798: 2778: 2765: 2748: 2736: 2717: 2705: 2693: 2684: 2662: 2643: 2605: 2557: 2541: 2523: 2499: 2454: 2432: 2413: 2393: 2280: 2235: 2214: 2201: 2184: 2164: 2143: 2126: 2104: 2080: 1980: 1929: 1886: 1868: 1843: 1744: 1720: 1687: 1666: 1632: 1603: 1584: 1566: 1545: 1530: 1515: 1490: 1459: 1437: 1418: 1403: 1385: 1368: 1356: 1347: 1325: 1295: 1291: 1277: 1169: 1116: 1098: 1079: 1056: 1033: 1015: 997: 979: 962: 931: 880: 862: 794: 772: 753: 735: 680: 600: 572: 515: 475: 457: 422: 413: 388: 370: 347: 311: 293: 279: 258: 109: 2672: 2578: 2571: 2567: 2534: 2511: 2506: 2466: 2190: 1196: 1156: 1003: 166: 139: 70: 2975: 2676: 2593: 2487: 2450: 2428: 2090: 2076: 2072: 1313: 335: 3089:

which merits him a separate article. Smelling a clear cut personal grudge I would vote to Keep it.--

246: 3535: 1860: 1835: 1736: 1712: 1679: 1658: 1624: 1595: 1558: 1395: 233:

and "not needed." Meanwhile, the closing admin said nothing but "The result of the discussion was:

159: 1758:. Do you know how many "notable" types this man has interacted with in his career? Let me see. 154: 3501: 3442: 3428: 3138: 3025: 2794: 2761: 2745: 2515: 2440: 2385: 2231: 2211: 2198: 2181: 2160: 1882: 1581: 1555: 1541: 1511: 1486: 1433: 1112: 1094: 1052: 1011: 876: 790: 768: 731: 596: 511: 471: 453: 366: 307: 3016: 2011: 1754:

for connections between Mr. Currie and other notable African-Americans, that would be extremely

358: 1265:

is the first part of the 2nd article (rest is behind a pay wall). The other is a TV interview

3394: 3328: 3287: 3268: 2996: 2937: 2878: 2839: 2404: 2272: 1972: 1701: 1165: 1075: 1029: 993: 250: 101: 3513:

Even with the sockpuppetry, I fail to see any arguments backed by policy to keep the article

2530: 915: 826: 821: 781: 687: 652: 636: 587: 579: 551: 437: 230: 100:). Categories have little recourse once deleted, and extra care should therefore be taken. – 92: 3463: 3204: 3183: 3057: 3043: 2732: 2621: 2575:

notable, editors should generally consider where to move any content that does have sources.

2139: 1811: 1803: 1381: 1287: 958: 749: 289: 3459: 2771: 2173: 2007: 1968: 1963: 910: 868: 583: 503: 3518: 2968: 2586: 2480: 2444: 2422: 1925: 1907: 1526: 1414: 1306: 1273: 760: 741: 498: 328: 3152:

the closing easn;t keep, but "no-consensus" so it seems you actually do agree with it.

2675:

information is underhanded. Growth is the purpose of Knowledge (XXG), and not its bane.

542: 538: 490: 486: 97: 87: 83: 1263: 3531: 3411: 3312: 2714: 2472:

I think Backslash Forwardslash had no choice but to close that as "no consensus" and I

1787: 2380: 3497: 3424: 3352: 3234: 3228: 3159: 3115: 3020: 2790: 2775: 2757: 2658: 2554: 2538: 2375: 2227: 2156: 2122: 1878: 1807: 1799: 1779: 1537: 1507: 1482: 1455: 1429: 1343: 1108: 1090: 1048: 1007: 872: 786: 764: 727: 631:

I also do not recognise your characterisation of my position - I did not state that "

618:", noone thinks it remotely worthwhile to approach him and ask him for clarification. 592: 528: 507: 467: 449: 419: 409: 385: 362: 303: 275: 1260: 3481: 3374: 3244: 3091: 2874: 2830: 1827: 1823: 1815: 1795: 1791: 1771: 1763: 1759: 1161: 1071: 1025: 989: 2172:– We will not restore a copyright violation into the mainspace. Also, they're not 1749:

This has gone beyond ridiculous Theserialcomma. You are single-handedly making a

641:

consensus discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons.

2744:– I cannot see how it could have came out any other way from looking at the AFD. 2207: 1336:

I think him notable. I think it's plain the community could not decide either.

3224: 3039: 2728: 2135: 1783: 1377: 954: 745: 285: 284:

I am abstaining from all CFD-related DRVs as the CFD process is utterly broken.

3081:

I would say once gain that its his ascend to the position of being the head of

1967:– CSD G12 deletion endorsed. Recreation of a non-infringing version that meets 697:

that EPONYMOUS cautions against creating such categories. So even if we accept

3514: 2585:) so as to tone it down a bit, and now I think it reads roughly as it should.— 1921: 1903: 1767: 1620: 1522: 1410: 1269: 1266: 953:

as there was no consensus (either in votes or arguments) that I can perceive.

920: 851: 669: 561: 531:, some 5 days after this process had been initiated. Very bad form all round. 245:

and all of these are exactly that, parent categories. Also, in practice, per

3308: 3263:

No more personal discussions here, please. Just relate to topic and subject!

1819: 3347: 3154: 3110: 2723:

I can't find a consensus to delete here; much as it pains me to do so, I

2653: 2152: 2117: 1834:

he's going to have a connection with many people already on here. DUH.

1775: 1734:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Roger_Currie

1450: 1338: 644: 633:

XfD 2 must be closed as delete because a vaguely similar XfD 1 did before

582:

and none of those voting Keep deemed it an issue to justify deletion. AS

404: 270: 502:

without evidence constitutes yet another abject failure on your part to

690:

and none of those voting Keep deemed it an issue to justify deletion.

909:

I think that I'm probably old enough and ugly enough to be aware of

649:

gets to judge consensus, and throw out arguments not based on policy

268:

balanced issues--and most certainly not without an explanation.

3365: 3086: 3075: 1262:

has a reprint of the article in an Alum newsletter on page 9) and

243:"every category should be placed in at least one parent category," 302:

There is really no reason for you to announce this on every DRV.

3369: 3082: 1707:

Administrators and other editors need to realize: This person,

249:, "not needed" is considered to be a bad argument for deletion. 3038:; I don't think the socks sufficiently tainted the discussion. 3056:

this. As for this AFD, I would like to reproduce a comment by

744:(OK, it has 2 top-level articles). 'Ja rule' was not small. 506:. Claims of "supervotes" remain, of course, utter nonsense. 448:

so any concerns about them being unparented are unfounded.

1700:

sorry, i forgot another currie article you tried to add:

2915: 2901: 2893: 2885: 2582: 2348: 2334: 2326: 2318: 2048: 2034: 2026: 2018: 1653: 1649: 1645: 1641: 1237: 1223: 1215: 1207: 207: 193: 185: 177: 3203:- I meant to say "re-nomination", not "relist" above. 2995:

O.K I agree and will nominate if for Afd. Regards. --

2193:. You can do this by following the procedures on the 2651:It should be possible to figure out a good merge. 2462:

contributors' understanding of the issues involved.

2191:

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License

2789:there is no evidence of any issue with the close. 1874:Overturn as no consensus and continue improvements 1160:– No consensus to overturn. Deletion endorsed. – 2439:Sorry, I have read only now the exchange between 1611:- Contrary to what's being implied above by both 714:), the musicain Ann Hui and the company Skanska ( 239:Knowledge (XXG):Categorization#Categorizing pages 3247:is having personal vandetta against me? But why? 3175:Reminder to those who may be unfamiliar with DRV 818:"Not needed" is not a valid reason for deletion. 2956:I hope the next AfD is conducted in good faith. 1877:consensus, the close should be "no consensus". 2195:Knowledge (XXG):Donating copyrighted materials 2969: 2587: 2481: 1307: 722:), the island Jethou and the company Jamba! ( 702:as the sole argument being made for deletion. 329: 8: 2577:When I first began to edit Knowledge (XXG), 867:It helps for all admins to be familiar with 3456:Endorse close but allow speedy renomination 2857:The following is an archived debate of the 2692:and figure out what to do with the info. - 2290:The following is an archived debate of the 1990:The following is an archived debate of the 1179:The following is an archived debate of the 119:The following is an archived debate of the 2823: 2469:were solid, policy-based, and not refuted. 2260: 1956: 1376:, I think the consensus was clear enough. 1149: 63: 2981: 2976: 2599: 2594: 2493: 2488: 1640:you've added alan roger currie's name to 1319: 1314: 402:we have subcategories is not rational. 341: 336: 3072:International Narcotics Control Board 988:relatively high DRV nomination rate. 229:The nom's rationale for deletion was 7: 2959:In the usual DRV argot, my !vote is 970:There was no consensus to delete. -- 3553:of the page listed in the heading. 2812:of the page listed in the heading. 2271:– No consensus closure endorsed. – 2249:of the page listed in the heading. 1945:of the page listed in the heading. 1138:of the page listed in the heading. 463:Overturn all as keep / no consensus 2505:It is precisely those underhanded 647:has said above the closing admin " 616:read the mind of the closing admin 28: 951:Overturn all to no consensus keep 693:EPONYMOUS and not SMALL. He also 655:. This is exactly what was done. 325:lottery which criterion prevails. 1650:List of Kappa Alpha Psi brothers 438:the overcategorization guideline 3549:The above is an archive of the 2808:The above is an archive of the 2566:I wouldn't describe relying on 2245:The above is an archive of the 1941:The above is an archive of the 1134:The above is an archive of the 18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review 3011:Actually, I'm leaning towards 972:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 1: 3540:06:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC) 3523:02:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC) 2848:13:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC) 2799:22:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC) 2779:22:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC) 2766:20:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC) 2281:00:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC) 1981:01:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC) 1930:03:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC) 1704:, which was already deleted. 1170:20:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC) 1117:23:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC) 1099:01:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC) 1080:21:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC) 1057:20:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC) 1034:00:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC) 1016:22:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC) 998:20:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC) 980:01:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC) 932:01:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC) 881:01:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC) 863:01:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC) 795:00:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC) 773:00:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC) 110:12:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC) 3060:in the earlier AFD as under; 2099: 2091: 1971:is, of course, permitted. – 1477:bring myself to say that xe 718:), the author Knut Hamsun, ( 3506:01:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC) 3488:17:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC) 3472:23:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 3451:19:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 3433:14:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 3415:08:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 3403:06:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 3381:02:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 3357:01:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 3337:20:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC) 3317:20:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC) 3297:19:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC) 3277:18:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC) 3213:17:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC) 3192:17:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC) 3164:17:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC) 3142:16:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC) 3120:17:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC) 3098:16:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC) 3048:15:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC) 3031:14:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC) 3005:12:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC) 2988:11:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC) 2946:09:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC) 2749:00:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC) 2737:08:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 2718:07:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 2706:06:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 2685:02:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 2663:01:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 2644:01:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 2606:01:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 2558:23:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC) 2542:00:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 2524:23:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC) 2500:22:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC) 2455:20:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC) 2433:19:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC) 2414:19:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC) 2394:19:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC) 2236:01:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC) 2215:00:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC) 2202:00:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC) 2185:00:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC) 2165:14:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 2144:08:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 2127:01:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 2105:20:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC) 2081:20:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC) 1887:01:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC) 1869:03:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC) 1844:23:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 1745:22:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 1721:22:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 1688:21:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 1667:21:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 1633:21:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 1604:18:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 1585:16:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 1567:21:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 1546:20:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 1531:18:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 1516:16:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 1491:16:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 1460:16:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 1438:13:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 1419:12:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 1404:08:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 1386:08:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 1369:06:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 1348:01:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 1326:22:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC) 1296:22:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC) 1278:20:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC) 963:19:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC) 754:23:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC) 736:21:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC) 681:17:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC) 601:15:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC) 573:13:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC) 516:13:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC) 476:01:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC) 458:22:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC) 423:20:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 414:16:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 389:14:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 371:12:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC) 348:10:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC) 312:22:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC) 294:07:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 280:00:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 259:20:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC) 241:, a guideline, states that 145:Category:Immortal Technique 3576: 2965:permit immediate relisting 1654:miller light comedy search 1621:Chicago Smooth's Talk Page 1609:response to Theserialcomma 1394:trivial coverage at best. 3364:Since I have worked with 1728:Tim Alexander (filmmaker) 1303:overturn to no consensus. 968:Overturn to no-consensus. 686:We are all familiar with 446:Category:Albums by artist 265:Overturn to no-consensus. 76:No consensus to overturn. 3556:Please do not modify it. 2864:Please do not modify it. 2815:Please do not modify it. 2308:Isola (fictional island) 2297:Please do not modify it. 2268:Isola (fictional island) 2252:Please do not modify it. 1997:Please do not modify it. 1948:Please do not modify it. 1578:Overturn to no consensus 1355:Not a clear cut case. - 1353:Overturn to no-consensus 1333:Overturn to no-consensus 1186:Please do not modify it. 1141:Please do not modify it. 442:Category:Songs by artist 126:Please do not modify it. 40:Deletion review archives 716:both nominated August 8 3070:a former President of 2861:of the article above. 2294:of the article above. 1994:of the article above. 1554:to Tony Fox is on his 1183:of the article above. 123:of the article above. 3013:overturning to delete 2786:Endorse no consensus 584:Consensus Can Change 3511:Overturn and Delete 3493:Overturn and Delete 3036:Overturn and delete 2754:Overturn and Delete 2570:as "underhanded". 2402:reasonable close. – 825:deletion, based on 653:accepted guidelines 150:Category:Joe Budden 135:Also included are: 3438:Overturn / Delete 1646:indiana university 550:If you don't like 231:overcategorization 98:overcategorization 3563: 3562: 2822: 2821: 2259: 2258: 1955: 1954: 1916: 1902:comment added by 1544: 1514: 1197:Alan Roger Currie 1157:Alan Roger Currie 1148: 1147: 1004:Alan Roger Currie 525:Endorse as closer 504:assume good faith 434:Endorse deletions 93:greater restraint 3567: 3558: 3486: 3379: 3290: 3243:this means that 3096: 2985: 2977: 2973: 2928: 2926: 2918: 2904: 2896: 2888: 2866: 2824: 2817: 2694:Peregrine Fisher 2640: 2637: 2634: 2631: 2628: 2625: 2603: 2595: 2591: 2497: 2489: 2485: 2447: 2425: 2407: 2365: 2360: 2351: 2337: 2329: 2321: 2299: 2261: 2254: 2101: 2095: 2065: 2060: 2051: 2037: 2029: 2021: 1999: 1957: 1950: 1915: 1896: 1892:Endorse Deletion 1820:Walt "Baby" Love 1812:Sheryl Underwood 1804:Jimmy Jean-Louis 1540: 1510: 1357:Peregrine Fisher 1323: 1315: 1311: 1254: 1249: 1240: 1226: 1218: 1210: 1188: 1150: 1143: 985:Endorse deletion 928: 927: 924: 859: 858: 855: 677: 676: 673: 569: 568: 565: 345: 337: 333: 224: 219: 210: 196: 188: 180: 167:Category:MC Lyte 140:Category:Ja Rule 128: 71:Category:MC Lyte 64: 53: 33: 3575: 3574: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3566: 3565: 3564: 3554: 3551:deletion review 3480: 3373: 3288: 3090: 2984: 2961:endorse closure 2922: 2920: 2914: 2913: 2907: 2900: 2899: 2892: 2891: 2884: 2883: 2862: 2859:deletion review 2813: 2810:deletion review 2677:MichaelQSchmidt 2638: 2635: 2632: 2629: 2626: 2623: 2602: 2496: 2445: 2423: 2405: 2361: 2359: 2356: 2347: 2346: 2340: 2333: 2332: 2325: 2324: 2317: 2316: 2295: 2292:deletion review 2250: 2247:deletion review 2155:'s suggestion. 2093:Canterbury Tail 2061: 2059: 2056: 2047: 2046: 2040: 2033: 2032: 2025: 2024: 2017: 2016: 1995: 1992:deletion review 1946: 1943:deletion review 1897: 1678:. Too funny. 1322: 1250: 1248: 1245: 1236: 1235: 1229: 1222: 1221: 1214: 1213: 1206: 1205: 1184: 1181:deletion review 1139: 1136:deletion review 925: 922: 921: 856: 853: 852: 763:is ridiculous. 761:Category:People 742:Category:People 674: 671: 670: 566: 563: 562: 539:WP:OC#EPONYMOUS 491:WP:OC#EPONYMOUS 344: 220: 218: 215: 206: 205: 199: 192: 191: 184: 183: 176: 175: 124: 121:deletion review 84:WP:OC#EPONYMOUS 81:semi-subjective 62: 55: 54: 51: 46: 37: 31: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 3573: 3571: 3561: 3560: 3545: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3525: 3508: 3490: 3474: 3453: 3435: 3418: 3405: 3383: 3359: 3339: 3320: 3319: 3300: 3299: 3265: 3264: 3260: 3259: 3254: 3253: 3249: 3248: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3215: 3195: 3194: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3145: 3144: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3079: 3062: 3061: 3050: 3033: 3008: 3007: 2992: 2991: 2982: 2936:nomination. -- 2930: 2929: 2911: 2905: 2897: 2889: 2881: 2869: 2868: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2820: 2819: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2751: 2739: 2721: 2708: 2687: 2665: 2646: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2600: 2561: 2560: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2494: 2458: 2457: 2436: 2435: 2416: 2368: 2367: 2357: 2344: 2338: 2330: 2322: 2314: 2302: 2301: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2257: 2256: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2167: 2146: 2129: 2108: 2107: 2068: 2067: 2057: 2044: 2038: 2030: 2022: 2014: 2002: 2001: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1953: 1952: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1889: 1871: 1861:David Eppstein 1853: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1836:Chicago Smooth 1788:Michael Jordan 1737:Theserialcomma 1713:Chicago Smooth 1709:Theserialcomma 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1680:Chicago Smooth 1659:Theserialcomma 1625:Chicago Smooth 1613:Theserialcomma 1596:Theserialcomma 1587: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1559:Chicago Smooth 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1441: 1440: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1396:Theserialcomma 1388: 1371: 1350: 1329: 1328: 1320: 1298: 1257: 1256: 1246: 1233: 1227: 1219: 1211: 1203: 1191: 1190: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1146: 1145: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1102: 1101: 1083: 1082: 1060: 1059: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 982: 965: 947: 946: 945: 944: 943: 942: 941: 940: 939: 938: 937: 936: 935: 934: 894: 893: 892: 891: 890: 889: 888: 887: 886: 885: 884: 883: 839: 838: 837: 836: 835: 834: 833: 832: 831: 830: 804: 803: 802: 801: 800: 799: 798: 797: 777: 776: 775: 703: 683: 661: 660: 659: 658: 657: 656: 624: 623: 622: 621: 620: 619: 606: 605: 604: 603: 557: 556: 547: 546: 533: 532: 521: 520: 519: 518: 479: 478: 460: 430: 429: 428: 427: 426: 425: 392: 391: 380: 379: 378: 377: 376: 375: 374: 373: 352: 351: 342: 315: 314: 297: 296: 282: 227: 226: 216: 203: 197: 189: 181: 173: 163: 162: 157: 152: 147: 142: 131: 130: 115: 114: 113: 112: 61: 59:26 August 2009 56: 49:2009 August 27 47: 38: 35:2009 August 25 30: 29: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3572: 3559: 3557: 3552: 3547: 3546: 3541: 3537: 3533: 3529: 3526: 3524: 3520: 3516: 3512: 3509: 3507: 3503: 3499: 3494: 3491: 3489: 3485: 3484: 3478: 3477:Closing Admin 3475: 3473: 3469: 3465: 3461: 3457: 3454: 3452: 3448: 3444: 3443:WikipedianBug 3439: 3436: 3434: 3430: 3426: 3422: 3419: 3416: 3413: 3409: 3406: 3404: 3400: 3396: 3392: 3387: 3384: 3382: 3378: 3377: 3371: 3367: 3363: 3362:Clarification 3360: 3358: 3354: 3350: 3349: 3343: 3340: 3338: 3334: 3330: 3325: 3322: 3321: 3318: 3314: 3310: 3305: 3304:Endorse Close 3302: 3301: 3298: 3295: 3292: 3291: 3284: 3283:Closing admin 3281: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3274: 3270: 3262: 3261: 3256: 3255: 3251: 3250: 3246: 3241: 3240: 3239: 3236: 3232: 3231: 3226: 3222: 3214: 3210: 3206: 3202: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3193: 3189: 3185: 3180: 3176: 3173: 3172: 3165: 3161: 3157: 3156: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3146: 3143: 3140: 3136: 3133: 3132: 3121: 3117: 3113: 3112: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3095: 3094: 3088: 3084: 3080: 3077: 3073: 3068: 3064: 3063: 3059: 3054: 3051: 3049: 3045: 3041: 3037: 3034: 3032: 3029: 3028: 3024: 3023: 3018: 3014: 3010: 3009: 3006: 3002: 2998: 2994: 2993: 2990: 2989: 2986: 2978: 2974: 2972: 2966: 2962: 2957: 2954: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2943: 2939: 2934: 2925: 2917: 2910: 2903: 2895: 2887: 2880: 2876: 2875:Dil Jan Khan 2873: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2867: 2865: 2860: 2855: 2854: 2849: 2845: 2841: 2837: 2833: 2832: 2831:Dil Jan Khan 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2818: 2816: 2811: 2806: 2805: 2800: 2796: 2792: 2787: 2784: 2780: 2777: 2773: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2763: 2759: 2755: 2752: 2750: 2747: 2743: 2740: 2738: 2734: 2730: 2727:the closure. 2726: 2722: 2719: 2716: 2712: 2709: 2707: 2703: 2699: 2695: 2691: 2688: 2686: 2682: 2678: 2674: 2669: 2668:Endorse close 2666: 2664: 2660: 2656: 2655: 2650: 2647: 2645: 2642: 2641: 2619: 2617: 2616:Endorse close 2614: 2613: 2608: 2607: 2604: 2596: 2592: 2590: 2584: 2580: 2573: 2569: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2559: 2556: 2552: 2549: 2543: 2540: 2536: 2532: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2521: 2517: 2516:Axem Titanium 2513: 2508: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2498: 2490: 2486: 2484: 2477: 2475: 2470: 2468: 2460: 2459: 2456: 2452: 2448: 2442: 2441:Axem Titanium 2438: 2437: 2434: 2430: 2426: 2420: 2417: 2415: 2412: 2409: 2408: 2401: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2391: 2387: 2386:Axem Titanium 2382: 2377: 2376:User:A Nobody 2373: 2364: 2355: 2350: 2343: 2336: 2328: 2320: 2313: 2309: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2300: 2298: 2293: 2288: 2287: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2269: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2255: 2253: 2248: 2243: 2242: 2237: 2233: 2229: 2225: 2222: 2216: 2213: 2209: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2200: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2183: 2179: 2175: 2174:your articles 2171: 2168: 2166: 2162: 2158: 2154: 2150: 2147: 2145: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2130: 2128: 2124: 2120: 2119: 2113: 2110: 2109: 2106: 2103: 2102: 2096: 2094: 2088: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2078: 2074: 2064: 2055: 2050: 2043: 2036: 2028: 2020: 2013: 2009: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2000: 1998: 1993: 1988: 1987: 1982: 1978: 1974: 1970: 1966: 1965: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1951: 1949: 1944: 1939: 1938: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1918: 1917: 1913: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1893: 1890: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1875: 1872: 1870: 1866: 1862: 1858: 1855: 1854: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1817: 1813: 1809: 1808:Tyler Collins 1805: 1801: 1800:D. L. Hughley 1797: 1793: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1780:Oprah Winfrey 1777: 1773: 1769: 1765: 1761: 1757: 1752: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1735: 1731: 1729: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1718: 1714: 1710: 1706: 1705: 1703: 1699: 1698: 1689: 1685: 1681: 1677: 1673: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1642:gary, indiana 1639: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1630: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1610: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1591: 1588: 1586: 1583: 1579: 1576: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1543: 1539: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1502: 1501: 1492: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1479:clearly erred 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1461: 1457: 1453: 1452: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1424: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1392: 1389: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1372: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1351: 1349: 1345: 1341: 1340: 1334: 1331: 1330: 1327: 1324: 1316: 1312: 1310: 1304: 1299: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1264: 1261: 1253: 1244: 1239: 1232: 1225: 1217: 1209: 1202: 1198: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1189: 1187: 1182: 1177: 1176: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1159: 1158: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1144: 1142: 1137: 1132: 1131: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1100: 1096: 1092: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1001: 1000: 999: 995: 991: 986: 983: 981: 977: 973: 969: 966: 964: 960: 956: 952: 949: 948: 933: 930: 929: 917: 912: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 903: 902: 901: 900: 899: 898: 897: 896: 895: 882: 878: 874: 870: 866: 865: 864: 861: 860: 849: 848: 847: 846: 845: 844: 843: 842: 841: 840: 828: 823: 819: 814: 813: 812: 811: 810: 809: 808: 807: 806: 805: 796: 792: 788: 783: 778: 774: 770: 766: 762: 757: 756: 755: 751: 747: 743: 739: 738: 737: 733: 729: 725: 721: 717: 713: 712:August 13 CFD 708: 704: 700: 696: 691: 689: 684: 682: 679: 678: 667: 666: 665: 664: 663: 662: 654: 650: 646: 642: 638: 634: 630: 629: 628: 627: 626: 625: 617: 612: 611: 610: 609: 608: 607: 602: 598: 594: 589: 585: 581: 576: 575: 574: 571: 570: 559: 558: 553: 549: 548: 544: 540: 535: 534: 530: 529:User:Otto4711 526: 523: 522: 517: 513: 509: 505: 500: 496: 492: 488: 483: 482: 481: 480: 477: 473: 469: 464: 461: 459: 455: 451: 447: 443: 439: 435: 432: 431: 424: 421: 417: 416: 415: 411: 407: 406: 401: 396: 395: 394: 393: 390: 387: 382: 381: 372: 368: 364: 360: 356: 355: 354: 353: 350: 349: 346: 338: 334: 332: 324: 319: 318: 317: 316: 313: 309: 305: 301: 300: 299: 298: 295: 291: 287: 283: 281: 277: 273: 272: 266: 263: 262: 261: 260: 256: 252: 248: 244: 240: 236: 232: 223: 214: 209: 202: 195: 187: 179: 172: 168: 165: 164: 161: 160:Category:C-Bo 158: 156: 153: 151: 148: 146: 143: 141: 138: 137: 136: 133: 132: 129: 127: 122: 117: 116: 111: 107: 103: 99: 94: 89: 85: 82: 77: 73: 72: 68: 67: 66: 65: 60: 57: 50: 45: 41: 36: 23: 19: 3555: 3548: 3527: 3510: 3492: 3482: 3476: 3455: 3437: 3420: 3407: 3395:LineofWisdom 3391:Closing Admn 3390: 3385: 3375: 3361: 3346: 3341: 3329:LineofWisdom 3323: 3303: 3289:Juliancolton 3286: 3282: 3269:LineofWisdom 3266: 3229: 3220: 3219: 3200: 3178: 3174: 3153: 3134: 3109: 3092: 3066: 3052: 3035: 3026: 3021: 3012: 2997:LineofWisdom 2970: 2964: 2960: 2958: 2955: 2952: 2938:LineofWisdom 2932: 2931: 2863: 2856: 2840:IronGargoyle 2834:– Relist at 2829: 2814: 2807: 2785: 2753: 2741: 2724: 2710: 2689: 2667: 2652: 2648: 2622: 2615: 2588: 2576: 2550: 2482: 2478: 2476:his closure. 2473: 2471: 2463: 2418: 2406:Juliancolton 2403: 2399: 2369: 2296: 2289: 2273:IronGargoyle 2266: 2251: 2244: 2223: 2177: 2169: 2148: 2131: 2116: 2111: 2098: 2092: 2086: 2069: 1996: 1989: 1973:IronGargoyle 1962: 1947: 1940: 1891: 1873: 1856: 1831: 1828:Phil Donahue 1824:Quincy Jones 1816:Adele Givens 1796:Tavis Smiley 1792:Nina Hartley 1772:Robin Harris 1764:Damon Wayans 1760:Gene Hackman 1755: 1750: 1708: 1671: 1637: 1616: 1615:and earlier 1612: 1608: 1589: 1577: 1551: 1503: 1449: 1425: 1390: 1373: 1352: 1337: 1332: 1308: 1302: 1283: 1258: 1185: 1178: 1155: 1140: 1133: 1068:on principle 1067: 1021: 984: 967: 950: 919: 850: 817: 724:both July 22 705: 698: 695:acknowledged 685: 668: 648: 640: 632: 615: 560: 524: 494: 462: 433: 403: 399: 330: 326: 322: 269: 264: 251:Shaliya waya 242: 234: 228: 155:Category:ATB 134: 125: 118: 102:IronGargoyle 80: 75: 69: 58: 3464:Ron Ritzman 3205:Umbralcorax 3184:Umbralcorax 3058:Anarchangel 3053:Strong Keep 2772:Non-notable 2579:WP:PRESERVE 2572:WP:PRESERVE 2568:WP:PRESERVE 2535:WP:PRESERVE 2512:WP:PRESERVE 2507:WP:PRESERVE 2467:WP:PRESERVE 2180:Thank you, 1898:—Preceding 1784:Hill Harper 1590:COI Comment 1288:Umbralcorax 720:July 27 CFD 543:WP:OC#SMALL 487:WP:OC#SMALL 88:WP:OC#SMALL 44:2009 August 3386:Clarifying 3324:Conclusion 3201:correction 2971:S Marshall 2673:preserving 2589:S Marshall 2483:S Marshall 2446:Goochelaar 2424:Goochelaar 2073:ToyCharlie 1768:Bernie Mac 1309:S Marshall 499:no attempt 331:S Marshall 247:WP:USELESS 3532:Guest9999 3412:Lankiveil 3223:As users 2715:Lankiveil 2583:this edit 2372:mentioned 1832:OF COURSE 1676:talk page 1556:talk page 707:changing. 3498:Alansohn 3425:Tim Song 3235:MuZemike 3230:lifebaka 3139:MuZemike 3022:lifebaka 3017:WP:POINT 2791:Alansohn 2776:A Nobody 2758:Eusebeus 2746:MuZemike 2702:contribs 2555:A Nobody 2539:A Nobody 2419:Overturn 2228:Tim Song 2212:MuZemike 2199:MuZemike 2182:MuZemike 2157:Lectonar 1912:contribs 1900:unsigned 1895:sources. 1879:Alansohn 1776:Jay Leno 1702:Mode One 1672:response 1617:Davidwiz 1582:MuZemike 1552:response 1538:Tony Fox 1508:Tony Fox 1483:Tim Song 1430:Tim Song 1365:contribs 1284:overturn 1109:Otto4711 1091:Alansohn 1049:Otto4711 1008:Alansohn 873:Alansohn 787:Alansohn 765:Otto4711 728:Otto4711 699:arguendo 645:User:DGG 593:Alansohn 508:Otto4711 468:Alansohn 450:Otto4711 420:Kbdank71 386:Kbdank71 363:Otto4711 359:WP:POINT 323:complete 304:Otto4711 20:‎ | 3528:Endorse 3483:MARWAT 3421:Endorse 3376:MARWAT 3342:endorse 3245:Marwatt 3221:Comment 3179:endorse 3093:MARWAT 3085:of the 3067:Comment 2924:restore 2894:history 2742:Endorse 2725:endorse 2711:Endorse 2690:Endorse 2649:Endorse 2551:Endorse 2531:WP:BOLD 2474:endorse 2400:Endorse 2363:restore 2327:history 2224:Endorse 2170:Endorse 2149:Comment 2132:Endorse 2112:Comment 2087:Comment 2063:restore 2027:history 1857:Endorse 1751:mockery 1638:comment 1504:Endorse 1426:Endorse 1391:Endorse 1374:Endorse 1252:restore 1216:history 1162:Protonk 1072:Protonk 1026:Protonk 990:Protonk 916:WP:OCAT 827:WP:OCAT 822:WP:OCAT 782:WP:OCAT 688:WP:OCAT 637:WP:CONS 588:WP:OCAT 580:WP:OCAT 552:WP:OCAT 400:because 222:restore 186:history 3408:Relist 3225:Stifle 3135:Relist 3040:Stifle 2933:Delete 2729:Stifle 2197:page. 2136:Stifle 1969:WP:ORG 1652:, and 1542:(arf!) 1512:(arf!) 1378:Stifle 955:Occuli 911:WP:CCC 869:WP:CCC 746:Occuli 286:Stifle 235:Delete 3515:Corpx 3366:UNOPS 3353:talk 3160:talk 3116:talk 3087:UNODC 3076:UNODC 2916:watch 2909:links 2659:talk 2639:Focus 2370:As I 2349:watch 2342:links 2123:talk 2049:watch 2042:links 2008:SOLAE 1964:SOLAE 1922:Hobit 1904:Corpx 1756:silly 1523:Hobit 1456:talk 1411:Hobit 1344:talk 1270:Hobit 1238:watch 1231:links 918:? -- 555:here. 410:talk 276:talk 208:watch 201:links 52:: --> 16:< 3536:talk 3519:talk 3502:talk 3468:talk 3460:SPAs 3447:talk 3429:talk 3399:talk 3370:INCB 3333:talk 3313:talk 3309:Whpq 3273:talk 3233:and 3209:talk 3188:talk 3083:INCB 3044:talk 3001:talk 2983:Cont 2963:and 2942:talk 2902:logs 2886:edit 2879:talk 2844:talk 2838:. – 2795:talk 2762:talk 2733:talk 2698:talk 2681:talk 2601:Cont 2520:talk 2495:Cont 2451:talk 2429:talk 2390:talk 2381:WP:N 2335:logs 2319:edit 2312:talk 2277:talk 2232:talk 2208:here 2161:talk 2140:talk 2100:talk 2077:talk 2035:logs 2019:edit 2012:talk 1977:talk 1926:talk 1908:talk 1883:talk 1865:talk 1840:talk 1826:and 1741:talk 1717:talk 1684:talk 1663:talk 1629:talk 1600:talk 1563:talk 1527:talk 1487:talk 1434:talk 1415:talk 1400:talk 1382:talk 1361:talk 1321:Cont 1292:talk 1274:talk 1224:logs 1208:edit 1201:talk 1166:talk 1113:talk 1095:talk 1076:talk 1053:talk 1030:talk 1022:have 1012:talk 994:talk 976:talk 959:talk 926:damr 877:talk 857:damr 791:talk 769:talk 750:talk 732:talk 675:damr 597:talk 567:damr 541:and 512:talk 495:only 489:and 472:talk 454:talk 444:and 367:talk 343:Cont 308:talk 290:talk 255:talk 194:logs 178:edit 171:talk 106:talk 86:and 32:< 3348:DGG 3258:me. 3155:DGG 3111:DGG 3074:of 2836:AfD 2700:) ( 2654:DGG 2354:XfD 2352:) ( 2153:DGG 2118:DGG 2054:XfD 2052:) ( 1623:. 1594:]. 1550:My 1451:DGG 1363:) ( 1339:DGG 1243:XfD 1241:) ( 639:, " 405:DGG 271:DGG 213:XfD 211:) ( 22:Log 3538:) 3521:) 3504:) 3470:) 3449:) 3441:-- 3431:) 3401:) 3355:) 3335:) 3327:-- 3315:) 3293:| 3275:) 3227:, 3211:) 3190:) 3162:) 3118:) 3065:"* 3046:) 3027:++ 3003:) 2967:.— 2944:) 2846:) 2797:) 2764:) 2735:) 2704:) 2683:) 2661:) 2533:, 2522:) 2453:) 2431:) 2410:| 2392:) 2279:) 2234:) 2210:. 2163:) 2142:) 2125:) 2079:) 1979:) 1928:) 1914:) 1910:• 1885:) 1867:) 1842:) 1822:, 1818:, 1814:, 1810:, 1806:, 1802:, 1798:, 1794:, 1790:, 1786:, 1782:, 1778:, 1774:, 1770:, 1766:, 1762:, 1743:) 1719:) 1686:) 1665:) 1648:, 1644:, 1631:) 1602:) 1565:) 1529:) 1489:) 1458:) 1436:) 1417:) 1402:) 1384:) 1367:) 1346:) 1294:) 1276:) 1168:) 1115:) 1097:) 1078:) 1055:) 1032:) 1014:) 996:) 978:) 961:) 879:) 793:) 771:) 752:) 734:) 599:) 514:) 474:) 456:) 412:) 384:-- 369:) 361:. 310:) 292:) 278:) 257:) 108:) 74:– 42:: 3534:( 3517:( 3500:( 3466:( 3445:( 3427:( 3417:. 3397:( 3351:( 3331:( 3311:( 3271:( 3207:( 3186:( 3158:( 3114:( 3042:( 2999:( 2979:/ 2940:( 2927:) 2921:( 2919:) 2912:| 2906:| 2898:| 2890:| 2882:| 2877:( 2842:( 2793:( 2770:" 2760:( 2731:( 2720:. 2696:( 2679:( 2657:( 2636:m 2633:a 2630:e 2627:r 2624:D 2597:/ 2518:( 2491:/ 2449:( 2427:( 2388:( 2366:) 2358:| 2345:| 2339:| 2331:| 2323:| 2315:| 2310:( 2275:( 2230:( 2159:( 2138:( 2121:( 2075:( 2066:) 2058:| 2045:| 2039:| 2031:| 2023:| 2015:| 2010:( 1975:( 1924:( 1906:( 1881:( 1863:( 1838:( 1739:( 1715:( 1682:( 1661:( 1627:( 1598:( 1561:( 1525:( 1485:( 1454:( 1432:( 1413:( 1398:( 1380:( 1359:( 1342:( 1317:/ 1305:— 1290:( 1272:( 1255:) 1247:| 1234:| 1228:| 1220:| 1212:| 1204:| 1199:( 1164:( 1111:( 1093:( 1074:( 1051:( 1028:( 1010:( 992:( 974:( 957:( 923:X 875:( 854:X 789:( 767:( 748:( 730:( 672:X 614:" 595:( 564:X 510:( 470:( 452:( 408:( 365:( 339:/ 306:( 288:( 274:( 253:( 225:) 217:| 204:| 198:| 190:| 182:| 174:| 169:( 104:(

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Deletion review/Log/2009 August 26 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index