Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2009 December 12

3060:"Second, I frankly see no "desperate need to resolve it". I personally think that, while for sure BLPs have presented problems, the whole BLP issue is way inflated and that the so-called BLP problem, while important, is not as huge as thought by several editors." All due respect, as always, but if that is really your view than I suggest it's probably best to avoid BLP-related discussions, since you clearly don't comprehend what a big problem they present. Knowledge (XXG) articles routinely ruin people's lives and reputations. Vandalism and libel inserted into BLPs has the potential to get someone fired. OTRS regularly deals with requests from individuals to delete their articles. And yet here we are, hiding beyond our pseudonyms, deciding whether marginally noteworthy people who might have, at best, received to a couple passing mentions in newspapers should be subject to that. Surely you can agree that's a bit of a problem? Surely you can agree it's downright rude to let people be miserable in real life because they happen to meet some arbitrary notability guideline? Surely you can agree that Knowledge (XXG) is a real-word entity that causes issues 3089:

what it should have been, and we lose forever a collection of information which is valuable to all mankind. No reputable journalist ever restrains her/himself from freely reporting public and reasonably widespread information about a subject like we currently do. No reputable journalist retires a factual, non-libelous article from circulation only because the subject doesn't like it. If there is public information out there, good or bad, it is our duty to report it for the sake of building the encyclopedia. There is nothing "rude" in that; if you happen to be notable and already covered in public sources, everyone has the right to report such information -unless you think that

3196:-You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. If we want a right to free speech , including the right to report factual information for knowledge purposes, we have to accept the risk that something goes awry here and there. To make an analogy: Cars kill a lot of people. I suspect no Saturday night with friends, or no puntuality at the dentist are worth ruining people's real lives for. Yet we continue to use cars for these purposes, and even more frivolous ones, and I'm sure you would not like if tomorrow someone obliges you to take a car only for life-or-death things. We simply accept a compromise, and live with that. I can't see why here it cannot be the same. 3225:. Because even if WP disappears tomorrow, on these subjects there will be always thousands of books, essays etc., and we are superflous to document them for the future. But obscure subjects is exactly where Knowledge (XXG) shines. We can thoroughly document and collect information about subjects whose knowledge could be otherwise forever scattered among dozens of sources, often to the point of being, with all our shortcomings, the best source available on such subjects. I cannot imagine how valuable will be such a thing only 100 years from now. Imagine magically having a Knowledge (XXG) coming to us from the 4201:- clearly passes notability, clearly not notable for just one event, clearly covered in many, many sources that focus specifically on the subject and the article was not disparaging, mocking, cruel or otherwise abusive of the subject. Everything was sourced to a reputable news outlet, there was no original research and neutrality was never brought up as a concern. Remove the BLP1E and there are a lot of "do no harm/I don't like it" !votes that don't really make sense - no harm was done, and there are a lot of people who "like" the article, as in think it is informative and encyclopedic. 1743:

article again (which could easily happen due to the myriad sources discussing it, which would normally pass 99 out of 100 AfDs for any other article). And any recreation will immediately lead to another deletion nomination. So if the redirect is reinstated, I suggest it be permanently protected so we can go on building an encyclopedia. Whether Google Watch has its own article or a few mentions in the merged article is of extremely minimal importance in the big picture, and this series of related-article debates has wasted huge amounts of editor time.--

2951:@Cyclopia: I'm sure you understand the significance of the BLP issue and the desperate need to resolve it. Yes, BLPs should unquestionably be dealt with differently than "normal" articles. BLP, like all policies and guidelines, merely describes the most common situations and how to deal with them; it is by no means fully comprehensive. That's why we elect admins—to decide how to best deal with the circumstances at hand. I'm not explicitly endorsing this DRV yet, because I haven't evaluated the AfD thoroughly enough to do so fairly, but just my $ 0.02. – 3471:. Whatever the close, the closer should have taken into account the canvassing at Knowledge (XXG) Review - but they themselves posted to that Knowledge (XXG) Review thread. This canvassing has been plaguing BLP AfDs lately and it needs to stop. That it involves admins who are !voting in and closing discussions is even worse. This is part of a campaign by a group of admins to delete marginal BLPs, and after they failed to get a change in policy they are instead proceeding to close AfDs as they see fit rather than by consensus. 4657:: On one hand, the closure was a reasonable compromise. On the other, it is true that the AfD was tainted by the Google Watch's webmaster canvassing, and it is reasonable to think that without such outside pressure, the AfD outcome would have been much different, given the amount of sources on the website. But, to avoid stirring further the drama, all what is necessary is, I think, that the merge indeed includes most if not all the material of the article. By the way: It would make much more sense to DRV 3111:(I know of people who would like so). To do so, however, you need to change policy in such direction. And to change policy, you need consensus of the community. And such consensus should be firmly established and consolidated into explicit policies and guidelines. When this will happen, I will acknowledge that. If it doesn't, admins should refrain from pushing by force what they can't obtain by consensus, and live with that. If this disappoints you, well, sorry for you. -- 3172:'d. We have hundreds of thousands of articles on non-public figures who have been mentioned in two or three websites, and those are the articles we need to be particularly careful of, and delete if we deem appropriate. Of course, it will take years and thousands of kilobytes of discussion to get notability guidelines changed; but again, this is why we have AfD, to decide which articles aren't worth of inclusion. It's not "self-censorship", it's a matter of common sense. – 1194:

have been stated. Tthis is to some extent compatible with what S Marshall just stated, about how it must be done if it is to be done; I do not however endorse his reason. letting outsiders dictate the contents of Knowledge (XXG) is contrary to NPOV; removing redirects because we do not like the person is equally so, and shows irresponsibility. Perhaps that what Brandt was trying to get us to do--prove that we were incapable of following our own principles.

2312:

for the deletion of this article being overturned I requested that the deleting administrator reverse their deletion on 4 November 2009. I believe a sufficient amount of time has passed to allow that administrator to respond, and they haven't done so (they're on an extended leave). As such I would like Kairosis undeleted, as the deletion rationale is no longer an element of wikipedia policy. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

3206:- I happen to think instead that the WP definition of notability is the best one, because it is as objective as possible. It requires little opinion or guessing: if you have been covered in RS, it means one can derive material for an entry; therefore you deserve an entry. If we should write only about "notable" subject in the meaning of "known to the layman", you realize this project would immediately become worthless. 1239:(disclaimer: I participated in the AFD) Deleting the redirect of the name of the website has nothing to do with BLP reasons. It's about the owner of the website wanting to reduce the Page Rank of the name in wikipedia for his own personal reasons. There is no policy anywhere to do any such thing, and no consensus to abide to such requests. As other say, let's be clear here about the real reasons for deletion. -- 2596: 195:

list them at Redirects for Deletion. I ask that the article be undeleted and posted there so that community can discuss the issue and decide whether or not to delete the redirect, as opposed to one admin unilaterally deciding the best course of action. It seems logical to leave redirect at Google Watch to point searchers to the current location of the information at

1156:(later) On re-reading that remark, it may not shed any light. I was trying to say that I think Knowledge (XXG) is officially oblivious to Mr Brandt, and I think that is as it should be. But I think the reason Knowledge (XXG) turns a blind eye has to do with a long, long series of dramas. MZM hints at this early in the discussion thread but didn't make it explicit. 82:, but with a consensus that there should be a simple redirect left in its place (with no history behind it). I note that with or without the redirect a search for "Google Watch" here will end you up at basically the same place. Having the redirect just makes it quicker. I will recreate the simple redirect, then protect to prevent this article's recreation. – 3773:

respect to BLPs, to the point of deleting them against consensus, and since these people call up to arms at once when these articles are concerned, they manage to skew individual AfD's/DRV's consensus with narrow margins sometimes. But that thread pretty much showed that this kind of decisions are not really endorsed by the community. Oh, and if you

3034:

need special attention, but I see no BLP issue solved through deletion. If an article is not neutral, is defamatory, subject to vandalism etc., all of this can be solved by editing and protection levels. If the BLP is really in truth describing a single event (BLP1E), usually a rename/redirect and merge, or a refactoring of the article to address

4372:

harmful to its subject, please vote delete"? If "do no harm" is a standard that can be applied to justify deletion then we should articulate it in a more substantive way so it can be referred to with clearer criteria. I don't edit many BLP pages, if there is a clear rationale that I just don't know about, please refer me to it using my

4099:(as original AFD nominator). I don't want to revisit the whole debate, but it's important to point out that the claimed academic source coverage consisted of a two-paragraph (one rather long) footnote (De Young) and a case study (Bocij), which could fairly be evaluated as insufficient to demonstrate notability. 2823:

far as I understand, is meant exactly for this kind of concerns. There are many AfD I participated where I was against consensus and I gladly accepted the outcome without further questioning. This is not one of these cases, and, in my own opinion, for good reasons. If you have problems with the existence of DRV

3302:

certainly closed it as no consensus to delete due to the weak !votes for deletion, I think it was within admin discretion to delete due to the BLP issues (mental health issues). Just because many of the !votes cited the wrong policy, doesn't mean the admin can't accept them for what they were trying to argue.

2969:!votes that lack a policy-based reason for the action they suggest. With respect to the more general issue, we've also had closers "defaulting to delete" and one new admin who overstepped the bounds between !voting and closing. Those all certainly belong here as there were serious problems with those closes. 2949:@Hobit: it's not up to the closing admin to decide which votes are "wrong" or "right", just to determine which ones present more reasonable and solid arguments. Yes, changing a policy unilaterally and then closing an AfD based on the new rules is an error... but I don't see anything like that in this AfD. 4576:

Also, if one looks at the rationales given by those in favor of deletion, some discrepancies will appear: one user, MzMcBride, supported deletion but did not provide a coherent argument in favor of it, (his reason was "it's not good to do anything half-assed), and this argument was cited by two other

4038:

say that if an article is susceptible to BLP problems, we remove it. IAR applies to situations where the action is so necessary to improve the encyclopedia that essentially everyone who in in good faith will endorse it. It does not mean, do as you please, regardless of the consensus. If there is no

3709:

problematic. As I said above, I accepted tons of AfD where I was against consensus without blinking, when the closure was correct. Now, you're more than entitled to disagree with the DRV and endorse the closure, but please avoid such poor attempts at reading my mind. It is a shame I have to remind an

2893:

Most of the delete !votes were frankly wrong. Claiming BLP1E and not being able to cite what the one event is indicates a serious problem. Those !votes probably should have been greatly discounted. Getting the "delete" close required a fair bit of IAR. Plus we have admins who are trying to change

1046:

Overriding a community discussion? I'm not sure I ever did that. I closed an AfD as "the article should not exist as a standalone one." I merged it, perhaps not in the standard way of move content + redirect, but I still merged it in a way that was fine for our licensing. The AfD could have been even

4616:

and call for an admonishment of this user for initiating a frivolous, XfD Round 2-style discussion. The DRV process is supposed to be to call for a review of a closure when there is clear indication of an admin doing something wrong, ignoring or bypassing policy and the like. It is not supposed to

4371:

comparable - mentally ill and allegedly mentally ill subjects who did one big thing that got them in the press. If we're applying standards evenly, those pages should probably be deleted as well (certainly Floro), but if I were to nominate it for deletion, what would I write? "I think this page is

2364:

is in the thesis it can be quoted--the source is sufficiently reliable for that, though not for notability , but otherwise it is OR. On the other hand, if Kermode did use this word in this manner, it would probably be notable since he is a major academic critic, and his use of the term would be

1720:

and there was no basis in policy or guideline for the unilateral deletion of the redirect after closing the discussion as merge. No one arguing for endorse above, or for delete in the AFD has provided any policy or guideline basis for why thie redirect is inappropriate and the arguments that are not

889:

about his closure as merge, as well as now deleting it outright after a bit of undocumented offsite negotiations. Any article other than a Brandt one and that's a desysyopping right there tbh. You simply cannot close something as merge, throw out a DRV because it was a merge, stick two fingers up at

320:

and will happily do so again to anyone who requests it, provided that they attribute it properly when merging information. The history of the article has been preserved. The redirect was causing an annoyance to the website operator and was not really necessary for us (really, what good does it do?),

4637:

for the reasoning behind this DRV, particularly the following quote: "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly." I have not had any experience with the DRV process before and I apologize if I have indeed misused this venue. If I have misinterpreted the above

3886:

I understand perfectly what is a straw man argument, thanks. It will surprise you, Tarc, but people who disagree with you are not necessarily dumb or disingenous. Now, one thing is disagreeing with the outcome; another is disagreeing about consensus. DRV is for sure not the place for the first. But

3772:

thread. But that page shows that consensus on that matter is pretty the opposite. So, you can delude yourself that "things are changing" but fact is, they aren't. At least not as fast as you would like. The fact is that there is a small group of idiosyncratic admins which happen to be paranoid with

3615:

Clearly not a BLP1E. Not having every possible BLP concern fixed during an AfD is not grounds for deletion so closing rationale doesn't work. I also agree with Fences remark that offsite canvassing for the deletion of articles needs to stop. It taints these discussions to an extent that simply from

2720:

There was no real consensus. Bare count shows 14 Deletes and 10 Keeps ; many of the delete !votes are one-liners that sometimes did not cite policy or guidelines at all (see first 3 ones for example); while keep !votes often brought sources relevant to the page notability and directly addressed the

2311:

who recommended WP:DRV; statement from there was, Kairosis was deleted in circumstances where accepted PhD theses were not appropriate nor High Quality reliable sources. Sourcing policy has changed since mid 2008, and PhD theses available for consultation that have been accepted are RS. The grounds

194:

that the redirect be deleted, and User:NuclearWarfare complied. The result of the AFD was a merge, and the deletion of the redirect was not agreed to anywhere in that AFD. The deletion of this redirect seems to me to be a violation of the proper procedure for deleting redirects, which would be to

3931:

If you believe a page was wrongly deleted, or should have been deleted but wasn't, or a deletion discussion improperly closed, you should discuss this with the person who performed the deletion, or closed the debate, on their talk page. If this fails to resolve the issue, you can request review of

3741:

as a reason for why admins can't close these AFDs per IAR. Things can change, even if you don't think they are changing the way you want them to. I don't understand why some of you want to keep an article, no matter what problems arise from it. We have to protect Biographies of living people, more

3320:

honestly per Protonk. Counting and looking again, the arguments to delete were weak (as I said above) and while I would likely !vote to delete this by IAR (as "icky") I don't really see consensus to delete. I'm quite sympathetic to the desire to delete this, but don't see any justification in the

3301:

I personally think the arguments to delete were poor. If people want to delete an article due to a policy (BLP1E) they should explain why it applies when asked. I'm still unsure what the claimed "one-event" was. That said, this one probably hits the "do no harm" part of WP:BLP and while I'd have

3167:

should know they're going to be subject to extremely close scrutiny, and thus it's not unreasonable to include information on their controversies and issues. But the vast majority of all BLP subjects are not public figures, nor are they even to be considered "noteworthy" in any legitimate sense of

3106:

kind of trouble. Which is not irrelevant, given the huge amount of biographies, but for sure not as troubling as it could be, given the nature of WP. But again, that's not the point. The point is that none of these problems will be solved by deletion, unless you want to go the tough way and delete

3093:

is somehow rude. Now, I understand all what you say about BLPs, yet it doesn't make a case for deletion of any biography covered by RS. It just makes a case for being more careful about them (for example, I would endorse semiprotection-by-default of such articles). And again, yes, all what you say

3088:

should be included in some form. In the case of BLPs, it seems this goal is actively repudiated, and this is a form of self-censorship I cannot accept. Because if in the short run we maybe make a couple of people happier, in the long run we make this project a laughable self-censored caricature of

3038:

are more than enough. I see the BLP issue as a need to have better quality control, but there is no way in which deleting articles here and there will be useful. Once notability is established, we should not decide further what is worth of inclusion and what not: we should just follow the sources.

3033:

Second, I frankly see no "desperate need to resolve it". I personally think that, while for sure BLPs have presented problems, the whole BLP issue is way inflated and that the so-called BLP problem, while important, is not as huge as thought by several editors. Now, I for sure understand that BLPs

2822:

Juliancolton and KillerChihuahua, I would appreciate if you can withdraw, or at best explain, your comments. My intention is not that of doing forum shopping or Afd part 2. This is a problematic close, at least in my view, because it does not comply properly with policy and the debate, and DRV, as

1400:

Inflammatory? There appears to be one person in the entire world who is "inflamed" by it. I understand the Endorse comments that think the AFD should have been closed as delete in the first place, but I don't see how a redirect that would seem perfectly reasonable under normal circumstances can be

739:

I calls 'em as I sees 'em, Cyclopia. How many Brandt-related articles ended up at DRV in the last month or so? Personally, I'm no fan of the man - everyone knows that, especially given that his website informed a stalker as to my whereabouts. Old news now. But this nonsense needs to stop, once and

2968:

By "wrong" I meant that they claimed the article was in violation of a policy (BLP1E) that it clearly wasn't. So those !votes should be greatly discounted as they were neither reasonable nor based in policy. I think we agree on the idea that an admin should discount (reduce in value, not ignore)

1742:

no matter what window dressing and huge helpings of discussion we lathered upon it. The merge and deletion of the redirect was the crafty method used. The reinstatement of the redirect, which appears to be the consensus view here, is going to open the door to the recreation of the Google Watch

1193:

This is unjustified. Deletion of the redirect was entirely outside and contrary to process. The AfD was closed as mere, not delete. The only grounds on which such a deletion of the redirect without specific consensus to do so could be justified would be as an office action, and if so it should

3216:

take ourselves seriously. This can seem a wacky website, but it is actually one of the most thorough and gigantic (even if flawed and idiosyncratic) structured compendia of information ever built by humankind, and it should be preserved with care. Now, deleting what you call "utterly non notable

1938:

establish notability for Mr. Keyes. According to the Internet Movie Database, Keyes has had recurring roles in a number of TV shows, in addition to his co-starring role in Ben 10:Alien Swarm. I suggest that we restore this article, and heavily rewrite it to convey notability and remove the bias.

1618:

The BLP question was at the AfD and was not accepted there. BLP as applying to the redirect is ridiculous as it amounts to saying that being associated with the criticism of google is a libel or untrue. BLP questions are resolved by the community, and the only ones capable of overriding that is

1132:

I'm not accusing you of hiding anything, NW; nor in fact am I accusing you of anything at all. I just think this DRV will be read in conjunction with the previous one for Scroogle and editors who aren't familiar with Brandt may be perplexed at the outcomes which are not strictly consistent with

861:

criteria, nor is BLP of any relevance here (the title of the redirect has nothing to do with any living person, it's the name of a website!) It's certainly a search term someone might use, and there is interest in merging (which requires leaving the redirect intact). If Nuclear Warfare feels the

822:

Tooth and nail? I gladly accepted the merge outcome, despite my feeling that the topic was worth an article in itself. As you can see, at least I am quite open to compromise. But deleting the redirect is plain wrong. The close made no mention of that, the deletion happened only after and without

298:

I do not see why the deletion is necessary, especially since it effectively prevented editorial overturning of the merge, the ground upon which the previous DRV was closed. Given the numerous serious irregularities pointed out during the AfD, I wonder if that debate is safe enough as a basis for

4232:

per "no consensus defaults to keep" and DGG's poignant commentary on "admin discretion". Per WLU, notability was clearly established and BLP1E does not apply. While I appreciate the sentiment behind the various "do no harm" arguments these are knee jerk reactions to content editors don't like

1937:

This was dropped off at the AfD's talkpage, copying it to here: "5 votes over a period of just a few days does not translate to concensus. The article was a mess and looked like it had been written by a fan, but a little time should have been given for other persons to edit it, clean it up, and

1549:

Yes. But nowhere it has been decided consensually to delete the redirect. The AfD never, ever dealt with the redirect -obviously, because it had been set up by you after the closure. Correct me if I'm wrong, but even if the AfD was closed as delete, I think nothing prevents re-creating it as a

3160:

for. Knowledge (XXG) was largely initiated as an experiment, to see what would happen if a bunch of nobodies with computers started editing a website together. I love Knowledge (XXG); I use it every day, I've been a contributor and sysop for years, and I think it's a great example of what the

1315:

mean I should approach an admin with a request for an out-of-process deletion of that article as a "BLP issue". Absent this ridiculous pseudo-BLP complaint, it is hard to imagine what would justify the deletion of the redirect, since "Google Watch" is a reasonable search term associated with

4237:

the nature of possible harm can be explained, bare minimum. No one was forthcoming with such an explanation. People just believe in their gut that its wrong to have an entry about this person, but that needs a valid policy rationale or else its just "i don't like it". If BLP policy needs

2359:

This needs fuller discussion. Sources are not either Reliable or Not-Reliable--there is a gradation. Though phd theses often can be RS for many purposes, they rank relative low in the hierarchy of academic writing, and the use of an idiosyncratic term in one does not make something

761:

Sorry, I missed the memo where it said "We must delete all trace of Daniel Brandt from Knowledge (XXG)". What merits this treatment that means we must comply with his wishes to delete all articles about him and his enterprises, regardless of editorial judgement? You're all looking like his

4732:

The longstanding practice at DRV is to speedy close requests that do not require use of the admin tools, such as changing among keep/merge/redirect/no consensus. Those decisions can be overridden instead by a local consensus at the appropriate talk page. The standard essay to cite is

1267:

I'll note that deleting the history was out of process anyways and that it wouldn't have been done if there hadn't been off-wiki pressure. All of these actions were just patches to fix the problems caused by having abided to external pressures that go against our policies on content.

2058:

The !vote was 4-1, with the one keep opinion not offering any policy-based rationale for keeping the article beyond that they believed the subject was notable. Arguments have to be backed with evidence, not with hand-waiving. The admin coudln't have made any other decision here.

857:. Knowledge (XXG) Review is quite honestly becoming the new IRC for arranging shady actions, and I really hope at some point to see something done about that, to whatever extent it can be. Aside from my own personal strong distaste for that, however, the redirect does not meet any 2868:

As of late, any non-straightforward BLP-related AfD is brought to DRV by someone who happens to disagree with the result. Then there's a long, drawn-out debate, with all the usual suspects, and the admin barely scrapes by with his head intact. DRV should be used only if there's a

964:

Over the principle of the thing. If you take sides in a debate, you don't even close the debate, you certainly don't take administrative action in contradiction to what you know to have been the outcome of the debate. If you can't be trusted over the small things, you can't be

512:

as out of process since the AfD was foolishly closed as merge instead of delete, which was the supported outcome of the debate, and restart a proper AfD without the foolish canvassing to remove any doubt about the validaty of the outcome. What did I tell you about IAR and this

1085:

I fully support deletion of anything involving Daniel Brandt. The man has a long history of outing Knowledge (XXG) editors who say things he doesn't like, and there are children and vulnerable people who edit Knowledge (XXG). We don't need to be leaving booby traps for our

4617:

be a venue to air simple disagreements with how an XfD was closed. Yes, you believe the sources gave substantive coverage to the subject matter. Yes, you have made the canvassing allegations. Guess what? Someone didn't agree with those assessments. Get over it.

1297:

deletion is that it was requested by Brandt based on a supposed "BLP issue". But the destination article does not contain unsourced or critical material about Brandt, nor does it even mention his name. The "BLP issue" he raised: that Google might lead people to the

3024:. They are, nor should be, demigods acting against community consensus and consensual guidelines. If policies and guidelines need to be implmented or changed, they have to be extensively discussed before with the community, otherwise this becomes an admin-based 1210:

Interestingly, at RFD, redirects default to delete on a "no consensus" outcome; there's plenty of precedent for deleting a redirect without consensus. Whether that's as it should be is another question (and I think not one to be discussed at a Brandt-related

404:. It was originally closed as "redirect" and then changed to "delete." I was saying that, had I been the one to close that debate, I would've just closed as "delete" originally. The votes in favor of outright deletion seem to pretty clearly in the majority. -- 3972:

information. I don't see any evidence of source unreliability or lack of sources here, so it doesn't apply. Also, the closing administrator does not seem to have taken into account the fact that several of the editors appearing at the AfD appear to have been

4359:- could someone clearly articulate the harm that was done by the article as it existed before deletion? I don't see it as it read as neutral, well-sourced and free of original research, disparagement and other reasons to !vote delete. We have articles on 1316:

criticism of Google, and the destination article does discuss the site. Brandt is entirely within his rights to raise legitimate BLP issues when they exist, but that does not include a right to remove anything dislikes by trumping it up as a "BLP issue". --

1158:

I've no doubt whatsoever that you, NW, fully understood what MZM was saying and gave his view appropriate weight. I think editors unfamiliar with the preceding drama may find this decision perplexing and more on the history would be helpful in the closing

3968:, I don't see a consensus either way here, and no consensus as delete clearly did not have consensus to implement in the absence of a subject request. I also see the coverage being quite substantive and for multiple events here. BLP is intended to exclude 884:

and restore article history. This gamery has got to stop. If people want the article deleted, close the original Afd as delete, and we can have the deletion review of that extremely screwy debate, because NW either cannot or will not answer some simple

3826:

as nominator is either unable or unwilling to articulate a valid reason for a review of the closing administrator's actions beyond "I don't like it". Simple disagreements make this a 2nd chapter of the AfD, which is not what the venue is meant to be.

2365:

enough. But I'm not sure he did (I don't have the book at hand today) --he is more likely to be referring instead to the closely related term Kairos-- certainly that is the word and the meaning in all the GBooks quotes that refer to his use.

1435:

To me at least it is a matter of process. Do we really delete redirects to relevant articles because someone asks us to? Or even worse, because someone threatens us? Maybe that's process for processes sake, but I'm very uncomfortable with it.

4424:, pretty reasonable close, given the BLP circumstances around this one. There is no real damage done to Knowledge (XXG) by not having an article around this extremely marginally notable person, but there can be damage done to the person if we 4572:. The reason given was "there is sufficient consensus in this AFD that the article should not exist as a standalone article." Considering the breakdown of !votes (18 for deletion, 9 against, a few for a merge), no such consensus exists. 1306:

policy or any other policy, guideline or common consensus. We do not have a policy that we will help people manipulate the results given by third-party search engines. Searching for my name produces as a top result a WP article about

494:

of the redirect. The redirect was deleted out of process without a discussion at RfD and without meeting any of the criteria for speedy deletion. NW's reasoning for ignoring the rules and deleting the redirect is, frankly, weak.

3161:

Internet is capable of. But I think we're taking ourselves far too seriously if we think deleting content on utterly non-notable people reduces our potential to be "a collection of information which is valuable to all mankind".

1681:

Very clearly against normal procedure for merge closes, and after an AfD where there were reasons for questioning the deletes, not the keeps. No reason based in policy or common sense for not having a redirect with history as

3019:

Juliancolton: First, if BLP is not comprehensive and if there is a systematic need for more guidelines and policies, let's propose and discuss them. Admins should decide "how to best deal with the circumstances at hand" by

78:- There is no consensus for the article/history deletion to be overturned. There is however much argument that the redirect should remain. Dredging through all this I'm closing this as deletion/merge of the article as done 2139:, as suggested above, if you can do better, do it in userspace, but the nominator does not offer any indicator of what substantive independent reliable source coverage exists, nor was any such provided at the AfD. 645:- 14 afds and countless articles. Knowledge (XXG) treated this guy like shit, and keeping a needless redirect either out of spite or process wankery is contemptible. Move on folks, it is the right thing to do.-- 3934:. I followed these steps, the closure is far from being obvious, and what is disruptive, if anything, are your attempts at misrepresenting the opinion of people who disagree with you, and intimidating them. -- 719:

cites Brandt be "Brandt-hate". He doesn't want the link because of the quirks of Google ranking algorithms, but that's hardly our problem, and that's hardly "hating" him to maintain a simple redirect. Please.

2360:

notable--unlike the case of its use by a major author in the field. If the only author using it in the manner suggested here is Russell in his thesis, I would not say it was notable. If the application to

3910:

No, you really don't, but whatever. This is a flawed and disruptive DRV brought for no other reason than you disagree with the close. That is abuse of the process, and should be dealt with accordingly.

4550: 401: 168: 3210:

But I think we're taking ourselves far too seriously if we think deleting content on utterly non-notable people reduces our potential to be "a collection of information which is valuable to all mankind"

1006:

It wasn't you I necessarily meant... But it would be nice if admins who have done wrong would admit and reverse their mistakes instead of trying to justify them or blaming others for pointing them out.

2873:

reason to believe the closing admin made a blatantly erroneous closure, not to try to get the desired result by starting a new thread—which, with all due respect, is what I believe is happening here. –

1067:

The discussion of the community resulted in consensus to merge/redirect; we know this because you closed the AfD that way. To then delete it unilaterally is to override/ignore a community discussion.

4039:

consensus that it applies, then it does not.. There is no admin discretion to ignore the community, our discretion is to do what the community wants even though there is no specific rule provided.

1655:

Behind-the-scenes talk on Knowledge (XXG) Review, IRC, whatever shouldn't affect any potentially-controversial administrative actions on-wiki. If the redirect is problematic, put it up for deletion.

3845:

The (main) reason is: the closer appealed a non-existent consensus. And no, again, this is not meant to be AfD part 2, this is meant to debate the outcome of the AfD. Would you all please put your

789:"regardless of editorial judgment" - that's already been made and the article has been rightfully deleted. But here we are again, at another pointless divisive DRV. The article quite simply failed 1975:, I'm sorry you're disappointed in the outcome, and you're welcome to work on a version of the article in your userspace then return to deletion review when it appears as though the article meets 1289:

of the redirect. The AFD was not closed as delete, nor was there a DRV discussion to change that result. The redirect does not meet any CSD criterion, and there was no RFD discussion of it. The

3868:

Er, this isn't a strawman; don't use terms you do not understand, pls. You disagree with the closer about consensus. That is all this is, there is no assertion that the closer did something

475:, or pointed to "Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Google Watch (n nomination)"? Try searching now and see what you see. The deletion of reasonable search-term redirects is stupid. -- 3095: 386:

Could the two of you indicate which debate you are referring to? As far as I can tell, the debate was closed as a redirect and then the redirect was later deleted. Could you clarify?

2603: 2724:

Many of the delete !votes acknowledged nonetheless that the page passes notability guidelines, per links to academic books and by the fact that she is notable for several incidents

4164:, last I recall, demand the complete deletion of articles on notable people - only that all defamatory information which cannot be sourced is immediately deleted. I agree with 3411:, in my view, to have an article on a mentally disturbed person whose only claim to notability is due to her mental disturbance. This is not a biography that we absolutely 2368:. (The adjective kairotic seems to usually refer just to Kairos). I would suggest the rewritten article try to give more of the context. I am by no means convinced. 2894:

policy via their closes (and in many cases admit it). Those clearly need to come to DrV. As does the one where a new admin made a pretty wrong-headed closing statement.

1032:-- it's one thing to invoke IAR in the absence of a community discussion -- but using it to override/ignore a discussion that has already taken place goes much too far. 4584:, and for the second see Cyclopia's comment in the AFD where she linked three separate books which discussed the website in detail. There are also many web sources. 3651: 1699:

I think that the decision to delete the redirect was perfectly reasonable. In all honesty, from my quick reading of the AFD, the consensus was really to delete anyway.

48: 34: 4291:

This business of picking and choosing what are "icky subjects" is disconcerting. There are BLP concerns and were this the AfD I could be convinced that the subjects

2574: 823:

discussing it, and no one can disagree that it is a reasonable search term. About the "why", however, it is maybe because, ehm, such subjects are actually notable? --

4376:

so I don't miss it. I'm trying to learn a general principle here, and so far all I'm seeing is opinions that can't be extended and seem to be arbitrarily applied.

2918:

is not for mere disagreeing with the result, but because BLPs are often being treated by a small subset of admins very differently than other articles: what I mean,

1920: 4137:- Subject known for 2 different topics separated in time and space (was an important figure in creating the 1980s SRA panic, and later became mentally ill): thus 43: 463:

I think this debate is confusing regarding the question of the XfD and the question of the deletion of the redirect (after the history was moved elsewhere). I

3437:

I understand your concerns, really. I think that cherry-picking subjects that you personally deem unfit ("unseemly") for an article, despite notability, is a

199:, so the reason given in NuclearWarfare's edit summary ("No reason to keep this redirect around") is not sufficient to account for this article's deletion. 2275: 1112:

S Marshall, I'm not really sure what you mean. I never hid the fact that I deleted a measly redirect per DB's request. Could you explain further please?

2076:

Consensus is clear. No serious issues have been raised. No objection to a new article if substantial new sources are presented. That has not happened.

4141:

rationale cannot be applied. Closing admin misrepresented the level of consensus. Closing admin was also on a messageboard where votes were canvassed.

2926:

or other policies. I guess that if BLP articles are deleted correctly following consensus and policies, there will be a sudden drop in such DRVs. --

2198:– Restored without prejudice to another AFD at editorial discretion (really no point leaving this hangoing round for the end of the 7 day period) – 246:

Oh, for pities sake. Are we to be Daniel Brandt's puppets? Restore the redirect and page history, that deletion was totally without justification.

4580:

This aside, there were two main arguments for deletion: the article is no longer notable, and a lack of reliable sources. As for the first, see

3714:. That said, could someone please, please explain everyone with some detail what are such vague "BLP concerns" that absolutely require deletion 1781:

deletion, given the dozens of souces, but a delete and redirect seems harmless. In fact, it may better forestall the recreation of an article.

620:

Of course, "being banned does not prevent" administrators from acting on a genuinely justified request for "deletion on BLP grounds." However,

3237:, but we would be much more busy discovering about people whose name we would have otherwise forgot forever, to understand fully that society. 2850:

Agreed. I'm supporting the close (if just barely) and I see plenty of reason to bring this here. Certainly reasonable for DrV to look at.

4469:– Closed as MOOT as DRV cannot undo a merge. Merges are a matter for editorial discretion and do not require admin tools to fix. Please see 863: 2612: 2308: 39: 516:. I hope you learned something from this. People aren't stupid; you're hurting the cause rather than helping it when you do it this way. 2562: 1704: 1667: 624:

deletion (or other administrative action) requires some articulated basis beyond the mere fact that a banned user requested the action.

227:, per nom. The closer is of course entitled to agree with Brandt, but should go through the proper venues to propose such a deletion. -- 2642: 4538: 2805: 2800:

Is there an increase? Looks about like the same level of attempts to make Drv Afd2 as always, although I have not made a study of it.

1908: 150: 3399:

I rarely do this, but I think this is just one of the subjects on which we should not have an article, not because she does not pass

471:

on the out-of-process deletion of the history-less redirect. When someone does searches for "google watch", do we want them sent to

3084:. I expect WP to be a thoroughly comprehensive encyclopaedia. That is, the goal should be that everything which has been covered by 983: 1573:

Keeping the redirect is an important part of the merge. If the content of the Google Watch article is now in Criticism of Google,

4177: 4006: 3099: 1840: 1222: 1173: 1144: 1099: 602:, since being banned does not prevent one from requesting such a deletion on BLP grounds. Some people here just need to let go. 21: 4104: 3358:

per Hobit, mostly. The BLP1E argument was fairly weak, but there are serious BLP concerns here independent of the BLP1E issue.

2158: 191: 1619:

Office. No one individual admin, is a better judge--and this out of process deletion of the redirect shows that very well.

3638: 2583: 2398: 2347: 2263: 2098: 686:- I'm not seeing any problems with NW's decisions nor actions here. This time-wasting Brandt-hate needs to stop already, and 500: 2628: 3525:

If you call yourself, Cyclopia and a few others who always take up more than half of these DRVs a consensus... *coughs*. --

2342:

because this article might not be deleted today given the changes to reliable sources policy. Relist at AfD if so desired.

4559: 1929: 177: 2005:. Straightforward close. There is no quorum at AFD, and in any event five !votes exceed whatever threshold there may be. 4337: 4323: 3480: 1992: 1957: 775: 521: 255: 4803: 4634: 4488: 4444: 2512: 2461: 2213: 2173: 1858: 1807: 100: 17: 4173: 4002: 3380:, protection etc.? Which ones? Neither the closer nor you ever explained why such "concerns" qualify for deletion. -- 1426: 1390: 3925:"Dealt with accordingly"? Is it your habit to intimidate everyone who happens to disagree with you? But let me quote 1700: 4100: 2486:– Deletion endorsed. General consensus here was that the close was within the realm of administrator discretion. – 2154: 1072: 1037: 979: 2601:

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is

1257:

P.D.: the history has been posted in the other talk page for attribution, NuclearWarfare already performed a merge

4384: 4209: 4190: 4172:

above. Put the article back and delete all insufficiently sourced assertions, if that's what you feel is needed.

3742:

than other articles. I just don't get why there's so much fuss about something that should be uncontroversial. --

3634: 3588: 3499: 2343: 2284: 2094: 646: 496: 378: 3887:

it is the venue for the second: If a closer reads consensus where there is none (or v/v), I'd call it something

3650:-- an article for the sole purpose of describing a living person's craziness is inconsistent with intent of the 2674: 4595: 4412: 4260: 2494: 1537: 1263:. So, there is no problem with keeping the history deleted, I think that we can simply re-create the redirect. 1120: 1055: 994: 563: 333: 205: 2734: 2064: 4661:, since the merge compromise of the latest AfD fell to pieces with the latest deletions/merges and he hasn't 3737:

I'm well aware of what AGF says, I'm also well aware of what policy wonkery is. You need to stop citing that

3511:

to do it by doing their canvasing off-site. The next discussion at WP:DEL will be like the last half dozen.

2916:

any non-straightforward BLP-related AfD is brought to DRV by someone who happens to disagree with the result.

4142: 3977: 3472: 1984: 1662: 767: 517: 247: 4792: 4769: 4746: 4727: 4707: 4687: 4647: 4626: 4607: 4477: 4432: 4416: 4399: 4351: 4304: 4283: 4264: 4247: 4224: 4193: 4181: 4129: 4108: 4091: 4067: 4050: 4026: 4010: 3985: 3948: 3920: 3905: 3881: 3863: 3836: 3818: 3791: 3763: 3732: 3692: 3663: 3642: 3625: 3605: 3591: 3563: 3546: 3520: 3502: 3485: 3455: 3428: 3394: 3367: 3349: 3330: 3311: 3291: 3268: 3254: 3240:

Finally, where can we move this discussion? It is going to be waaay offtopic. My place or your place? :) --

3183: 3125: 3075: 3053: 2978: 2962: 2940: 2903: 2884: 2859: 2841: 2809: 2795: 2778: 2658: 2632: 2501: 2450: 2429: 2412: 2379: 2351: 2334: 2301: 2202: 2162: 2145: 2131: 2102: 2085: 2068: 2050: 2033: 2014: 1997: 1962: 1947: 1847: 1796: 1769: 1752: 1730: 1708: 1691: 1673: 1647: 1630: 1610: 1590: 1568: 1544: 1524: 1503: 1490: 1472: 1445: 1430: 1410: 1395: 1377: 1359: 1342: 1325: 1277: 1248: 1229: 1205: 1180: 1151: 1127: 1106: 1076: 1062: 1041: 1016: 1001: 974: 957: 937: 920: 899: 876: 837: 817: 780: 756: 734: 706: 678: 649: 633: 611: 590: 570: 546: 525: 504: 484: 458: 431: 413: 395: 381: 361: 340: 308: 291: 277: 260: 241: 217: 89: 4034:

though the article needs to be written carefully and watched, she is nonetheless notable. BLP policy does

3816: 3441:

violation: it brings, at least, a substantial bias on our scope. However thanks for your clarification. --

3181: 3073: 2960: 2882: 2793: 2366: 2031: 1943: 955: 715:

Please tell me with a straight face how a simple redirect for a reasonable search term to an article that

3671:

BLP concerns are valid, I'm getting a little tired of Cyclopia and others using DRV as forum shopping. --

2617: 2060: 1333:

The decision to delete the redirect was a good and proper one, and supported by the consensus on the AfD

4125: 4120:

statement (because this opinion seems to be present even at this DRV and per DGG's persuasive argument.

2745:(2)we do not delete for issues that are not yet present, and that can anyway be dealt with editing, per 2739:

She was only known for "stalking" celebs, and an article like that would always have serious BLP issues.

1373: 1273: 1244: 1068: 1033: 907:

but restore the redirect. The game of poking Brandt with a sharp stick has long since lost its novelty.

534: 3769: 3738: 3579:... as Julian says, it would be nice if every single BLP didn't get DRVed regardless of the outcome. ++ 2730:

When asked on the talk page, the closer admin explained the closure with arguments that, in my opinion

1738:: I noted in the AfD discussion that this would inevitably close as delete, which would be completely 1717: 282:

To be clear, admins shouldn't be deleting redirects on their own that don't meet the speedy criteria.

4723: 4643: 4603: 4243: 3287: 2801: 1833: 1219: 1170: 1141: 1096: 895: 213: 4588: 4151: 3974: 3596:

Probably would happen more if the admins closing the BLPs followed policy more often. Just saying.

4788: 4569: 4408: 4256: 3659: 3345: 2487: 1791: 1578: 1530: 1338: 1299: 1113: 1048: 1008: 987: 986:. If you want to call for my head, please do so through proper channels instead of dramamongering. 966: 929: 629: 585: 556: 542: 480: 472: 454: 446: 409: 357: 326: 196: 86: 4389: 4214: 3508: 3507:

Na, a group of admins are just trying to get around a consensus they don't like, and are skirting

4767: 4742: 4703: 4685: 4238:

strengthening this nonsensical application of current policy is not the way to go about doing so.

4023: 3994: 3980: 3946: 3903: 3861: 3846: 3789: 3730: 3453: 3424: 3392: 3363: 3261: 3252: 3123: 3051: 2938: 2839: 2784:

Why has it become increasingly apparent that DRV is being used as a vehicle for forum shopping? –

2776: 2664: 2595: 2532: 2446: 2392: 2330: 2297: 2140: 2010: 1748: 1726: 1657: 1566: 1468: 1350:

The eventual outcome is the right one, and as SirFozzie notes is supported by the AfD consensus.

1012: 970: 933: 871: 835: 732: 304: 239: 4662: 4581: 4295:

wasn't enough, but I can't justify counting numbers in that debate and coming up with "delete".

4138: 4255:

this was a proper close. Do No Harm and BLP concerns override many other potential objections.

4508: 4300: 4063: 3809: 3621: 3174: 3066: 2953: 2875: 2786: 2081: 2024: 1972: 1939: 1878: 1643: 1355: 948: 120: 4147: 3438: 2742: 4364: 4331: 4317: 4189:

perfectly valid close and I'm fairly sick of treating living people as a inhouse football.--

4121: 3750: 3679: 3533: 2118: 2093:

The consensus to delete was clear. The only "keep" voter did not present a strong argument.

1952: 1687: 1607: 1586: 1520: 1406: 1369: 1321: 1308: 1269: 1240: 890:

everyone and go and delete it anyway, and then claim you are somehow doing the right thing.

665: 4734: 4470: 4392: 4292: 4272:

The closing admin himself said he was not convinced by the allegations of BLP violation.

4217: 4157: 3926: 3756: 3715: 3711: 3685: 3539: 3416: 3377: 2923: 2757: 2746: 2713: 2124: 1976: 1739: 1551: 1303: 1294: 1088:

However, we should be more honest about the reasons why we delete Brandt-related articles.—

867: 858: 790: 671: 322: 4719: 4639: 4599: 4239: 3601: 3559: 3516: 3326: 3307: 3283: 2974: 2899: 2855: 2425: 2046: 1765: 1441: 1212: 1163: 1134: 1089: 1047:

been closed as delete; there was a perfectly fine consensus to do so at the AfD itself...

891: 427: 391: 287: 273: 209: 4715: 3404: 3085: 2741:

is especially worrying because (1)we are not here to judge why a subject is notable, per

2438: 2322: 1980: 4783:. This is an absurd nomination and it shows a worryingly high level of poor judgment. -- 4591:(see the AFD for details), and I think it would be best to get some more eyes on this. 797:

to Knowledge (XXG), somehow, that we have to fight tooth-and-nail to keep them. Now why

4784: 4622: 4429: 4347: 3916: 3877: 3832: 3655: 3341: 2408: 1783: 1501: 1486: 1334: 625: 607: 577: 538: 476: 450: 405: 353: 83: 3807:- Given the nature of the page, deletion falls within the realm of admin discretion. – 3552: 3400: 2318: 2153:. Both notability and copyright issues; close accurately reflects !voting discussion. 4756: 4738: 4699: 4674: 4658: 4381: 4373: 4279: 4206: 4046: 3935: 3892: 3850: 3778: 3719: 3584: 3495: 3442: 3420: 3381: 3359: 3241: 3222: 3112: 3040: 2927: 2828: 2765: 2528: 2482: 2442: 2388: 2375: 2326: 2293: 2233: 2006: 1744: 1722: 1626: 1555: 1478: 1464: 1421: 1201: 915: 909: 824: 721: 374: 317: 300: 228: 2041:

Couldn't be closed any other way. Agree that salting this would be the wrong thing.

4504: 4474: 4465: 4360: 4296: 4169: 4059: 3617: 3226: 3218: 2692: 2680: 2648: 2199: 2077: 1874: 1828: 1639: 1574: 1351: 763: 552: 162: 116: 70: 4635:

Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review#Principal purpose - challenging deletion decisions

3775:

don't get why there's so much fuss about something that should be uncontroversial.

657:- I am not seeing a problem with NW's decision. This is what I would have done. -- 2627:

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to

1716:

Clearly out of process deletion of redirect. This is an appropriate redirect per

1302:

article when they searched for him! This "issue" is in no way a violation of the

4327: 4313: 4076: 3768:

If they were indeed "changing", it would be apparent from the consensus in that

3744: 3673: 3527: 3164: 2112: 1683: 1603: 1582: 1516: 1402: 1317: 802: 741: 691: 659: 3597: 3555: 3512: 3322: 3303: 2970: 2895: 2851: 2421: 2420:

per Crit. Trusted editor thinks they can fix the issues, I say let them try.

2042: 1761: 1437: 423: 387: 283: 269: 3554:

a consensus. I'm pretty sure you are aware of it, as you commented there...

4618: 4342: 3912: 3873: 3828: 3025: 2403: 1496: 1482: 1401:

classified as "inflammatory" based on one person's irrational complaints. --

928:, but the admins who abuse their tools in this way should resign in shame.-- 603: 4117: 4377: 4274: 4202: 4165: 4041: 3580: 3491: 3490:

Um, not. AfD and DRVs tell us if things are shifting or not. They are. ++

2370: 2229: 2194: 1621: 1196: 370: 1718:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirect#Sub-topics and small topics in broader contexts

3997:, please read the final comment in that thread. The closing admin was 3230: 2752:

For all these reasons I believe the correct closure should have been

1162:

None of the above remarks are meant as criticism of you, in any way.—

1983:, the discussion and my close of it were perfectly within process. 402:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Google Watch (4th nomination)

316:: I have already provided a copy of the Wikitext of the article to 3259:

Of note, there is no "right of free speech" on Knowledge (XXG). —

3201: 3169: 467:

the XfD decision, as a fair reading of rough consensus, but !vote

449:, was deleted for no real reason, is a reasonable search term. -- 4594:

NOTE: I have already discussed this with the closing admin. See

4407:

both sides said their piece, and here they're just repeating it.

3156:

Let me try this again. No website is worth ruining people's real

1424:

mentions, this is just stick poking for the sake of stick poking

3282:, it is clear that no consensus was established in this debate. 3234: 3102:), estimates are that ~0.1% of all ~500.000 BLPs ever presented 4118:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT#I_don.27t_like_it

537:

is, by itself, an insufficient justification for any deletion.

3777:

maybe it means that it is controversial, what do you think? --

2590: 1778: 1602:. "Merge" =/= "delete", even if you rearrange the letters. -- 866:, but it's not speedyable, and I see no rationale for why an 690:

needs to move on (yes, myself included). Let it go already -

4075:- I'm not seeing an issue with this admin's decision here - 4058:. This close is well within the bounds of admin discretion. 3415:

have. If necessary, consider this an explicit invocation of

2621:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, 1389:

the deletion of this unnecessary and inflammatory redirect.

4714:

Why not? I do not see that anywhere on the DRV page or in

4673:

something I am going to do soon (so keep guns down :) ). --

3633:

BLP concerns place this in the realm of admin discretion.

2611:

among Knowledge (XXG) contributors. Knowledge (XXG) has

204:

Note: I have discussed this with the deleting admin. See

190:, even though the consensus at the AFD was for a merge. 2321:

issue was not fully addressed by nom, but the change in

4545: 4531: 4523: 4515: 2731: 2569: 2555: 2547: 2539: 2270: 2256: 2248: 2240: 1915: 1901: 1893: 1885: 1721:

on that basis should be ignored in making the closure.

1261: 1258: 886: 514: 157: 143: 135: 127: 2437:

without prejudice to another AFD. Given the change in

2716:

concerns. Problems I identify with the closure are:

793:, plain and simple. Yet somehow, these articles are 3168:the word. Notability is a term that WP has frankly 2317:Might be a good idea to relist this at AfD as the 1293:justification for this completely out-of-process, 1368:The AFD consensus was to merge, not to delete. -- 225:Overturn (i.e. allow the redirect to be restored) 208:. He consented to a review of his actions here. 206:User talk:NuclearWarfare#Deletion of Google Watch 4144:- that alone taints the AfD (and this DRV) with 3094:happens, yet when attempted to quantify it (see 2309:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for undeletion#Kairosis 3932:the closure at Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review. 4596:User talk:NuclearWarfare#Merge of Google Watch 4577:users as the basis for their own decisions. 352:. This is how I would've closed the debate. -- 2641:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected 2292:Change in Reliable Sources policy since 2008 8: 3701:Again? If you think this is forum shopping, 2401:), who is experienced with sourcing issues. 1550:redirect if it is a useful search term -see 1515:. The AfD resulted in Merge, so merge it. -- 1455:-- There surely are people who did not vote 4487:The following is an archived debate of the 3705:is. I listed several points which made the 3217:people" is far more worrying than deleting 2914:Juliancolton, my personal guess is that if 2511:The following is an archived debate of the 2212:The following is an archived debate of the 1857:The following is an archived debate of the 1260:, and other content was merged by Cyclopia 99:The following is an archived debate of the 4694:DRV cannot overturn a merge to a keep, so 4458: 3190:No website is worth ruining people's real 2615:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and 2475: 2187: 1821: 63: 4568:The outcome of this AFD was a merge with 3340:. Looks like a reasonable close to me. -- 3200:Notability is a term that WP has frankly 551:Please note that this is the banned user 4114:Overturn to No consensus default to keep 3229:: We would be reading their articles on 3064:? This is very disappointing Cyclopia. – 2827:, that's another question. Thank you. -- 2635:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. 1760:, per DGG, an out of process deletion. 1133:normal Wikipedian custom and practice.— 3080:I don't avoid BLP-related discussion 3028:, and for sure it's not what we want. 7: 4587:Add to these reasons a violation of 3652:biographies of living persons policy 2727:The subject did not request deletion 2441:, let's allow some reconsideration. 2387:. Sound rationale as given above by 1477:Repercussions? Like what, an ASCII 984:Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Requests 862:redirect should be deleted, there's 4806:of the page listed in the heading. 4718:. Could you please explain this? 4447:of the page listed in the heading. 4022:per Tarc. This is not AFD round 2. 2464:of the page listed in the heading. 2176:of the page listed in the heading. 1810:of the page listed in the heading. 600:Endorse and stop the drama queenery 186:Here we go again, folks. Page was 4326:) on this one. The close by admin 3616:that I'd be inclined to overturn. 3163:Obviously, public figures such as 1495:Like being listed at Hivemind... – 1309:an attempted Presidential assassin 28: 1777:. I'm not clear why there was an 4665:. Just a suggestion, definitely 3716:instead of editing or protection 3378:cannot be addressed with editing 3100:back of the envelope calculation 2594: 2357:Permit restoration in user space 533:-- a request by the banned user 4802:The above is an archive of the 4443:The above is an archive of the 3929:just for the sake of argument: 3022:following policy and guidelines 2460:The above is an archive of the 2172:The above is an archive of the 2110:- Close was done per policy. -- 1806:The above is an archive of the 422:close still reads as "merge". 400:Sorry, I thought it was clear: 18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review 3966:Overturn and optionally relist 2325:may justify a new discussion. 1: 4793:05:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 4770:05:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 4747:05:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 4728:04:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 4708:03:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 4688:03:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 4648:03:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 4627:03:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 4608:02:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 4478:06:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 4433:08:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC) 4417:20:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 4400:17:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 4352:12:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 4305:05:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 4284:03:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 4265:21:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 4248:16:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 4225:16:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 4194:23:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC) 4182:22:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC) 4130:18:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC) 4109:22:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 4092:21:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 4068:21:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 4051:17:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 4027:05:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 4011:23:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC) 3986:03:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 3949:23:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 3921:23:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 3906:23:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 3882:23:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 3864:03:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 3837:03:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 3819:02:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 3792:22:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 3764:05:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 3733:02:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 3693:02:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 3664:01:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 3643:00:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 3626:23:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 3606:23:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 3592:22:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 3564:06:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 3547:05:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 3521:23:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 3503:22:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 3486:22:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 3456:21:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 3429:20:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 3395:20:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 3368:19:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 3350:17:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 3331:03:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 3321:AfD or policy to support it. 3312:17:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 3292:15:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 3269:16:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 3255:02:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 3184:02:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 3126:02:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 3076:01:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 3054:23:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 2979:23:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 2963:23:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 2941:22:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 2904:22:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 2885:21:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 2860:20:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 2842:18:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 2810:14:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 2796:14:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 2779:13:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 2631:on the part of others and to 2502:00:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC) 2451:16:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 2430:03:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 2413:12:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 2380:17:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 2352:00:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 2335:18:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 2302:14:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 2203:17:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 2163:21:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 2146:06:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 2132:02:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 2103:00:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 2086:23:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 2069:23:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 2051:22:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 2034:21:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 2015:18:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 1998:18:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 1963:18:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 1948:18:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 1848:23:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC) 1797:14:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC) 1775:Overturn deletion of redirect 1770:22:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC) 1758:Overturn deletion of redirect 1753:12:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC) 1731:20:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 1714:Overturn deletion of redirect 1709:23:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 1692:18:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 1674:12:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 1648:05:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 1631:03:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 1611:02:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 1591:13:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 1569:20:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 1545:20:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 1525:19:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 1504:14:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 1491:14:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 1481:left on someone's user page? 1473:09:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 1463:here fearing repercussions.-- 1459:in the Afd and will not vote 1446:23:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC) 1431:16:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC) 1411:20:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC) 1396:15:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC) 1378:14:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 1360:21:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 1343:17:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 1326:17:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 1278:13:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC) 1249:16:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 1230:01:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC) 1206:16:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 1181:01:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC) 1152:01:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC) 1128:17:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 1107:14:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 1077:09:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC) 1063:17:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 1042:13:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 1017:17:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 1002:17:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 975:13:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 958:12:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 938:11:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 921:11:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 900:10:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 877:06:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 838:03:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 818:03:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 781:03:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 757:03:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 735:03:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 707:03:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 679:02:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 650:02:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 634:01:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 612:01:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 591:14:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC) 571:04:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 547:00:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 526:00:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 505:00:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 485:11:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 459:23:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 432:00:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 414:23:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 396:23:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 382:22:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 362:22:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 341:22:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 309:22:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 292:23:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 278:22:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 261:21:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 242:21:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 218:20:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 90:21:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC) 4638:quote, please explain how. 2922:differently than allowed by 1697:Endorse deletion of redirect 3970:unsourced or poorly sourced 684:Endorse and move on already 4829: 3096:this thread for an example 980:User:NuclearWarfare/Recall 4367:, both of whom are very, 3419:as a basis for my !vote. 1701:Santa Claus of the Future 4809:Please do not modify it. 4494:Please do not modify it. 4450:Please do not modify it. 4387:Knowledge (XXG)'s rules: 4212:Knowledge (XXG)'s rules: 4156:. And most importantly, 3407:, but because it's just 2518:Please do not modify it. 2467:Please do not modify it. 2219:Please do not modify it. 2179:Please do not modify it. 1864:Please do not modify it. 1813:Please do not modify it. 325:and delete the article. 106:Please do not modify it. 40:Deletion review archives 4755:Makes perfect sense. -- 3354:I hate those BLP DRVs. 3263:The Hand That Feeds You 2721:possible BLP1E concerns 2673:; accounts blocked for 2643:single-purpose accounts 2613:policies and guidelines 946:Over one redirect...? – 4491:of the article above. 4174:AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 4003:AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 3091:reporting public facts 2733:basically amounted to 2515:of the article above. 2216:of the article above. 1861:of the article above. 1832:– Decision endorsed – 868:exception is warranted 103:of the article above. 4669:to discuss here, and 4101:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz 3082:precisely for my view 2155:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz 1237:Overturn deletion.... 4663:ceased to be notable 3635:A Stop at Willoughby 2344:A Stop at Willoughby 2095:A Stop at Willoughby 497:A Stop at Willoughby 323:exercise my judgment 4570:Criticism of Google 4340:) was appropriate. 4293:marginal notability 3316:Bah, I'm moving to 3109:every BLP from here 2625:by counting votes. 2604:not a majority vote 1979:. According to our 1969:Comment from closer 1579:Criticism of Google 1577:should take you to 1300:Criticism of Google 473:Criticism of Google 447:Criticism of Google 197:Criticism of Google 2708:AfD was closed as 2022:, valid closure. – 1552:WP:DEL#Redirection 268:come on, really? 4816: 4815: 4457: 4456: 4388: 4213: 4199:Overturn, restore 4001:that discussion. 3984: 3762: 3712:assume good faith 3691: 3545: 3298:very weak endorse 3280:Overturn and keep 2808: 2735:"I don't like it" 2706: 2705: 2702: 2629:assume good faith 2474: 2473: 2186: 2185: 2144: 2130: 1844: 1820: 1819: 1529:It was merged... 1287:Overturn deletion 919: 875: 677: 492:Overturn deletion 4820: 4811: 4765: 4759: 4683: 4677: 4562: 4557: 4548: 4534: 4526: 4518: 4496: 4459: 4452: 4396: 4380: 4365:Florentino Floro 4221: 4205: 4089: 4086: 4084: 3983: 3944: 3938: 3901: 3895: 3859: 3853: 3812: 3787: 3781: 3759: 3753: 3743: 3728: 3722: 3688: 3682: 3672: 3577:Endorse deletion 3542: 3536: 3526: 3483: 3479: 3475: 3451: 3445: 3390: 3384: 3338:Endorse deletion 3264: 3250: 3244: 3177: 3121: 3115: 3069: 3049: 3043: 2956: 2936: 2930: 2878: 2837: 2831: 2804: 2789: 2774: 2768: 2712:, allegedly for 2700: 2688: 2672: 2656: 2637: 2607:, but instead a 2598: 2591: 2586: 2581: 2572: 2558: 2550: 2542: 2520: 2497: 2476: 2469: 2287: 2282: 2273: 2259: 2251: 2243: 2221: 2188: 2181: 2143: 2137:Endorse deletion 2127: 2121: 2111: 2027: 1995: 1991: 1987: 1955: 1932: 1927: 1918: 1904: 1896: 1888: 1866: 1845: 1842: 1837: 1822: 1815: 1795: 1788: 1670: 1665: 1660: 1564: 1558: 1540: 1392:*** Crotalus *** 1227: 1217: 1178: 1168: 1149: 1139: 1123: 1104: 1094: 1069:Nomoskedasticity 1058: 1034:Nomoskedasticity 997: 951: 913: 905:Endorse deletion 874: 864:a place for that 833: 827: 815: 812: 810: 778: 774: 770: 754: 751: 749: 730: 724: 704: 701: 699: 674: 668: 658: 589: 582: 566: 445:the redirect to 336: 321:so I decided to 258: 254: 250: 237: 231: 192:Brandt requested 180: 175: 160: 146: 138: 130: 108: 64: 59:12 December 2009 53: 49:2009 December 13 35:2009 December 11 33: 4828: 4827: 4823: 4822: 4821: 4819: 4818: 4817: 4807: 4804:deletion review 4763: 4762: 4757: 4681: 4680: 4675: 4558: 4556: 4553: 4544: 4543: 4537: 4530: 4529: 4522: 4521: 4514: 4513: 4492: 4489:deletion review 4448: 4445:deletion review 4397: 4394: 4312:. I agree with 4222: 4219: 4191:Scott Mac (Doc) 4082: 4080: 4077: 3942: 3941: 3936: 3899: 3898: 3893: 3857: 3856: 3851: 3810: 3785: 3784: 3779: 3757: 3751: 3747: 3726: 3725: 3720: 3686: 3680: 3676: 3631:Endorse closure 3540: 3534: 3530: 3481: 3477: 3473: 3449: 3448: 3443: 3388: 3387: 3382: 3262: 3248: 3247: 3242: 3175: 3119: 3118: 3113: 3067: 3047: 3046: 3041: 2954: 2934: 2933: 2928: 2876: 2835: 2834: 2829: 2802:KillerChihuahua 2787: 2772: 2771: 2766: 2762:default to keep 2758:deletion policy 2747:deletion policy 2690: 2678: 2662: 2646: 2633:sign your posts 2582: 2580: 2577: 2568: 2567: 2561: 2554: 2553: 2546: 2545: 2538: 2537: 2516: 2513:deletion review 2495: 2465: 2462:deletion review 2283: 2281: 2278: 2269: 2268: 2262: 2255: 2254: 2247: 2246: 2239: 2238: 2217: 2214:deletion review 2177: 2174:deletion review 2125: 2119: 2115: 2091:Endorse closure 2025: 1993: 1989: 1985: 1981:deletion policy 1960: 1953: 1928: 1926: 1923: 1914: 1913: 1907: 1900: 1899: 1892: 1891: 1884: 1883: 1862: 1859:deletion review 1841: 1835: 1811: 1808:deletion review 1784: 1782: 1668: 1663: 1658: 1562: 1561: 1556: 1554:for example. -- 1538: 1226: 1223: 1213: 1177: 1174: 1164: 1148: 1145: 1135: 1121: 1103: 1100: 1090: 1056: 995: 949: 859:speedy deletion 831: 830: 825: 808: 806: 803: 776: 772: 768: 747: 745: 742: 728: 727: 722: 697: 695: 692: 672: 666: 662: 647:Scott Mac (Doc) 578: 576: 564: 334: 299:taking action. 256: 252: 248: 235: 234: 229: 176: 174: 171: 167: 156: 155: 149: 142: 141: 134: 133: 126: 125: 104: 101:deletion review 62: 55: 54: 51: 46: 37: 31: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 4826: 4824: 4814: 4813: 4798: 4797: 4796: 4795: 4781:Endorse result 4777: 4776: 4775: 4774: 4773: 4772: 4760: 4750: 4749: 4711: 4710: 4691: 4690: 4678: 4651: 4650: 4630: 4629: 4614:Endorse result 4574: 4573: 4565: 4564: 4554: 4541: 4535: 4527: 4519: 4511: 4499: 4498: 4483: 4482: 4481: 4480: 4455: 4454: 4439: 4438: 4437: 4436: 4419: 4409:Carlossuarez46 4402: 4393: 4354: 4307: 4286: 4267: 4257:Theserialcomma 4250: 4227: 4218: 4196: 4184: 4132: 4111: 4094: 4070: 4053: 4029: 4016: 4015: 4014: 4013: 3989: 3988: 3962: 3961: 3960: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3955: 3954: 3953: 3952: 3951: 3939: 3896: 3854: 3840: 3839: 3821: 3801: 3800: 3799: 3798: 3797: 3796: 3795: 3794: 3782: 3745: 3723: 3696: 3695: 3674: 3666: 3645: 3628: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3566: 3528: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3462: 3461: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3446: 3432: 3431: 3385: 3376:Concerns that 3371: 3370: 3352: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3294: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3245: 3238: 3207: 3197: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3116: 3044: 3030: 3029: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2966: 2944: 2943: 2931: 2907: 2906: 2888: 2887: 2863: 2862: 2845: 2844: 2832: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2769: 2750: 2749: 2728: 2725: 2722: 2704: 2703: 2599: 2589: 2588: 2578: 2565: 2559: 2551: 2543: 2535: 2523: 2522: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2472: 2471: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2432: 2415: 2382: 2354: 2337: 2314: 2313: 2290: 2289: 2279: 2266: 2260: 2252: 2244: 2236: 2224: 2223: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2184: 2183: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2148: 2134: 2113: 2105: 2088: 2071: 2061:Bradjamesbrown 2053: 2036: 2017: 2000: 1958: 1951: 1935: 1934: 1924: 1911: 1905: 1897: 1889: 1881: 1869: 1868: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1818: 1817: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1772: 1755: 1733: 1711: 1694: 1676: 1650: 1633: 1613: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1571: 1559: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1363: 1362: 1345: 1328: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1252: 1251: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1224: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1175: 1154: 1146: 1101: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 961: 960: 941: 940: 926:Hardly matters 923: 902: 879: 851: 850: 849: 848: 847: 846: 845: 844: 843: 842: 841: 840: 828: 725: 710: 709: 681: 660: 652: 639: 638: 637: 636: 615: 614: 597: 596: 595: 594: 593: 528: 518:Vyvyan Basterd 507: 489: 488: 487: 440: 439: 438: 437: 436: 435: 434: 364: 346: 345: 344: 343: 314:Deleting admin 296: 295: 294: 266:Speedy restore 263: 244: 232: 221: 220: 201: 200: 183: 182: 172: 165: 153: 147: 139: 131: 123: 111: 110: 95: 94: 93: 92: 61: 56: 47: 38: 30: 29: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4825: 4812: 4810: 4805: 4800: 4799: 4794: 4790: 4786: 4782: 4779: 4778: 4771: 4768: 4766: 4754: 4753: 4752: 4751: 4748: 4744: 4740: 4736: 4731: 4730: 4729: 4725: 4721: 4717: 4713: 4712: 4709: 4705: 4701: 4697: 4693: 4692: 4689: 4686: 4684: 4672: 4668: 4664: 4660: 4659:Daniel Brandt 4656: 4653: 4652: 4649: 4645: 4641: 4636: 4632: 4631: 4628: 4624: 4620: 4615: 4612: 4611: 4610: 4609: 4605: 4601: 4597: 4592: 4590: 4585: 4583: 4578: 4571: 4567: 4566: 4561: 4552: 4547: 4540: 4533: 4525: 4517: 4510: 4506: 4503: 4502: 4501: 4500: 4497: 4495: 4490: 4485: 4484: 4479: 4476: 4472: 4468: 4467: 4463: 4462: 4461: 4460: 4453: 4451: 4446: 4441: 4440: 4434: 4431: 4427: 4423: 4420: 4418: 4414: 4410: 4406: 4403: 4401: 4398: 4390: 4386: 4383: 4379: 4375: 4370: 4366: 4362: 4358: 4355: 4353: 4349: 4345: 4344: 4339: 4336: 4333: 4329: 4325: 4322: 4319: 4315: 4311: 4308: 4306: 4302: 4298: 4294: 4290: 4287: 4285: 4281: 4277: 4276: 4271: 4268: 4266: 4262: 4258: 4254: 4251: 4249: 4245: 4241: 4236: 4231: 4228: 4226: 4223: 4215: 4211: 4208: 4204: 4200: 4197: 4195: 4192: 4188: 4185: 4183: 4179: 4175: 4171: 4167: 4163: 4159: 4155: 4154: 4153: 4149: 4143: 4140: 4136: 4133: 4131: 4127: 4123: 4119: 4115: 4112: 4110: 4106: 4102: 4098: 4095: 4093: 4090: 4088: 4074: 4071: 4069: 4065: 4061: 4057: 4054: 4052: 4048: 4044: 4043: 4037: 4033: 4030: 4028: 4025: 4021: 4018: 4017: 4012: 4008: 4004: 4000: 3996: 3995:Seraphimblade 3993: 3992: 3991: 3990: 3987: 3982: 3981:Seraphimblade 3978: 3976: 3971: 3967: 3964: 3963: 3950: 3947: 3945: 3933: 3928: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3918: 3914: 3909: 3908: 3907: 3904: 3902: 3890: 3885: 3884: 3883: 3879: 3875: 3871: 3867: 3866: 3865: 3862: 3860: 3848: 3844: 3843: 3842: 3841: 3838: 3834: 3830: 3825: 3822: 3820: 3817: 3814: 3813: 3806: 3803: 3802: 3793: 3790: 3788: 3776: 3771: 3767: 3766: 3765: 3760: 3754: 3748: 3740: 3736: 3735: 3734: 3731: 3729: 3717: 3713: 3708: 3704: 3700: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3694: 3689: 3683: 3677: 3670: 3667: 3665: 3661: 3657: 3653: 3649: 3646: 3644: 3640: 3636: 3632: 3629: 3627: 3623: 3619: 3614: 3611: 3607: 3603: 3599: 3595: 3594: 3593: 3590: 3586: 3582: 3578: 3575: 3565: 3561: 3557: 3553: 3550: 3549: 3548: 3543: 3537: 3531: 3524: 3523: 3522: 3518: 3514: 3510: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3501: 3497: 3493: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3484: 3476: 3470: 3467: 3466: 3457: 3454: 3452: 3440: 3436: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3430: 3426: 3422: 3418: 3414: 3410: 3406: 3402: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3393: 3391: 3379: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3369: 3365: 3361: 3357: 3353: 3351: 3347: 3343: 3339: 3336: 3332: 3328: 3324: 3319: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3309: 3305: 3300: 3299: 3295: 3293: 3289: 3285: 3281: 3278: 3277: 3270: 3267: 3265: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3253: 3251: 3239: 3236: 3232: 3228: 3224: 3223:Julius Caesar 3220: 3215: 3211: 3208: 3205: 3203: 3198: 3195: 3191: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3182: 3179: 3178: 3171: 3166: 3159: 3155: 3154: 3127: 3124: 3122: 3110: 3105: 3101: 3097: 3092: 3087: 3083: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3074: 3071: 3070: 3063: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3052: 3050: 3037: 3032: 3031: 3027: 3023: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3004: 3003: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2980: 2976: 2972: 2967: 2965: 2964: 2961: 2958: 2957: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2942: 2939: 2937: 2925: 2921: 2917: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2905: 2901: 2897: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2886: 2883: 2880: 2879: 2872: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2861: 2857: 2853: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2843: 2840: 2838: 2826: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2811: 2807: 2803: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2794: 2791: 2790: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2777: 2775: 2763: 2759: 2756:and, per our 2755: 2748: 2744: 2740: 2736: 2732: 2729: 2726: 2723: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2715: 2711: 2698: 2694: 2686: 2682: 2676: 2670: 2666: 2660: 2654: 2650: 2644: 2640: 2636: 2634: 2630: 2624: 2620: 2619: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2605: 2600: 2597: 2593: 2592: 2585: 2576: 2571: 2564: 2557: 2549: 2541: 2534: 2530: 2529:Diana Napolis 2527: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2521: 2519: 2514: 2509: 2508: 2503: 2500: 2498: 2491: 2490: 2485: 2484: 2483:Diana Napolis 2480: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2470: 2468: 2463: 2458: 2457: 2452: 2448: 2444: 2440: 2436: 2433: 2431: 2427: 2423: 2419: 2416: 2414: 2410: 2406: 2405: 2400: 2397: 2394: 2390: 2386: 2383: 2381: 2377: 2373: 2372: 2367: 2363: 2358: 2355: 2353: 2349: 2345: 2341: 2338: 2336: 2332: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2316: 2315: 2310: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2286: 2277: 2272: 2265: 2258: 2250: 2242: 2235: 2231: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2222: 2220: 2215: 2210: 2209: 2204: 2201: 2197: 2196: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2182: 2180: 2175: 2170: 2169: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2149: 2147: 2142: 2141:Seraphimblade 2138: 2135: 2133: 2128: 2122: 2116: 2109: 2106: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2089: 2087: 2083: 2079: 2075: 2072: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2057: 2054: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2037: 2035: 2032: 2029: 2028: 2021: 2018: 2016: 2012: 2008: 2004: 2001: 1999: 1996: 1988: 1982: 1978: 1974: 1970: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1961: 1956: 1949: 1945: 1941: 1931: 1922: 1917: 1910: 1903: 1895: 1887: 1880: 1876: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1867: 1865: 1860: 1855: 1854: 1849: 1846: 1839: 1838: 1831: 1830: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1816: 1814: 1809: 1804: 1803: 1798: 1793: 1789: 1787: 1780: 1776: 1773: 1771: 1767: 1763: 1759: 1756: 1754: 1750: 1746: 1741: 1737: 1734: 1732: 1728: 1724: 1719: 1715: 1712: 1710: 1706: 1702: 1698: 1695: 1693: 1689: 1685: 1680: 1677: 1675: 1672: 1671: 1666: 1661: 1654: 1651: 1649: 1645: 1641: 1637: 1634: 1632: 1628: 1624: 1623: 1617: 1614: 1612: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1598: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1576: 1572: 1570: 1567: 1565: 1553: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1543: 1541: 1534: 1533: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1511: 1505: 1502: 1500: 1499: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1451: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1429: 1428: 1423: 1419: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1394: 1393: 1388: 1385: 1384: 1379: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1361: 1357: 1353: 1349: 1346: 1344: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1329: 1327: 1323: 1319: 1314: 1310: 1305: 1301: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1285: 1284: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1266: 1262: 1259: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1235: 1231: 1228: 1220: 1218: 1216: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1198: 1192: 1189: 1183: 1182: 1179: 1171: 1169: 1167: 1160: 1155: 1153: 1150: 1142: 1140: 1138: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1126: 1124: 1117: 1116: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1105: 1097: 1095: 1093: 1084: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1061: 1059: 1052: 1051: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1039: 1035: 1031: 1028: 1027: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1000: 998: 991: 990: 985: 981: 978: 977: 976: 972: 968: 963: 962: 959: 956: 953: 952: 945: 944: 943: 942: 939: 935: 931: 927: 924: 922: 917: 912: 911: 906: 903: 901: 897: 893: 888: 883: 880: 878: 873: 872:Seraphimblade 869: 865: 860: 856: 853: 852: 839: 836: 834: 821: 820: 819: 816: 814: 800: 796: 792: 788: 784: 783: 782: 779: 771: 765: 764:useful idiots 760: 759: 758: 755: 753: 738: 737: 736: 733: 731: 718: 714: 713: 712: 711: 708: 705: 703: 689: 685: 682: 680: 675: 669: 663: 656: 653: 651: 648: 644: 641: 640: 635: 631: 627: 623: 619: 618: 617: 616: 613: 609: 605: 601: 598: 592: 587: 583: 581: 574: 573: 572: 569: 567: 560: 559: 554: 550: 549: 548: 544: 540: 536: 535:Daniel Brandt 532: 529: 527: 523: 519: 515: 511: 508: 506: 502: 498: 493: 490: 486: 482: 478: 474: 470: 466: 462: 461: 460: 456: 452: 448: 444: 441: 433: 429: 425: 421: 417: 416: 415: 411: 407: 403: 399: 398: 397: 393: 389: 385: 384: 383: 380: 376: 372: 368: 365: 363: 359: 355: 351: 348: 347: 342: 339: 337: 330: 329: 324: 319: 315: 312: 311: 310: 306: 302: 297: 293: 289: 285: 281: 280: 279: 275: 271: 267: 264: 262: 259: 251: 245: 243: 240: 238: 226: 223: 222: 219: 215: 211: 207: 203: 202: 198: 193: 189: 185: 184: 179: 170: 164: 159: 152: 145: 137: 129: 122: 118: 115: 114: 113: 112: 109: 107: 102: 97: 96: 91: 88: 85: 81: 77: 76:A bit of both 73: 72: 68: 67: 66: 65: 60: 57: 50: 45: 44:2009 December 41: 36: 23: 19: 4808: 4801: 4780: 4696:speedy close 4695: 4670: 4666: 4654: 4613: 4593: 4586: 4579: 4575: 4505:Google Watch 4493: 4486: 4466:Google Watch 4464: 4449: 4442: 4425: 4421: 4404: 4368: 4361:John Hinkley 4356: 4341: 4334: 4320: 4309: 4288: 4273: 4269: 4252: 4234: 4229: 4198: 4186: 4161: 4146: 4145: 4134: 4113: 4096: 4078: 4072: 4055: 4040: 4035: 4031: 4019: 3998: 3969: 3965: 3930: 3888: 3869: 3823: 3811:Juliancolton 3808: 3804: 3774: 3706: 3702: 3668: 3647: 3630: 3612: 3576: 3468: 3412: 3408: 3355: 3337: 3317: 3297: 3296: 3279: 3260: 3227:Roman empire 3219:Barack Obama 3213: 3209: 3199: 3193: 3189: 3176:Juliancolton 3173: 3162: 3157: 3108: 3103: 3090: 3081: 3068:Juliancolton 3065: 3061: 3035: 3021: 2955:Juliancolton 2952: 2950: 2919: 2915: 2877:Juliancolton 2874: 2870: 2824: 2788:Juliancolton 2785: 2761: 2754:no consensus 2753: 2751: 2738: 2709: 2707: 2696: 2684: 2675:sockpuppetry 2668: 2657:; suspected 2652: 2638: 2626: 2622: 2616: 2608: 2602: 2517: 2510: 2492: 2488: 2481: 2466: 2459: 2434: 2417: 2402: 2395: 2384: 2369: 2361: 2356: 2339: 2291: 2218: 2211: 2193: 2178: 2171: 2150: 2136: 2107: 2090: 2073: 2055: 2038: 2026:Juliancolton 2023: 2019: 2002: 1973:Michaelh2001 1968: 1940:Michaelh2001 1936: 1875:Nathan Keyes 1863: 1856: 1834: 1829:Nathan Keyes 1827: 1812: 1805: 1785: 1774: 1757: 1735: 1713: 1696: 1678: 1656: 1652: 1635: 1620: 1615: 1599: 1575:Google Watch 1535: 1531: 1512: 1497: 1479:horse's head 1460: 1456: 1452: 1425: 1417: 1391: 1386: 1347: 1330: 1312: 1311:. That does 1290: 1286: 1264: 1236: 1214: 1195: 1190: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1136: 1118: 1114: 1091: 1087: 1053: 1049: 1029: 992: 988: 950:Juliancolton 947: 925: 908: 904: 881: 854: 804: 798: 794: 786: 743: 716: 693: 687: 683: 654: 642: 621: 599: 579: 561: 557: 530: 509: 491: 468: 464: 442: 419: 366: 349: 331: 327: 313: 265: 224: 187: 117:Google Watch 105: 98: 79: 75: 71:Google Watch 69: 58: 4122:Turqoise127 3551:No, I call 3165:Tiger Woods 3098:of a rough 2737:: the line 1370:Enric Naval 1270:Enric Naval 1241:Enric Naval 717:never, ever 369:. Ditto. ++ 4720:Cerebellum 4640:Cerebellum 4600:Cerebellum 4589:WP:CANVASS 4428:keep it. 4240:PelleSmith 4152:WP:TAGTEAM 3752:have a cup 3703:all of DRV 3681:have a cup 3535:have a cup 3284:Cerebellum 2609:discussion 2319:notability 2120:have a cup 1836:Triplestop 1215:S Marshall 1166:S Marshall 1159:statement. 1137:S Marshall 1092:S Marshall 965:trusted.-- 892:MickMacNee 740:for all - 667:have a cup 210:Cerebellum 4785:MZMcBride 4430:Lankiveil 4374:talk page 4116:per noms 3975:canvassed 3847:straw men 3710:admin to 3656:Andrea105 3509:WP:CANVAS 3342:MZMcBride 3062:every day 3036:the event 3026:oligarchy 2665:canvassed 2659:canvassed 2618:consensus 1792:reasoning 1786:Abductive 1638:Per DGG. 1335:SirFozzie 887:questions 801:that?? - 626:Andrea105 586:reasoning 580:Abductive 539:Andrea105 477:SmokeyJoe 451:SmokeyJoe 406:MZMcBride 354:MZMcBride 84:Peripitus 4739:Tim Song 4700:Tim Song 4582:WP:NTEMP 4357:Question 4338:contribs 4324:contribs 4289:Overturn 4230:Overturn 4139:WP:BLP1E 4135:overturn 4032:Overturn 4024:MuZemike 3849:down? -- 3739:one page 3613:overturn 3421:Tim Song 3409:unseemly 3360:Tim Song 3318:overturn 2697:username 2691:{{subst: 2685:username 2679:{{subst: 2669:username 2663:{{subst: 2653:username 2647:{{subst: 2443:Tim Song 2418:Overturn 2399:contribs 2389:Fifelfoo 2385:Overturn 2340:Overturn 2327:Tim Song 2307:Went to 2294:Fifelfoo 2230:Kairosis 2195:Kairosis 2007:Tim Song 1745:Milowent 1723:Davewild 1679:Overturn 1653:Overturn 1636:Overturn 1600:Overturn 1513:Overturn 1465:M4gnum0n 1461:Overturn 1191:Overturn 1030:Overturn 1009:Kotniski 967:Kotniski 930:Kotniski 882:Overturn 855:Overturn 795:so vital 688:everyone 531:Overturn 510:Overturn 469:overturn 443:Undelete 318:Cyclopia 301:Tim Song 80:endorsed 20:‎ | 4655:Neutral 4560:restore 4524:history 4475:Spartaz 4422:Endorse 4405:Endorse 4395:complex 4310:Endorse 4297:Protonk 4270:Comment 4253:Endorse 4220:complex 4187:Endorse 4170:JoshuaZ 4148:WP:MEAT 4097:Endorse 4073:Endorse 4056:Endorse 4020:Endorse 3999:part of 3824:Endorse 3805:Endorse 3707:closure 3669:Endorse 3648:Endorse 3618:JoshuaZ 3482:Windows 3469:Comment 3439:WP:NPOV 3356:Endorse 2743:WP:NPOV 2661:users: 2584:restore 2548:history 2435:Restore 2285:restore 2249:history 2200:Spartaz 2151:Endorse 2108:Endorse 2078:JoshuaZ 2074:endorse 2056:Endorse 2039:Endorse 2020:Endorse 2003:Endorse 1994:Windows 1930:restore 1894:history 1736:Comment 1640:Protonk 1616:Comment 1453:Comment 1418:Endorse 1387:Endorse 1348:Endorse 1331:Endorse 1086:people. 777:Windows 655:Endorse 643:endorse 553:John254 465:Endorse 367:Endorse 350:Endorse 257:Windows 188:deleted 178:restore 163:article 136:history 4735:WP:ND3 4471:WP:ND3 4328:Secret 4314:Alison 4235:unless 4158:WP:BLP 3927:WP:DEL 3770:WT:DEL 3746:Coffee 3675:Coffee 3529:Coffee 3474:Fences 3417:WP:IAR 3231:Cicero 3214:should 2924:WP:BLP 2825:per se 2806:Advice 2714:WP:BLP 2710:delete 2114:Coffee 1986:Fences 1977:WP:ENT 1954:treelo 1740:WP:IAR 1684:John Z 1682:usual. 1604:Calton 1583:GRuban 1517:GRuban 1403:RL0919 1318:RL0919 1304:WP:BLP 1211:DRV).— 791:WP:WEB 769:Fences 661:Coffee 249:Fences 87:(Talk) 4716:WP:DP 4546:watch 4539:links 4280:talk 4160:does 4060:Kevin 4047:talk 3889:wrong 3870:wrong 3598:Hobit 3556:Hobit 3513:Hobit 3478:& 3405:WP:1E 3323:Hobit 3304:Hobit 3212:- We 3202:FUBAR 3192:lives 3170:FUBAR 3158:lives 3086:WP:RS 2971:Hobit 2896:Hobit 2852:Hobit 2639:Note: 2570:watch 2563:links 2439:WP:RS 2422:Hobit 2376:talk 2323:WP:RS 2271:watch 2264:links 2043:Hobit 1990:& 1959:radda 1916:watch 1909:links 1762:Nsk92 1669:Space 1627:talk 1438:Hobit 1352:Kevin 1202:talk 916:Help! 785:It's 773:& 575:Lol. 424:Hobit 388:Hobit 284:Hobit 270:Hobit 253:& 158:watch 151:links 52:: --> 16:< 4789:talk 4758:Cycl 4743:talk 4724:talk 4704:talk 4676:Cycl 4644:talk 4633:See 4623:talk 4619:Tarc 4604:talk 4532:logs 4516:edit 4509:talk 4473:. – 4413:talk 4369:very 4363:and 4348:talk 4343:Cirt 4332:talk 4318:talk 4301:talk 4261:talk 4244:talk 4178:talk 4168:and 4150:and 4126:talk 4105:talk 4064:talk 4007:talk 3937:Cycl 3917:talk 3913:Tarc 3894:Cycl 3891:. -- 3878:talk 3874:Tarc 3852:Cycl 3833:talk 3829:Tarc 3780:Cycl 3721:Cycl 3718:? -- 3660:talk 3639:talk 3622:talk 3602:talk 3560:talk 3517:talk 3444:Cycl 3425:talk 3413:must 3401:WP:N 3383:Cycl 3364:talk 3346:talk 3327:talk 3308:talk 3288:talk 3243:Cycl 3235:Nero 3194:for. 3114:Cycl 3104:some 3042:Cycl 2975:talk 2929:Cycl 2920:more 2900:talk 2871:real 2856:talk 2830:Cycl 2767:Cycl 2556:logs 2540:edit 2533:talk 2496:Talk 2447:talk 2426:talk 2409:talk 2404:Cirt 2393:talk 2362:Emma 2348:talk 2331:talk 2298:talk 2257:logs 2241:edit 2234:talk 2159:talk 2099:talk 2082:talk 2065:talk 2047:talk 2011:talk 1944:talk 1902:logs 1886:edit 1879:talk 1766:talk 1749:talk 1727:talk 1705:talk 1688:talk 1664:From 1659:Them 1644:talk 1608:Talk 1587:talk 1581:. -- 1557:Cycl 1539:Talk 1521:talk 1498:xeno 1487:talk 1483:Tarc 1469:talk 1457:Keep 1442:talk 1407:talk 1374:talk 1356:talk 1339:talk 1322:talk 1291:only 1274:talk 1245:talk 1225:Cont 1176:Cont 1147:Cont 1122:Talk 1102:Cont 1073:talk 1057:Talk 1038:talk 1013:talk 996:Talk 971:talk 934:talk 896:talk 826:Cycl 723:Cycl 630:talk 608:talk 604:Tarc 565:Talk 543:talk 522:talk 513:AfD? 501:talk 481:talk 455:talk 428:talk 420:that 418:Ah, 410:talk 392:talk 358:talk 335:Talk 305:talk 288:talk 274:talk 230:Cycl 214:talk 144:logs 128:edit 121:talk 32:< 4764:pia 4682:pia 4671:not 4667:not 4551:XfD 4549:) ( 4385:(c) 4382:(t) 4378:WLU 4275:DGG 4210:(c) 4207:(t) 4203:WLU 4166:DGG 4162:not 4042:DGG 4036:not 3943:pia 3900:pia 3858:pia 3786:pia 3761:// 3758:ark 3755:// 3749:// 3727:pia 3690:// 3687:ark 3684:// 3678:// 3581:Lar 3544:// 3541:ark 3538:// 3532:// 3492:Lar 3450:pia 3403:or 3389:pia 3249:pia 3233:or 3221:or 3204:'d. 3120:pia 3048:pia 2935:pia 2836:pia 2773:pia 2693:csp 2689:or 2681:csm 2649:spa 2623:not 2575:XfD 2573:) ( 2371:DGG 2276:XfD 2274:) ( 2129:// 2126:ark 2123:// 2117:// 1921:XfD 1919:) ( 1779:IAR 1622:DGG 1563:pia 1427:GTD 1422:Guy 1420:as 1313:not 1295:IAR 1265:But 1197:DGG 982:or 910:Guy 832:pia 787:not 729:pia 676:// 673:ark 670:// 664:// 622:any 371:Lar 236:pia 169:XfD 161:) ( 22:Log 4791:) 4745:) 4737:. 4726:) 4706:) 4698:. 4646:) 4625:) 4606:) 4598:. 4426:do 4415:) 4350:) 4303:) 4282:) 4263:) 4246:) 4180:) 4128:) 4107:) 4083:is 4066:) 4049:) 4009:) 3979:. 3919:) 3880:) 3872:. 3835:) 3815:| 3662:) 3654:. 3641:) 3624:) 3604:) 3583:: 3562:) 3519:) 3494:: 3427:) 3366:) 3348:) 3329:) 3310:) 3290:) 3180:| 3072:| 3039:-- 2977:) 2959:| 2902:) 2881:| 2858:) 2792:| 2764:. 2760:, 2699:}} 2687:}} 2677:: 2671:}} 2655:}} 2645:: 2489:NW 2449:) 2428:) 2411:) 2378:) 2350:) 2333:) 2300:) 2161:) 2101:) 2084:) 2067:) 2049:) 2030:| 2013:) 1971:. 1946:) 1843:x3 1768:) 1751:) 1729:) 1707:) 1690:) 1646:) 1629:) 1606:| 1589:) 1532:NW 1523:) 1489:) 1471:) 1444:) 1409:) 1376:) 1358:) 1341:) 1324:) 1276:) 1268:-- 1247:) 1204:) 1115:NW 1075:) 1050:NW 1040:) 1015:) 1007:-- 989:NW 973:) 954:| 936:) 898:) 870:. 809:is 799:is 766:. 748:is 720:-- 698:is 632:) 610:) 558:NW 555:. 545:) 524:) 503:) 483:) 457:) 430:) 412:) 394:) 373:: 360:) 328:NW 307:) 290:) 276:) 216:) 74:– 42:: 4787:( 4761:o 4741:( 4722:( 4702:( 4679:o 4642:( 4621:( 4602:( 4563:) 4555:| 4542:| 4536:| 4528:| 4520:| 4512:| 4507:( 4435:. 4411:( 4391:/ 4346:( 4335:· 4330:( 4321:· 4316:( 4299:( 4278:( 4259:( 4242:( 4216:/ 4176:( 4124:( 4103:( 4087:n 4085:o 4081:l 4079:A 4062:( 4045:( 4005:( 3940:o 3915:( 3897:o 3876:( 3855:o 3831:( 3783:o 3724:o 3658:( 3637:( 3620:( 3600:( 3589:c 3587:/ 3585:t 3558:( 3515:( 3500:c 3498:/ 3496:t 3447:o 3423:( 3386:o 3362:( 3344:( 3325:( 3306:( 3286:( 3266:: 3246:o 3117:o 3045:o 2973:( 2932:o 2898:( 2854:( 2833:o 2770:o 2701:. 2695:| 2683:| 2667:| 2651:| 2587:) 2579:| 2566:| 2560:| 2552:| 2544:| 2536:| 2531:( 2499:) 2493:( 2445:( 2424:( 2407:( 2396:· 2391:( 2374:( 2346:( 2329:( 2296:( 2288:) 2280:| 2267:| 2261:| 2253:| 2245:| 2237:| 2232:( 2157:( 2097:( 2080:( 2063:( 2045:( 2009:( 1950:" 1942:( 1933:) 1925:| 1912:| 1906:| 1898:| 1890:| 1882:| 1877:( 1794:) 1790:( 1764:( 1747:( 1725:( 1703:( 1686:( 1642:( 1625:( 1585:( 1560:o 1542:) 1536:( 1519:( 1485:( 1467:( 1440:( 1405:( 1372:( 1354:( 1337:( 1320:( 1272:( 1243:( 1221:/ 1200:( 1172:/ 1143:/ 1125:) 1119:( 1098:/ 1071:( 1060:) 1054:( 1036:( 1011:( 999:) 993:( 969:( 932:( 918:) 914:( 894:( 829:o 813:n 811:o 807:l 805:A 752:n 750:o 746:l 744:A 726:o 702:n 700:o 696:l 694:A 628:( 606:( 588:) 584:( 568:) 562:( 541:( 520:( 499:( 479:( 453:( 426:( 408:( 390:( 379:c 377:/ 375:t 356:( 338:) 332:( 303:( 286:( 272:( 233:o 212:( 181:) 173:| 166:| 154:| 148:| 140:| 132:| 124:| 119:(

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 12 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index