Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2009 February 4

1380:" (Canterbury Tail), "Hate to say this, but I'd deep-six this project." (SchuminWeb), "This article, at present, appears to be a list of trivia that will likely meet with deletion if it enters the article space" (Chardish), "but what exactly are you trying to achieve here; this looks like an article on I Love Lucy spinoffs -- what does that have to do with something like The Practice?" (Rfwoolf), "You've got a mixture here of genuine spin-offs, inside jokes, pop culture references, and downright nonsense. It may be fun, but it's never ever gonna be encyclopedic." (Orange Mike), "I'm afraid I have to agree Orange Mike, I don't see how this could survive an AfD if it became a mainspace article" (Dougie WII), "i also dont see the importance of this article in the scoop of an encyclopedia. i moreso just see a big page full of trivia, and that is discouraged in wikipedia. you probably need to attach this attempted article to an appropriate wikiproject and see what the project has to say about it, although i am not sure what project would be interested a crufty article such as this." (-ChrisisinChrist), "It doesn't matter how thorough your original research is- we still can't use it. See 2266:

indicated you had no more resources, that you had "nearly given up on this article in despair" and have pleaded for others to help. You indicated now you took a "few months off" and came back to participate in an MfD about your article and to "slowly" work on "various projects that I left unfinished". In breaking down the wording of a guideline that includes "Long term storage" you say this article does not fall under that but yet you state you are storing it "until I can find resources to more fully flesh out the article" and go on to also state you have put this on the "back burner" and imply you have no immediate plans to work on it until you "finish with these other issues". When that is combined with your other comments on the talk page, in the MfD and now here, including the "time" needed, where you indicate "I need a lot of time", I don't see how there could be any argument from anyone that, at this point, you are, really, simply using your userspace as a storage area for something that is going to be there "indefinitely". That is the key issue you and others are overlooking. And your reading of "private" in relation to the current user guidelines (

695:") I asked the closing admin to reopen the discussion, not in hopes of getting "delete" but allowing editors to answer a "how long" question. I also asked the admin to expand on their generic "The result of the discussion was Keep" closure summary as several of the "keep" arguments seemed to be based on mis-reading or mis-understanding of the policy and guidlines that do contain a time limit. Part of their first response was that a "how long" question was "abstract" and that I misunderstood what deletion discussions are for. The admin, I now feel, oversimplified the process saying any deletion discussion is only to answer one question "Should the page A be deleted now?". The admin further stated to me that "All participant substantiated their votes with rather persuasive arguments" but failed to address directly some specific examples that I had asked about that, to me, seemed to be a mis-reading of policy or mis-understanding of the issue(s). One "blatant" example I asked about was a users "keep" that was followed with the argument that an MFD was a "breach of one's privacy". With no answer I again asked the closing admin to please show me 1: --> 1259:: That is very interesting. Looking at the edit history it does clearly show no significant work has been done on that article since March 2, 2008. On March 14, 2008 Redfarmer sent it to MfD and the discussion does indicate the nom was made too soon. However the important point being made is that good faith was assumed to allow more time for the article to be worked on. Without any of the asking "how long" it was freely offered - from the slightly open "Give him more than a few days to work on it. We have userfied articles that have gone months without work. If he had left this in his subpage for a long time without working on it, that would be one thing." to the more specific "Leave it a month...". Clearly now it has been much longer than one month and the assertion that "he intends to work on it" proved false 1397:

and it could never become ready for article space. We've been trying to explain that to you for some time" and Dougie WII said "I think people are just trying to be helpful giving you their opinion that this subject matter itself just doesn't seem encyclopedic. No matter how much work is put into it, it will probably be deleted if added to the article mainspace." The main point is this article is "advertised" all over asking for help - the "consensus" seems to be that this article will never be ready for mainspace and even the creator admits they have run out of things to say but holds out for help ("I am hoping that some other editors would be willing to help me find them as I have reached the limit of my search capabilities"). The arguments at the MFD, and now, is that, as there is no time limit and as it is

3834:

rolling all the delete opinions together and putting his own opinion that the article was a policy violation above those who contributed to the AFD. If this stands then basically it becomes a race to see who closes an AFD first - an admin who believes an article is a policy violation and closes it as delete or an admin who does not and closes it as no consensus or keep - because that is the situation we will end up if decisions such as this one are allowed to stand. If an admin such as Ynhockey (who argued the article was not a policy violation in the AFD) can reasonably believe an article does not violate policy then the closing admin should respect the views of those who contributed to the AFD and close the AFD appropriately - in this case as no consensus.

4318:

then it either becomes a lottery or a race to see which admin closes the AFD. I cannot see how there was any consensus on whether there was a policy violation in this case and I do not think this article was a clear policy violation and so would not have closed it as delete. As shown above there are other admins who agree. By closing as delete the admin is putting his own view above the communities view. If it is clear that an article is a policy violation then fine the closing admin should delete, but if they delete when it is not clear regardless of the views expressed in the AFD then there is no point in having AFDs in the future. We might as well just have a new speedy crieria "any article that any one admin thinks violates policy".

477:. No reasonable editor would think that we have any basis today for considering Obama's first 100 days more significant than FDR's. Nor, despite the media coverage of the first 100 days of all the Presidents I can remember (not all of whom are living), do any of them have a first 100 days article. If we were to have a well written series of articles on first 100 days, we would start with FDR's and then write those that can be written from a historical and encyclopedic perspective - which probably doesn't yet include Clinton or either Bush, never mind Obama. So the material should be merged somewhere. As all the material since the AFD was written by TonyTheTiger, he can just write it in whatever article is appropriate. I also 1938:

right to consider a decision on a single article a referendum. Looking at the history of this article, I see it is had bee substantially worked on, and that a title has been suggested under which it might well hold at AfD. The activity had slackened off, so I think the appropriate course would have been to remind the author to get back to it, and to consider asking for its return to mainspace. I do, however, endorse a flexible idea of the limit in general, and I think in general we do now follow a fairly liberal practice here, perhaps more than when the user policy was written. I would not want to propose a fixed rule on times, for it would depend on the article and the editor and the good faith. My argument is only that

1116:

done here. The quality of the keep arguments here were horrible: there was never a privacy concern and, according to guidelines cited, there is indeed a time limit on how long we will host a person's OR before we consider it self publishing or being used as a web host. There are also some questions of how long that need to be answered. Even after being nominated for deletion, the user has not worked on the page; they merely came back and begged for it not to be deleted. How long do we give this user for what most acknowledge will be an attempt to create their own original thesis and publish it on WP? These questions all need to be fleshed out. Barring an overturn, I would suggest a

4475:– Overturned. There's a lot of discussion here about whether the distinction between these language codes is enough to have a separate babel template, which is an issue best considered at a new CfD, if someone wishes to file one. The only question here is whether crucial information was missing at the original CfD. That appears unequivocally to be the case--by the admission of the person who closed it, participants at the original CfD did not understand why the separate templates existed. Thus, the closure is overturned. No prejudice against a new CfD to consider this issue in all its nuances; such a CfD can be started at any time by any editor. – 3873:

inclusion"-- he;s right about that being the basis for deciding, but he's not the one who gets to judge what they are or how they are to be interpreted. He should have joined the discussion. What he did was an example of exactly what an admin has no business doing--setting his view above the community, and making decisions for them. if we wanted admins to do that, there would be no need for a non-consensus close at all--whenever there was no consensus, some admin would decide independently. Given the 1600 admins with very different views, we'd have chaos. This is not a comment on the merit of the article, about which I myself have no clear view.

4243:"shows... something". Why should I work hard writing an article about some obscure artist? It could get deleted on a whim, and the deletion review would basically be an argument between editors who like that artist's work and those who think he was crappy and doesn't deserve an article, with some nods to WP:RANDOM_POLICY for show. This whole dismaying affair has raised my wikicynicism several notches, and I doubt a summary of the opinions of the admin who happens to close this discussion, whatever they may be, would help. I think Sandstein's comment above summarizes the whole thing, but how many people (will) actually read it? 1055:

not answered. THe failure to answer that raised other issues because not only did the closing admin "count" that "vote" and they also indicated "all" the arguments were valid so I again asked the closing admin to please explain where there was a policy or guideline the supported that specific argument. Rather than answer I was told to take it here, to DRV. I asked again, via the reason for this DRV. The closing admin again ignored my questions, and even failed to respond to the reasons for taking this to DRV, instead saying the "Votes" showed a "keep". When you commented, Redfarmer asked you a question based on what the

91:. There is clear consensus that, given that the AfD was very short and the article has improved (though many issues remain), that AfD should no longer be considered binding. There is no consensus at all that the article should continue to exist in this level of depth, in this form, or even at this title. Rather than relist it myself with a generic nomination, I will allow someone else to list it for deletion, which can be done at any point, with a nomination that refers back to this DRV but also summarizes the issues to be debated. I fully expect that someone will do so within the next few days if not sooner. – 1428:

always based on policy. The article would absolutely be deleted at AfD because it is entirely composed of original research. In order for this content to be put in mainspace, it would have to be fundamentally and totally rewritten, with legitimate sources. There is no chance of the content, as it stands, of becoming a legitimate article. For this reason, the content is not being hosted with the purposes of the enyclopedia, and enough time has been provided to demonstrate otherwise. Since the userpage policy requires that content be hosted only to be actively improved, and that can be made into an article, the

3071:– Overturned as no consensus – Obviously, this was a lengthy and difficult DRV following a lengthy and difficult AFD. A preponderence of comments here describe MZMcBride's closure as substituting his own judgement for consensus. I agree with this... but I feel the need to say that the AfD was deeply unsuccessful on many levels and I feel the MZMcBride's response was certainly a reasonable choice... the issue of content forking is serious and demands immediate attention, so a verdict of "no consensus" is obviously something that ought to be avoided if at all possible. The issues with the debate are: 182:. It was defacto merged and userfied because at the time all content could be easily merged without overspill. Now, the current article demonstrates types of detail that the general article does not contain and probably should not contain. The detail is encyclopedic but not necessary for a general Presidency article. I detail contentious confirmations and media comparisons with other president's. I would go in to greater detail on policy and legislation if I had time. Soon after the AFD closed, there arose issues on what level of detail should be kept in the general article and 3245:(Prefatory comment: the somewhat silly name is a result of the nom renaming the article immediately before nomination). The deletion nomination created a very lively discussion, which, unfortunately, did not reach anything resembling consensus. The "head count", for those who care, was 13 keep, 12 delete, 4 merge, 1 conditional merge/keep, and 1 rename. Generally, those supporting delete argued that the article was a POV-motivated content fork, and those supporting keep disputed this, maintaining that the article dealt with a real phenomenon and that it was an application of 1271:(i.e - none) than the subpage in discussion now has about it's "usefulness" on Knowledge (XXG). I will add that the "If he had left this in his subpage for a long time without working on it, that would be one thing" comment to the included list of oft used phrases that need to be made more clear in deletion discussions - "long time without working" equals what exactly? If it is the same as "indefinitely archive", "long-term archival purposes" and "permanent" users may equate it to "no set time limit" and than ignore it. 2105:

not allow me to do that either. Also, if the resource is not freely available, I am hesitant to use it as a source for the article. There are no libraries in the town in which I live with the closest available library closing too early for me to get to it in time to do any serious research there. I will add to this article as the information is found, so do not delete this just because I haven't found the information. Other editors may also need time to gather information as they become aware of this rough draft.

1013::So what you are saying is that the "trends of opinion" currently support the argument that all MFD's are a "breach of one's privacy"? Outside of this MFD I have never seen that before, certainly I would never get that from reading policy or guideline, however the refusal by the closing admin to answer my direct question, three times now, about this leaves only your response to Redfarmer on the issue. I, for one, would love for you to point out the discussion where this policy or guideline has been established. 1060:

to that. So you're failure to see how that is relevant seems to indicate a focus on different things. But not all is fully lost - based on your current, very direct reply, lets now accept the the privacy argument is bad - would you say that is a "trend of opinion"? Is so shouldn't that "keep" be "discounted"? I will ask about another "later" comment I also have specifically mentioned - the user stated there were no guidelines or polices that indicated any form of time limit so instead the cited an

3451:- I was in the merge camp (oh shit! I used the word camp in a discussion about anti-semitism!) and then later favoured this article being renamed to become a sub article of the international reaction article. It could then cover all racially motivated attacks to mitigate content forking since that giant article covers this issue and needs to be split anyway. However, I have no idea whether anyone saved all the info in this article before it was deleted. We can't lose this info so I support 813:") the the discussion, that add some perspective to concerns raised in the MFD. While the "votes" at MFD seem to be in favor of a "keep" I am not so sure that if one looked over the "history" of the article and the comments made over the year lead to the same conclusion. However, if everyone accepts "keep" and reads the talk page, the comments in the discussion and the cited guidelines there is an indicator that "how long" should be answered in relation to this "keep". 2245:. They inform you it will never be ready for mainspace and have issued you 'warnings' about the articles scope and validity. Others have tried to help with information such as "Chi McBride's character from Boston Public (Steven Harper) made an appearance on Boston Legal. Both shows are by David E. Kelley." Yet though all the discussion on your talk page, and now, you maintain this is not any sort of original synthesis on your part, that somehow a person watching 2141:

series. I would rather read this quick article on all of the crossovers than have to trudge through 150+ articles tracing them. That is time consuming and tiring. Placing this in the general crossover article would just over burden the general article. Crossovers have been happening for a while now. That all of these crossovers create relationships between the series is not a hypothesis or a theory, it is a fact which is verifiable in the primary sources.

4011:

that the admin should conduct a head count; rather it was argued that there is no way to see the discussion as having reached consensus, since many experienced editors offered good arguments for both positions. More importantly, though, the closure could not have focused on the substance of opinions in the AfD discussion, since the closing admin's statement did not refer at all to that discussion, and since the reason given for closing as delete (

4033:

Much of the opposition to the article, both in the AfD discussion and here, seems to stem from suspicion that someone is trying to create an issue when there wasn't one in order to push a POV. A simple google news search for, say, "Gaza"+"anti-semitism" or "Gaza"+"Jewish" will show that that article's subject is a very real and widespread problem, that it is taken seriously in many countries, and that it receives much media attention.

3576:'s thinking was, in my opinion, right on. This was one of many, many articles, written by both sides of the Middle East conflict, which have turned Knowledge (XXG)'s coverage of this topic from a reliable source of independent information to a cheap propaganda war. The articles on this subject are so slanted, so bad, and so numerous, that they reflect on the credibility (or should I say credulity) of the entire encyclopedia. 1362:

can't find any policy or guideline this violates..." I not only ask "how long" but clearly cite these supposedly non-existent "fixed times". Again - the DRV is to reopen to establish "how long". It simply boggles my mind how asking for a set time frame on this is so controversial. It is very simple - based on the existing wording how long does this "preferred version" get to sit in userpace before it

1519:, then okay, because I simply don't see why this could actually bother anyone. The time spent trying to delete this userfied article could and should be spent working to improve articles. If anything, we should all be helping her improve it, or move on, letg her get to it whenever she can, and work on something else. And yes, nothing is stopping us from changing the wording of 4295:, since he made no reference to the discussion in the closing comment, and since he closed using a single argument that was not advanced by anyone in that discussion. To clarify: I am not worried that your implications will lead anyone who has carefully read this thread to misunderstand my position. I simply take personal offense at my views being misrepresented. 3652:"Which article contains the NPOV version this article supposedly duplicates?" Closing in this manner needs to take the arguments presented into account, and while "AFD is not a vote!" and "We need to consider our core policies!" are true statements, they are not good closing rationales unless they discuss how and why they apply to this particular article. 3221: 4147:

decided on. A small group of people thinking one thing in an AfD cannot override the larger consensus of policy. An opinion given at an AfD contrary to policy is likely to have little weight, even if lots of people make it. The arguments of those seeking to keep did not seem to address the articles violation of the core policy content forking.

304:

signed, then it becomes acceptable to write an article about it, in which earlier stage can be discussed. Non-routine major ones pass NOT NEWS because they will be part of the historical record. That's the main criterion, and it would be possible to argue that most things a president does of a public nature is part of the historical record.

331:

plenty of articles and op-eds in a few months evaluating how the first 100 days went. Good work on the userfied piece so far. (As for the NOTNEWS debate, every action he takes as president will become part of a historical record and will be regurgitate numerous times in biographies, etc, which one can't say about the 11:00pm local news)

3261:, since not one of them, even of those who supported deletion, argued that. It seems that the admin did not merely misunderstand the discussion, he disregarded it. For lowly editors like myself, such actions send a message saying "don't even bother participating in the deletion discussion, since the outcome won't matter". 1515:. What matter is there really if someone has something in userspace that she wants to work on? It's no big deal or detriment to our project if she believes she can improve it when she gets around to it, even if it took a couple years, so what? And there's no urgent rush to force her to do so. And if that is an 4375:

reactions page per WP:SIZE. (N)POV has absolutely nothing to do with it, and there's nothing inherently POV about either the article's title or its content". I would love to hear how the delete opinions are so much more valid than the keep opinions (and how they relate to the closing admins closing statement).

3185: 3180: 3189: 3213: 3172: 4317:

The point is who decides if the article violates policy and how do they make that decision. Are you saying that the closing admin can just make a unilateral decision on that, regardless of the views of the contributors to the AFD, even if there was no consensus that the article violated policy? If so

4167:

I guess it just goes to show that no matter how clearly you say something, someone who doesn't want to understand - won't. If we wanted to have a single administrator decide AfD's based on policy, we would do that. That's not what we do. We have a discussion within the community based on policy. This

3970:

Several of the participants in this discussion have been arguing as if this were the deletion discussion, pointing out problems they have with the article. I'm referring specifically to Untwirl, Brunte and Guy. The question here is whether the closure reflected the outcome of the deletion discussion,

3581:

No one is to blame for this state of affairs: all the editors are working in good faith trying to present well-sourced accounts of the conflict in a way that is faithful to the truth as they see it. The problem is that there is no truth; there is no NPOV in this war zone. This fundamental reality -

2581:

on a different one. Deletion and article assessment operate independently, being a GA doesn't automatically exempt an article from deletion and an article that has no chance of being deleted may still not meet particular assessment criteria. Because you simply can'y get the result you want from AfD

2524:

that a "keep" result may not have any bearing on the FLC, only one person said it was a Fork (now at least two), and that AfDs shouldn't be opened by nominators wishing to keep the article, and refused to reopen the AfD nom. It's true that keeping the article may not affect the FLC, but that is not a

2265:

But that is not my key issue with brining this DRV, it is the "how long" issue, because if editors insist this article be kept, based on the last year, how long are you going to need to get this ready for mainspace? They may choose to ignore the last 11 months however I don't and during that time you

2118:

Of course there has been a lack of edits recently because I took several months off from Knowledge (XXG) editing completely. I came back to Knowledge (XXG) to participate in the MfD and slowly start getting back into the various projects that I left unfinished. I will need to reestablish myself on my

2104:

I need a lot of time to work on this aritcle as my resources are limited to what I can find on an internet web search. Most publications do not have long term storage of their articles online. If they do have long term storage, one most likely would have to pay to read the article, and my finances do

2002:

that came to my attention a few days ago. The paragraph has now been restored by another editor. This paragraph explicitly says that the closing admin "must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it

1748:

doesn't apply in userspace. It's quite common for OR to be found in articles in progress simply because the writer hasn't found the time to reference it yet; that's the whole reason you should start articles in userspace instead of mainspace. With no time limit set in the policy and guidelines, I see

1141:

to permit the maintenance of the material upon the averrment of a longtime editor, in whose good faith it hadn't, I gather, any reason to doubt, that she would attempt at some point to migrate parts of the material into mainspace; that construction of UP is not unsound on its face (in fact, many MfDs

1059:

says: "So even if the later votes are not based on policy and, in one case, even based on a straw man, we ignore that fact and go with illogical arguments?" You clearly responded to that question saying that "in this case we aren't going by numbers but rather by the trends of opinion" And I responded

4261:

This is nothing new Jalapeno, we have always based the closing of AfD's on policy, and never have closed them by votes. This is not some sort of new precedent, but this is how admins are expected to close AfDs. I certainly do think the closing admin read both the article and the AFd, I see no reason

4242:

Ravpapa, this isn't about feelings. This is about policy and about procedure. If the deletion doesn't get overturned, what it basically means is this: an article can get deleted by a single admin who didn't even read it or its AfD discussion, because the title (which was written by the deletion nom)

4032:

In closing, I'd like to point out that since the deletion, many more news articles have been written on this topic, and many more media outlets, heads of state and international organizations have acknowledged it. The subject of the article is anti-Jewish backlash to the recent Israel-Gaza conflict.

3990:

Generally, this seems like a no-brainer. Whatever one's opinion on the merits of the article, it is clear that the AfD discussion did not reach consensus, rough or smooth; and it is equally clear that the closure must reflect the outcome of the discussion, with the added caveat "when in doubt, don't

3872:

Rereading the discussion there was no consensus about what to do with the article, and many suggestions were made. The closing admin not only disregarded the community lack of agreement, but substituted his own,and, more unusually, said he was doing so: He based his view on "the core principles of

3099:

For a lengthy debate, surprisingly few people had substantive, detailed comments. A lot of comments were "clear POV fork" or "looks too content fork-y to me" or "Needs some improvement but well sourced and not a POV fork" -- which amount to judgments to delete or not delete without debating the key

2268:

While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In

2147:

This is not a private copy of this article as nothing is private on Knowledge (XXG). This is an article that I will work on as I can find information. It is hoped that others will find this draft and help me make it better. I placed a link to this article on the talk pages of all the relevant series

2015:

has been raised many times and this paragraph would mean that even defining "how long" does not matter because, if, the article violates a key policy and, based on 11 months of ongoing discussion, it is "very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy" there is only one

1962:

DGG, did you ignore the fact that the article is a complete synthesis of sources, that it smacks of original thesis, that the majority of work was done in three months at the beginning of last year, that the user has repeatedly scoffed at all concerns regarding the article on the talk page, and that

1410:

that why bother to have any user criteria or MFD's for user space at all? And sure we can "wait a few months" before sending to MFD again, but that in itself is answering "how long" - but not at the actual MFD. If there is a "consensus" here to "wait a few months" I would ask for clarification: will

1206:

I'm surprised you think that supports you. I brought that to MfD after only a few days. This one wasn't brought to MfD for a year after creation. I brought that one up to point out that several people in that MfD seemed to think there was a time limit on how long to give a page before you delete it.

1164:

I participated in, where the essential reason most people went keep was that the user had not been given enough time. I was instructed to give the user some more time and then come back if he had not improved the article, implying there are users who would now support the deletion of this article as

1054:

section that tell admins that "Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." One of the "later" arguments was about MFD's being a "breach of one's privacy". That was one of the specific issues I raised however it was

745:

The user, and main author, has suggested that work is going to be a while in coming (via comments such as "When I am fully back editing Knowledge (XXG)...", the article is "doing no harm sitting there waiting for me to either stumble upon more reliable sources...", "...let me get back into the swing

397:

those 100 days? It's really telling that even FDR's first 100 do not have an article of their own. It's just an arbitrary boundary on a series of properly-notable events. Ultimately, it's the issues which will get their own articles, and the 100 days thing will become a mention when it's relevant to

186:

developed. This article was discussed at AFD and kept after initial sentiments seemed to want to delete it. I think this article also presents a way to facilitate a repository for detailed encyclopedic content on his presidency and that the initial thoughts were made without complete understanding

3400:

as his stated reason, and that was not in fact argued by the participants, it would appear that the closing admin would have come to his own conclusions, rather than basing his conclusion on the arguments given by the participants. I don't think that is intended by WP policy, or there would really

3081:

It seems quite clear that this article was meant to have in-depth coverage of this aspect of reaction to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. Other articles contain some coverage on that but are overburdened. So the content forking argument in this respect is weak, and many on the other side argue

2980:

No one. There is no place that issues binding decision on Knowledge (XXG) content that have any standing in another place. No one can keep an issue from being discussed or preempt consensus by declaring certain topics out of bounds. The open nature of Knowledge (XXG) simply makes it impossible.

2140:

This article is not original research. Everything in the article is verifiable in the primary sources. The article was writen to show the connections between the series in one place rather than having all of these connections scattered throughout the 150+ or so articles on the individual television

2111:

I am not using my userspace as a place to store this article indefinitely, I am keeping there until I can find resources to more fully flesh out the article. This article is also on the back burner as there are more pressing issues that I would like to work on first. I just ask that this be left so

1540:

based on an original thesis the user is attempting to prove through synthesis that will NEVER be ready for mainspace by its very nature. If the user wants to do research and publish a book or article on the subject, then it will not be OR. For now, however, it is OR. It is the same as my work in my

1396:

on pet theories and fannish hobbies." (SMcCandlish). Oh there are more, but one needs to read it all. When the main editor has asked some of these users for help the responses vary but most don't want to help - Orange Mike says "No one wants to help you because the underlying assumptions are false,

1064:

as backing up their "vote" keep. For this overall "lack of time limit" concept I concur with seresin's comment below but will add on, about this specific comment, if it is now a "trend of opinion" that when one can not find a policy or guideline to support their "keep" (or "delete" for that matter)

3833:

Definitely no consensus for deletion in that discussion nor can I find any policy argument made in the AFD that was not argued against by at least of those arguing for keeping. The closing admins closing statement does not seem to be refering to any particular argument made in that AFD but instead

3610:

We should definitely have that discussion, but until the results of the discussion are in, we have no better option than to follow Knowledge (XXG) policy. Policy says that AfD closures should reflect the outcome of the discussion. This one didn't. It's that simple. And it's not about a head count,

1812:

is that deadline?" and if you do look way up at the top that is the bulk of why I brought this DRV. Why vote to keep the MFD closed if you are asking the same thing? Or,if you have a solid opinon, which it appears you do, that the MfD should be reopened for a few days - you can says somehting like

1146:

notwithstanding, have demonstrated a disinclination to press established contributors to move material into mainspace or delete it from userspace where those editors continue to profess that they will do something with the text at some point, such that our practice, from which policy is to follow,

493:

RE: "We are writing an encyclopedia. That is our standard for coverage, not newspaper reporting." Why do so many editors have a 20th century notion of what an encyclopedia is. They seem to fondly remember the 24 box set of dusty encyclopedias in the basement, and think wikipedia should be the same

303:

Misinterpretation of NOT NEWS, which does not refer to major events,or groups of major events, ot significant periods in national affairs. At most, it does refer to individual routine presidential actions, which can normally go in the article for whatever the subject is. Once a bill is passed and

4010:

Admin should focus on substance of opinions, not head count, and opinions of those who said delete per X were more substantial (Tarc, ChrisO). This argument relies on a straw-man characterization of the other side; while it is true that a head count would lead to closing as keep, nobody ever said

3130:

In light of this, I do appreciate that MZMcBride's closure was, I think, meant to compel editors to find a workable concept for the article before trying to write it. If I felt that I could compel such a discussion, I would, but I think this DRV indicates such an idea would fail. Plus, progress

2934:

other general Knowledge (XXG) criteria is). Any page that can be throrougly verified using secondary sources, is comprehensive, and professionally written has the potential to meet the FA or FL criteria. Any page that meets Knowledge (XXG)'s inclusion criteria that isn't throrougly verified using

2519:

says AFD is, I put it up for a deletion discussion. The AfD was closed less than an hour after it was opened, clearly not enough time to seek any kind of consensus. The closing admin said "Nomination closed -- no actual nomination for deletion ... But this is really a nomination for keeping which

1937:

It is not my intention in this discussion to remove the general requirement that articles moved to user space have some potential for improvement in a reasonable time. I agree with that requirement, and if it ever came to a poll, I would very strongly support keeping it. I don;t think it really

1427:

If this DRV is closed as endorse, the section on the userpage policy proscribing indefinite hosting of content in userspace will be removed, as it will clearly no longer describe community sentiment, and we're not even pretending to enforce it at MfD. The userpage policy is a policy; consensus is

1356:

at the deletion discussion and see Kww's "keep" and their comment of "let this one bake for a bit" implies a time limit be set. Why it is so hard to understand how, or why, the question of "How long are we supposed to give it?" came to be? Further more, when that is not answered, and another user

1298:

How long is a matter of judgment, since there is no fixed time, and the MfD had sufficient participation to represent a consensus, and the consensus was rightly judged. Given the widely fluctuating standards in the area of FICT, it is reasonable to hold articles a longer while than normal in user

1223:

Give him more than a few days to work on it. We have userfied articles that have gone months without work. If he had left this in his subpage for a long time without working on it, that would be one thing. But it has been a grand total of five days, and he has indicated that he intends to work on

1115:

as original nom. While I do acknowledge that, by counting votes, there were more keep votes than delete, we are not supposed to be counting votes. We are supposed to be looking at the quality of the responses which, after reading the closing admin's comments to Soundvisions1, I do not believe was

330:

in the grand scheme of things, and are only mentioned piecemeal and very briefly in the timeline, so a thorough accounting of this opening period would be welcome. And not to be crystallball about it, but considering the media is already pushing this narrative, you can be sure that there will be

4717:

people. Making that statement about oneself is not exactly volunteering to be consulted about Nynorsk. As a native speaker I do suspect that some of them exaggerate, but only slightly, and we can't very well decide for them. Nynorsk and Bokmål are to me in some aspects as different as some other

4085:, that is only partially correct. If you do a general Google search, you indeed come up with mostly blogs. But if you search Google News, you get 3,069 results, including articles from Reuters, the Guardian, the NYT, BBC, PBS, Herald Tribune, Pravda, and many more relevant and reliable sources. 3092:

This article had several different titles; "Antisemitic incidents related..." "Antisemitic incidents alleged to be related..." "Antisemitic incidients occuring during..." This renaming happened during the debate, at least to some extent. Plus, there's a title vs. content problem: some of those

1479:

does not have a dealine, especially for articles in userspace. Plus, aspects of the article can be verified in published books and as such it is without any doubt improveable. Maybe I'll even help work on it if I have a time as it is one that I find interesting and helpful in understanding the

1361:

asked - "No one has yet to define how long this should be given. It has already been given a year. How long do we let this exist?". And following three more "keeps" (including the accepted, "persuasive", MFD's are a "breach of one's privacy" argument) which indicate "There is no deadline" and "I

3651:

and stating "AFD is not a vote" is very vague and not very convincing. Terraxos and Ynhockey had reasonable rationales for their "keep" votes, and the article was well-sourced, why is that not considered in the closing rationale? Also, POVFORK arguments need some back-up, to answer the question

4146:

I assume you are talking about when you said "Policy says that AfD closures should reflect the outcome of the discussion". The outcome is based off consensus, consensus is not a vote. Each opinion is valued based on its demonstration of understanding and adherence to the policies consensus has

4567:

as a generic reference to Norwegian. All three category sets should be kept as some are more competent or comfortable editing in one of our written standards (Bokmål and Nynorsk) than the other. This system is in place on nn.wiki, pt.wiki and probably many more. I shall propose it on no.wiki.

1401:

in mainspace so, as the closing admin said to me, the only quesiton is "Should the page A be deleted now?" So thusly "keep" - period, end of story. Saddly it is not the cut and dry - If MFD's can not be applied to userspace because they are a "breach of one's privacy", if we can not apply the

710:

was based on, because this is clearly a proposed article that is intended for mainspace, the facts found in the edit history, comments made by the user/author, and comments on the talk pages, that this subpage is falling under: "Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term

345:

It might be unnecessary to add, but as much as I personally find the "100 days" trope a little bit silly, this same time frame has been singled out for each presidency of the last 60+ years. Obama might do something especially important on his 101st day, but the 100-day chunk of time is well

4374:

Well then could you tell me how this view "Needs some improvement, but well sourced and not a POV fork." is any less valid than this one "There are far too many POV forks". Or how "feels too content fork-y to me" is more valid than "obviously notable material which needs to be split from the

4290:

Please stop misrepresenting my comments. You imply (yet again) that I or others advocate closing AfD's based on number of votes; no one in this discussion advocated that. You also imply that I claimed that someone disregarded me, which I did not. I argued that the closing admin disregarded

1559:

She outright said she plans to revisit it, so why not give her a chance to revisit it? This strikes me as premature in that regard. And I am not convinced that it is unsalvageable original research. I did a quick Google Search on just John Munch and published books do indeed discuss his

3892:

Closing admin stated that AfD is not a vote, and he was deleting based on "core principles of inclusion", obviously forgetting the core principle that a clear lack of consensus does not mean deletion. Perhaps merge in future - regardless, this was a flawed process that needs to be redone.

2183:. And please don't repeat your statement that primary sources exist that show these shows crossed over. That is not and has never been in dispute. Showing that shows crossed over and showing they are all part of the same universe are completely different things. For instance, even though 1352:- DGG has also chosen to use the argument that "there is no fixed time" and that is the exact reason I brought this here. Where is that reflected in the guidlines I explicitly cite? Even if participants there and here choose to ignore the guidelines as written than you still can look 3762:

Admin discretion in a noconsensus situation should only occur if there is a good policy reason to do so. That's all the more true when a straight reading of the numbers supports keeping. I'm not seeing anything resembling a compelling policy reason for deletion and a vague appeal to

2529:

says "Nominations imply a recommendation to delete the article unless the nominator specifically says otherwise" suggesting that a "keep nomination" is allowed. I'm seeking for the AfD to be relisted, the result could have a serious affect on many lists, and many that are listed at

1191:

This is a surprising argument. The result of that MFD was a sound keep like in the MFD under discussion here. And, most surprisingly, the page still exists (after 10 months of inactivity)! That MFD is actually all I need to justify my closure. Thank you for an excellent precedent!

393:. The first 100 days is just one of many constructs studying the history of office of a president. Has it remained historically notable for any president since FDR? Conversely, is Obama the first president since FDR to have their first 100 days compared to the 100 days principle 2823:

It is clear that more discussion is needed. The reason Afd is not a good place is that its discussions are time-limited, and questions like this are likely to take more than 5 days. it's not just an insistence on the letter of the process as written--there is a reason for it.

4389:

Er, that's kinda what we have all these administrator-type people around here for. It is a judgement decision, weighing the strength or the weakness of each post in the AfD. DRV is not AfD Part II. Just because you disagree wit the outcome is not a good reason to overturn.

1384:." (Friday), "I find the connections you make fascinating, but this is not for an encyclopedia of any sort; it's for a fan site." (Billbert12) and the most recent (January 13) one - "But as a userspace-hosted hotbed of discussion this seems dangerously close to violating WP's 4647:. While I believe this proposal to be consistent with guidelines and what is in place on Meta and one of the Norwegian Wikipedias, I doubt if it will be introduced on the other one. Still, I believe this proposal is the one generally recommendable across Wikimedia projects.-- 3799:

related to this conflict. the article that says antisemitic incidents have risen 300% also states that there were 80 incidents this time last year. so, it appears to be synthesis for editors to determine that every incident that is reported is related to this conflict.

2328:

set a deadline even though it was asked for. Only thing that came close was the comment of "let this one bake for a bit" and frankly, that is no more help than than the time frame contained in the definitions of the webhost policy of "indefinitely archive" and "long-term".

958:

and this now concerns me greatly. This clearly says that arguments are to be taken into account rather than the shear number of people who vote a particular way. If admins are closing based on number of people for a position, they are in violation of this guideline.

3168: 3067: 1577:

And her assurances she planed to revisit it might mean more if she hadn't made such assurances when there was some risk, six months later, that the page might be deleted. And you completely miss the point about OR and synthesis. Just because sources exist about

3388:. There also seems to be a bit of confusion between ChrisO's interpretation and Jalapenos' regarding the arguments presented, in that Jalapenos claims that "those supporting delete argued that the article was a POV-motivated content fork, or an application of 2148:

to garner attention to this article in hopes to get somn help. Instead I got a lot of people who for some reason decided to be the opposite and just sit back and talk about how bad it was instead of improving it. In my opinion nothing is unsalvageable.

789:

asking, "how long" in a situation such as this. I am also doubtful anyone who reads the entire discussion would feel asking "how long" in the context of the discussion would feel it was an "abstract question". And I also simply want to point out the

415:

There is significant coverage of the concept of the first 100 days of Obama's presidency and the above userspace version has demonstrated how a good article can be written on this topic. IMO this clearly does not fall under the routine news coverage

3815:

That's an argument for a merge with a redirect. I would likely support such a merge but that's not something that gained substantial support at the AfD. If we want to do that we should have it undeleted and have a merge discussion on the talk page.

3338:"Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." 3112:

Many delete comments, and the closer, have a problem with the article's title and its intended concept, which seems to aim to list incidents regardless of substantive links between them and the conflict. This is a well-placed concern, in line with

1371:

But if we need to go the "Clear consensus" route than, as I indicated, look at the talk page which seems to have been "conveniently" overlooked. This not a "strawman" so please don't even go there, but the fact is one must look at this to establish

2944:. If you're telling me that it's FLC who decides that, fine. Would you like us to make the decision over articles too, or just lists?? Perhaps the AfD guys would like to dump all nominations that violate BLP on us too? And while you're at it, give 693:"Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. 911:

It isn't unreasonable for someone to look for trends in a debate. Later commentators have more information and more ideas available. If all the later commentators are strongly going in one way it is evidence that the consensus is going that way.

973:

Read NOTAVOTE again. Read what I wrote. See the difference? There's a distinction between taking numbers into account in some fashion and going by a vote. Moreover, in this case we aren't going by numbers but rather by the trends of opinion.

325:

Google searches of variations of this title prove beyond doubt that many publications are covering this as a legitimate topic separate from the rest of his presidency. Things like cabinet nominations and tax concerns deserve little space in

686:

to overturn the "keep", it is to address the failure to answer "how long" in the discussion and also a seeming failure by the closing admin to read the arguments and comments and to simply "count votes", not fully following guidelines at

4194:

So I suggest that any administrator who decides to close this discussion take the time to write a concise summary of the arguments, with affirmation or rebuttal, and a reasoned conclusion referencing relevant Knowledge (XXG) policies.

4575:

Please note that some projects, such as no.wikinews, are open to both nynorsk and bokmål. I believe this restore is correct whatever the outcome of the current vote on no.wikipedia regarding the possibility of moving to nb.wikipedia.

4003:

Arguments to the merits of the article (Untwirl, Brunte, Guy). The place for those arguments was the AfD discussion, which did not reach consensus. The question here is whether the closure was appropriate given the outcome of the AfD

2007:, and determine if "an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy". If it is "very unlikely" that the article could exist "without breaching policy" than the policy trumps the "votes". And this goes back to the articles 2749:

I just don't get it.. Are we at FLC supposed to decide whether all pages beginning with "List of" are content forks, no matter what class they are, even if they're not FLC worthy? If this was not at FLC, what would the outcome be?

1299:

space, as consensus not only can change, but in this area it frequently does. A reasonable course if one thinks an article in user space is going nowhere & is potentially important, is to help the use develop the article.

1045:

At the risk of sounding bitey towards you - I was following the conversation and responding to your answer to the question. Do you need a quick 'in a nutshell' review? My point of this DRV was to address some unanswered questions

707: 620: 2576:

that it meets the criteria. Each segment of Knowledge (XXG) operates independently which has the advantage of scaling much better than a more linked system but has the disadvantage that a result in one forum has essentially

2096:

It was not my intention to cause any trouble when I wrote this article and told so many about it. I genuinely thought that this was a good start on the subject and kept as neutral a point of view as possible when I wrote it.

4665:

asked me to come over and comment, since I closed the last discussion. That was a long time ago, and I'll stand by my ignorance of these conventions. If knowledgeable people support the change back, then as Delbert said in

1456:. If this is new consensus then we need to establish as such and go on. I would also hasten to add that this is a dangerous route to go down because we are essentially saying that userspace is, in most cases, untouchable. 1545:. If it is published, then, if it is notable, someone can write an article on me and/or my work. However, until that happens, it is not suitable for the project just as this user's thesis is not suitable for the project. 1081:

The result of the AfD would likely be identical without the privacy argument. It just isn't terribly germane. The argument is bad enough that it can be simply ignored. The general trend observed holds without that user.

3924:

obviously, after a first glance at the closure; and consider sanctioning the closing admin for his high-handed disregard of deletion policy. I, personally, would probably have advocated deletion on account of violating

1161: 3564: 3026:. If nobody wants it deleted it probably doesn't belong in AfD and if somebody does (but hasn't listed it) - link to their comment as a motivation for listing and then vote against yourself in the first comment row. 2350:-- What's the big deal? "Rules derive their power to compel not from being written down on a page labeled "guideline" or "policy", but from being a reflection of the shared opinions and practices of many editors", 2665:, which says "Nominations imply a recommendation to delete the article unless the nominator specifically says otherwise". That shows that stuff can be taken to AfD even if the nominator doesn't want it deleted. 3591:

Should this article be deleted? I can't say. But I do hope that this discussion will lead to a broader discussion of how Knowledge (XXG) covers issues of contention. Our current policies clearly do not work.

2504: 2279:) is wrong. If you remove everything else and use only the word "private" you are correct that "This is not a private copy of this article", however in the context of it relating to Policy - Knowledge (XXG) is 4688:

to let contributors specify written norm. If you seek a person capable of verifying a Norwegian text it is a safe assumption that a person that can read bokmål can also read nynorsk or the other way around.

4842:

there will be no consensus for it. I have asked. We have the two written standards with both common and seperate Wikimedia projects. We have the codes for all of that. Let's keep the categories available.--

2127:

I do not know why this was brought up at the MfD, but I am not worried about my privacy as I fully realize that this is a place where everything is public. That is the beauty of Knowledge (XXG) unlike other

175: 639:

Based on the existing policy and guideline wording how long does this "preferred version" get to sit in userpace before it does become a "long-term archival" version of an article "meant to be part of the

4572: 2525:

reason to close. It's true that only one person said it was a Fork, but if that one person had nominated it, would it have been closed so quickly? It's true that I opened the AfD wishing to keep it, but

2493: 1165:

the user has not worked on it in nearly a year. (For the record, yes, I jumped the gun on this particular MfD. I was a bit of an overenthusiastic spam fighter and I still believe this article is blatant

835:. The discussion was closed after 7 days on MFD page in accordance with recommended time limits for MFD discussions. I also want to note that all !votes in the last several days of the discussion were 4048:

Googling for such terms turn up little but blogs and ridiculously unreliable sources (e.g. pajamas media and joe the plumber), many of which have little to do with the actual, current subject matter.

2718:. No reason to delete was given. Don't worry too much about whether or not the thing reaches featured list status or not. There is a whole lot of good stuff on Knowledge (XXG) which is not featured. 796:

While not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the

2152:

I hope that this clarifies a few things. I never thought that something that I wrote in my userspace which has never touched mainspace would ever get this much, unfortunately negative, attention.

3093:

arguing for deletion rightly point out that the link between the conflict and many of the incidents is speculative, and that a line is being blurred between antisemitism and anti-Israel protests.

2030:

The page in question is not an article (it is not in the mainspace), and the OR policy does not apply to user space. So this sentence from the guideline is irrelevant (as well as the talk page).

1910:

The consensus among the handful of people who vote in a given discussion can fail to be in line with the greater consensus and precedent behind Knowledge (XXG)'s project goals and guidelines. --

1813:

you dave said here, the the article should be kept "years" and that is fine. The MfD was in progress - legit questions were asked about "how long" but could not be answered because of the close.

465:, not wikipedia. Unambiguously, the most important first 100 days, and the one that created the idea for later political journalism, was that of Franklin D. Roosevelt. That first 100 days does 4191:'s decision was that it completely ignored the points raised in the discussion - both pro and con. I think a lot of the participants here felt that this was being contemptuous of their views. 4187:

I think this discussion has gone on long enough. Everyone's position is pretty clear. Except for mine - I don't really have a position. But I do have a suggestion. Much of the discontent with

2241:- for almost one year numerous editors, including admins, came in because you asked for help in any television related area you could find and most all indicate it is synthesis - a variation of 2003:

must be respected above individual opinions." If this is the case, irregardless of the eight 'keep' opinions, or even 'delete' ones, the closing admin must look at policy, which would include

187:

about how much content would be at issue. I think each main section of the Presidency article should have a detailed subarticle. This is the one that should be built for the first 100 days.

156: 2056:

3. Does the above section not clearly state that "where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy" then the Policy, not the "votes" come into play?

4168:

one did not reach consensus. All you're saying is "I think the people who argued for delete in that discussion were right". Others thought they were wrong. We already had that discussion.

1709:

Yet, the every changing "rules" for mainspace are harder than those for userspace. I am not persuaded that the article can never be reworked to seem less like a synthesis. Sincerely, --

2735:

Obviously, this doesn't seem to be the place to discuss the matter. "the FLC people will need to decide that for themselves." Stifle, that is what the FLC people are saying about AfD :/

4718:

pairs of languages with seperate identities, codes, and wikipedias. Bokmål and Danish spring to mind, but there are others. Besides, what you wish to achieve is already in place: The

2119:

other projects and see where they stand, I will then come back to this. Prior to that I can blame the paucity of online material related to the subject and my poor researching skills.

1606:

because of his crossovers with all those series. What the user is doing is synthesis, which is OR, and this is a huge leap from simply saying "John Munch appeared on a lot of shows."

612: 1541:

chosen field of work, philosophy. I am writing a philosophy article right now attempting to prove an original thesis. That article is not suitable for WP because WP does not publish

31: 3505: 4092:'s citation of my comments - do not give the impression that I support overturn of the deletion. I don't (nor do I support its affirmation). I just think we have to be fair. -- 4360:), then those will be given more weight. This is the essence of AfD, that a simple roll call of votes is not considered as important as the content of each user's argument. 457:

though would relist with Stifle if that was the issue in question. What the nominator here is really asking is whether we should now have such an article. We are writing an

4027:, which was argued by some of the deletion supporters, smells of rationalization after the fact, and, as pointed out by Ravpapa, is contradicted by the closing admin himself. 3481: 3333: 1999: 1536:(truthfully, I do find the thesis fascinating and probably would read it were it on a fan site, but that is neither here nor there). I have argued that this is unsalvagable 702:

how the admin felt that argument was "rather persuasive". Instead of answering me I was told, 'in a nutshell', to "try your luck on DRV". (To read the full conversation see

3275:, while stating "it's clear that this article does not belong on this project." I requested further elaboration at his talk page, and he said that it should be deleted per 3176: 3517: 2457: 2452: 3529: 4352:) by the closing admin, then they will largely be disregarded or given less weight. If the 12 calls for 'delete' are found to have made their case convincingly (e.g. 3797:

there is no need to duplicate (triplicate?) this information again. also at issue is the verifiability (from reliable sources) that all of these incidents were A: -->

2461: 1651:

we cannot "merge and delete." Deletion is an extreme last resort for hoaxes, copy vios, and libel. Pretty much everything else is redirectable with content kept per

794:

contains comments from other editors, who did not participate in (nor were given any "courtesy notice" about the discussion. While not required the MfD "How to" says "

3910:

Per Kari Hazzard. Admins may not make up their own reasons for closure, and may not go against consensus (or lack thereof) without careful thought (and explanation).

3493: 164: 58: 44: 2985:

about any facet of the article but instead makes a contextual judgment based in large part on the question at hand (e.g. whether to delete or promote an article).

3929:, but closing admins must not simply substitute the outcome (or lack thereof) of a discussion with their own unreasoned opinion about whether an article violates 2485: 2444: 450:

The AFD closed faster than it should have, but that is not the issue the nominator here is posing a question on. Looking at the AFD, and the article of the time,

3307:- A closing admin who places a a greater emphasis on the substance of the opinions rather than a head count should be complimented, rather than second-guessed. 53: 1896:

means that it may be deleted and may be not. It is up for the community to decide, not for the closing admin. And the community in this spoke againts deletion.

1838:

It's clear that the majority of users have completely missed the point that there is a guideline that says there is a time limit. Therefore, I have initiated a

1031:

Um, what? One editor made the privacy argument. It is obviously not at all a good argument. I fail to see how a single editor making that argument is relevant.

3543:

is right that this deletion was in spite of a majority of participants in the deletion debate, who based their arguments on Knowledge (XXG) policy. Moreover,

1480:

relationship of various television shows. These kinds of articles provide part of the appeal that makes our project worth checking out and engaging. Best, --

4582:

A consequence might be to consider removing the mention of Bokmål from those User:no categories or Babel boxes that have one, and to set nb-boxes to display

279:- Hasty action based on article that was, rather than on "article that could/should be". The topic is plenty notable, even while watching the boundaries of 4551:

Restore User:nb language categories. This will actually be a reversal of the modification done in 2006, when they were deleted (in practice: confused with

4340:

Actually, no, it shows no such thing. If 13 have an opinion of 'keep', but the rationales for the keep opinions are not considered valid (e.g. flavors of

3988:

As someone who supports overturning the deletion, I want to try to summarize the discussion from my perspective and rebut arguments endorsing the deletion.

1998:: This is an FYI that relates and should be considered. There was a long standing (August 29, 2007) paragraph that was removed, on January 2, 2009, from 245: 183: 2535: 1432:

aspect of this MfD is clearly on the side of deletion. Numbers of people voting directly against the policy does not change the policy-based consensus.

926:...So even if the later votes are not based on policy and, in one case, even based on a straw man, we ignore that fact and go with illogical arguments? 730:

Several "keep" comments are based on the notion that no policy or guideline contains any time limit (i.e - "how long") and the assertions by some that

719:

asking for a "delete" overturn here at this DRV. This DRV is to ask that the MFD be reopened to address valid issues raised about "how long" because:

2568:. I don't think that there is anything to do here. Even if a thorough 5 day AfD decides that it is not a content fork for AfD purposes that has no 283:(of course we'll have a better sense of what really mattered to the "First 100 days" in a year, or five years, but that's just the regular process). 3372:

I was not aware of this discussion and thus my voice was not heard, but the "consensus" seemed to be more in favor of the article than not based on

1963:

they don't understand the difference between finding a source supporting the article and bringing many different sources together to form a thesis?

3785: 3713: 3106:

So there was no consensus, but there was also almost no real discussion. That said, though, there are common threads that we can take to heart.

781:) and asking for a clear answer how phrases such as "permanent content", "long-term" and "indefinitely" translate into "how long" for this subpage. 4705:

That assumption is not as safe as one might think. It depends a bit on exactly why you need a Norwegian speaker. If I recall correctly, I've seen

3455:

in as much as presence of information is better than absence of information. The editors need to be given a chance to do something with the info.

4838:

are both different from this wiki and each other. There's no point waiting for them to adopt a common system or one that is strictly logical. At

2879:

The only people who will take part in a discussion there are the people who have it watchlisted, and those people probably have a biased opinion

2134:

This article has never touched mainspace. It was written in my userspace from the beginning. I have not made any attempt to move it to mainspace.

1376:

we are asking "how long", This is just a small look at some of the comments: "If you want something like this on Knowledge (XXG) you should read

1226:

This admin seems to believe that there is a time after which it is no longer reasonable to assume a user will work on an unsalvageable article.

3539:- This discussion puts into sharp focus the limitations inherent in the rules of engagement for Knowledge (XXG) discussions. On the one hand, 2306:. Userspace should be given wide latitude. As the policy doesn't provide a specific deadline, consensus does. And consensus was clear here. 1147:

has been to answer "How long?" with "indefinitely"), and so neither relisting nor closing other than as "keep" could have been justified here.

664:(NOTE: The above summary was placed by the editor who brought the nom. It was removed by the closing admin as "biased" but has been restored) 4744:

I would argue that Nynorsk and Bokmål is at least as mutually intelligible as the different variates of English. I would suspect that those

4113:

Policy was correctly interpreted by this admin. AfD's are not votes, the quality of the arguments as they apply to policy is what matters.

2962: 2894: 2801: 2761: 2676: 2632: 2549: 1964: 1647:

Personally, I find the article interesting and say ignore all rules and keep it, but I am saying at worst it has mergeable content and per

2216: 1591: 735: 712: 49: 1890:

The Knowledge (XXG) community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants

2862: 2448: 2072:

Which article? There is no article here. What we have is a page in the user space. Hopes and intentions of the creator do not matter.

1207:

The reason it was keep was that time limit had not been reached. One user thought giving the article four months would be reasonable.

461:. That is our standard for coverage, not newspaper reporting. Editors using newspaper reporting as a benchmark should be working on 437:

The article is well referenced. If time shows the articles scope to be limited it can later be merged elsewhere. It is a big subject.

353: 290: 197: 3380:

has put up is relevant wiki policy, it would appear that the arguments presented were not in fact considered. According to Jalapeno,

2603:. AFD is not the forum for deciding whether a list is a content fork or not; the FLC people will need to decide that for themselves. 2257:. While not directly related, this is the type of thinking we are against when it comes to articles on people - that is, in general, 4539: 3784:

there is already a section of the international reactions article with a detailed chart of the anti-jewish incidents that occurred:

140: 3131:

seems to have been made in improving the article through normal Wiki editing. So I suppose, that's the best way to move forward.

1568:. There are a lot of references in there and as such there is information that can be used in some manner of other. Sincerely, -- 1381: 132: 3559:

himself, who, when pressed, wrote on his talk page, "I was speaking broadly about our inclusion policy, which is embodied in the

3290: 3135: 2968: 2900: 2807: 2767: 2682: 2638: 2555: 2192: 2008: 1599: 791: 588: 201: 1877:

the content is not being hosted with the purposes of the enyclopedia, and enough time has been provided to demonstrate otherwise

723:

The article was created in userspace March 2008 with the last "significant" edits being June 9, 2008 when one line was removed (

699:

Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.

21: 3698: 3340:

MZMcBride's closing decision clearly alluded to that principle and identified the policy basis on which his decision was made:

2184: 596: 1749:

no reason to assume this is a page the user is attempting to keep in userspace indefinitely, so it doesn't break any rules. -

123: 83: 1268: 88: 3342:"This is one of those cases when we're reminded that AfD is not a vote, it is a discussion. Ultimately, we must look at our 2662: 2219:, a show Munch is a character on, and CI) that must be traced back several series, constituting synthesis, constituting OR. 579: 539: 4271:

Even if 80 out of 87 people suggested that we violate WP:NOT, WP:FORK, WP:NPOV, or WP:OR, we are still not going to do it.

4015:) was a reason not brought up by any deletion supporters in that discussion. ChrisO's attempt to interpret the referral to 660:

This DRV is NOT to overturn a "keep", it is to ask that the MFD be reopened to address valid issues raised about "how long"

398:

these subjects. By all means undelete this article but know that it almost certainly won't outlast Obama's term of office.

2440: 2395: 347: 284: 3851:

sound closure, altogether too much soapboxing about these events, this is an encyclopaedia not a political protest site.

1648: 4418:

I'd rather devote time to discussing events that have actually taken place here, rather than suppositions and what-ifs.

4300: 4248: 4173: 4131: 4062:

Try Googling "anti Jewish backlash Gaza" and see what happens. I get BBC, Reuters, Yahoo News, JP and more on page 1.

4038: 3976: 3616: 3236: 3120:

Several keep comments defend the need for an article that deals with this aspect of the reactions to this conflict, per

1583: 760:

No one has yet to define how long this should be given. It has already been given a year. How long do we let this exist?

4864: 4490: 4450: 3152: 3046: 2423: 2374: 563: 518: 106: 17: 4571:

It seems the fact that no.wikipedia is in bokmål induced contributors to make a mistake in 2006. The debate was here:

2914:

Who is supposed to decide what is a content fork and what isn't? And where? Apparently it's not AfD, contrary to what

805: 2403:. Afd is for people trying to delete articles, not keep them. If you want the article kept, don't bring it to Afd. – 2262: 1843: 1516: 1448:

I agree, seresin. What people are essentially saying in this MfD is they no longer support that particular clause of

1315:

And if you think the article is going nowhere and, if moved to main space, would be taken to AfD immediately for OR?

1769:

says we do not keep articles in userspace indefinitely. Why does nobody think the guidelines ever set a time limit?

2242: 2173: 1411:

that be a valid reason to then "delete" even if the "votes" suggest "keep" for "no time limit" at that discussion?

327: 224: 179: 2948:

all discussions about images that violate fair-use policy. I guess we need to rewrite the criteria again, Tony!

1560:

crossovers. I therefore believe that the article can be cleaned up and at worst be mergeable with an article on

232: 543:– Whatever the time limit may be for good-faith efforts by users in good standing this hasn't reached it yet. – 3418:

As no consensus. This article began as a crude POV fork, but developed to a better shape, and there is a clear

2956: 2888: 2795: 2755: 2670: 2626: 2543: 2521: 1968: 1533: 1512: 1494: 1869:

Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion

1633:

So, then, you are saying the appropriate information should be merged into proper articles and then deleted?

4675: 4296: 4244: 4169: 4127: 4089: 4034: 3996:

Arguments in this discussion endorsing the deletion, and rebuttals to those arguments, were/are as follows:

3972: 3786:

http://en.wikipedia.org/International_reaction_to_the_2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Antisemitic_incidents_2

3635: 3612: 3540: 3373: 3262: 3232: 3004: 2870: 2781: 2652: 2608: 2334: 2292: 2063: 2021: 1818: 1754: 1416: 1406:

to actual userspace unless the material is on mainspace and if "No set time limit" is another way to invoke

1276: 1070: 1018: 861: 818: 669: 381: 3792: 3717: 3647:. The closing rationale looks to much like an opinion rather than an evaluation of the debate. Pointing to 1357:

voices a "keep", followed by the argument of "There is still time to enhance this further" the question is

4851: 4821: 4783: 4765: 4739: 4698: 4679: 4656: 4621: 4599: 4479: 4427: 4413: 4399: 4384: 4369: 4327: 4304: 4279: 4252: 4237: 4232: 4215: 4203: 4177: 4158: 4135: 4121: 4101: 4071: 4057: 4042: 3980: 3962: 3945: 3916: 3902: 3884: 3864: 3843: 3825: 3809: 3776: 3754: 3729: 3704: 3673: 3670: 3661: 3639: 3620: 3601: 3471: 3466: 3443: 3410: 3401:

be no point in having AfD's at all, rather appoint admins to make the decision without asking for input.

3364: 3324: 3299: 3240: 3142: 3035: 3008: 2994: 2972: 2904: 2874: 2856: 2835: 2811: 2785: 2771: 2744: 2727: 2710: 2686: 2656: 2642: 2612: 2591: 2559: 2412: 2363: 2338: 2315: 2296: 2228: 2161: 2081: 2067: 2039: 2025: 1986: 1972: 1957: 1923: 1914: 1905: 1883: 1855: 1822: 1791: 1778: 1756: 1713: 1704: 1690: 1677: 1659: 1642: 1628: 1615: 1572: 1554: 1527: 1506: 1484: 1465: 1443: 1420: 1338: 1324: 1310: 1280: 1235: 1216: 1201: 1182: 1151: 1129: 1091: 1074: 1040: 1022: 983: 968: 949: 935: 921: 900: 865: 848: 822: 673: 552: 507: 485: 445: 429: 407: 385: 358: 340: 315: 295: 269: 236: 214: 193: 95: 4685: 3257:

for an explanation. Clearly the 30+ editors in the discussion did not consider the article to fall under

2776:

If you want to decide whether an article should be deleted, AFD is the place to go. Otherwise, it isn't.

739: 4515: 4067: 3750: 3582:

that each of us is looking at Middle East issues through his or her private pinhole - is accentuated by

3406: 3031: 2273:. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to 2157: 1695:

You may want to reread that guideline...it has a list of exceptions and the very first exception is OR.

682:

have serious concerns about the closure based on that discussion. I want to start off by saying this is

403: 261: 3423: 2945: 1683: 1665: 1652: 1621: 1385: 1221:

I point to the comments of seresin, the admin who speedy deleted and userfied that particular article:

955: 770: 4555:). For consistency with ISO 639, and to achieve some degree of consistency across Wikimedia projects, 3360: 4847: 4779: 4735: 4652: 4595: 3295: 2990: 2587: 2238: 548: 228: 4349: 4341: 3431: 3427: 3389: 3246: 3121: 3083: 1523:

to allow for this as people edit the policy and guideline wording all the time as is. Sincerely, --

831:

I endorse my closure. The result was clear-cut, in my opinion. There was strong support in favor of

280: 249: 205: 3692: 3656: 2952: 2884: 2791: 2751: 2722: 2666: 2622: 2539: 2408: 2224: 1982: 1851: 1774: 1700: 1673: 1638: 1611: 1550: 1502: 1461: 1320: 1231: 1212: 1178: 1125: 964: 931: 896: 4523: 4007:

Within admin discretion (TS). No explanation was given as to why this was within admin discretion.

2919: 2618: 1620:

I still see a lot of references that could potentially at worst be merged elsewhere and think per

174:

When this was in article space immediately prior to the inauguration, this page was challenged at

4671: 4636: 4617: 4409: 4380: 4323: 4199: 3898: 3839: 3548: 3439: 3377: 3356: 2852: 2740: 2330: 2288: 2059: 2017: 2011:

which has been building comments for 11 months, much longer than the MfD of 7 days. The topic of

1814: 1750: 1412: 1272: 1066: 1014: 857: 814: 665: 425: 336: 4024: 3393: 3385: 3352: 3351:

is presumably the relevant section, given that a number of the AfD contributors highlighted the

3312: 3276: 2647:

That's right, but if you don't want the article deleted, then AFD is not the place to bring it.

2512: 2351: 3392:", while ChrisO is claiming that those who supported deletion mostly argued it was an issue of 4404:

So if I had come along and closed this as no consensus you would have supported my judgement?

4272: 4224: 4211: 4151: 4114: 4097: 3958: 3821: 3805: 3772: 3742: 3597: 3458: 2981:

The decisions reached in each discussion forum are limited to question at hand. No one makes

2927: 2077: 2035: 1901: 1438: 1334: 1197: 1087: 1036: 979: 945: 917: 844: 797: 703: 438: 188: 178:, there was widely varied opinion on whether the page should be kept, deleted, or merged into 4801: 4797: 4609: 4357: 4221:

Yes, I second that and not just because Wiki coverage of chubby fingered artists is so poor.

3419: 3308: 3019: 1864: 1403: 1166: 1056: 1051: 888: 688: 646: 209: 4817: 4761: 4694: 4506: 4476: 4471: 4063: 3746: 3725: 3402: 3027: 2359: 2153: 696:

Where there is a policy or guideline that says MFD's are an "breach of one's privacy" 2: -->

399: 223:- The userfied article goes into much more detail than would be allowed on the main article 92: 4263: 4016: 4012: 3930: 3926: 3764: 3648: 3560: 3552: 3547:

deleted the article without an unambiguous reference to a policy supporting his decision.

3397: 3381: 3376:

summary 13 keep, 4 merge, 1 conditional keep, and 1 rename, (19) vrs 12 delete. While what

3348: 3346:

of inclusion. When doing so, it's clear that this article does not belong on this project."

3343: 3332:. AfD is not and never should be a crude head count. I suggest that editors should look at 3280: 3272: 3258: 3254: 3023: 2982: 2941: 2569: 2516: 2508: 2284: 2280: 2274: 2270: 2258: 2112:

that when I finish with these other issues, I can come back to this when I need a breather.

1977:

Sorry, that comment was from me. I was at a public computer and forgot I wasn't signed in.

1839: 1453: 1407: 1389: 1366:

become a "long-term archival" version of an article "meant to be part of the encyclopedia"?

1170: 1143: 1117: 417: 373: 369: 4843: 4775: 4731: 4662: 4648: 4591: 4150:

The outcome is based off the outcome of the discussion, but not as interpreted as a vote.

3681:. Admin did not even read the discussion based on his/her comment. Any reasonable person, 3285: 3132: 2986: 2705: 2583: 2311: 544: 4543: 4353: 4345: 3217: 3114: 2915: 2531: 2526: 2489: 2012: 2004: 1766: 1745: 1542: 1537: 1520: 1490: 1449: 1393: 1377: 1157: 1138: 774: 616: 160: 4756:

are judging their ability to write Nynorsk rather than their ability to understand it.

2179:

2) What sources are there that establish all these series exist in the same universe as

1787:

is that deadline? I see at as meaning years and it doesn't say it isn't. Sincerely, --

4423: 4395: 4365: 4266:. Just because people are disagreeing with you does not mean they are disregarding you. 4188: 4053: 3936: 3738: 3686: 3653: 3573: 3556: 3544: 3320: 3250: 2719: 2404: 2220: 2212: 2204: 2188: 1978: 1847: 1770: 1696: 1669: 1634: 1607: 1587: 1546: 1498: 1457: 1316: 1227: 1208: 1174: 1121: 960: 927: 892: 801: 755: 503: 2050:

1. Does the article isself not clearly indicate it is meant to be a mainspace article?

1142:

have reached the same conclusion; the community, the text of certain parts of UP and

678:

At first I was not going to take the to DRV however in talking to the closing admin I

633:: If you do not wish to read the full reason for this DRV below than, 'in a nutshell': 4613: 4405: 4376: 4319: 3911: 3894: 3880: 3859: 3853: 3835: 3435: 2848: 2831: 2736: 1953: 1920: 1911: 1880: 1788: 1710: 1687: 1664:

Fortunately, hoaxes, copy vios, and libel are not the only reasons for deletion, per

1656: 1625: 1569: 1524: 1481: 1306: 1148: 421: 332: 311: 3611:

there is simply no way to interpret the discussion outcome as consensus for delete.

877:

I also want to note that all !votes in the last several days of the discussion were

4207: 4093: 3954: 3817: 3801: 3768: 3593: 2073: 2031: 1897: 1872: 1434: 1330: 1193: 1083: 1032: 975: 941: 913: 840: 482: 3685:, would agree that there was no consensus on what should happen with the article. 3206: 2478: 2053:

2. Has the creator not clearly indicated they hope is will be a mainspace article?

1844:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:User page#Deletion review regarding indefinite hosting clause

3169:

Antisemitic incidents alleged to be related to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

3068:

Antisemitic incidents alleged to be related to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

2253:

somehow will arrive at the same conclusion you do - that is is a spin off of the

4813: 4757: 4690: 3721: 3631: 3000: 2866: 2777: 2648: 2604: 2355: 2180: 1603: 734:

policy or guideline mention user pages and time limits. (One of the items under

377: 254: 2847:

the correct place to discuss this? Neither AfD nor FLC are the correct forums.

4573:

Knowledge (XXG):User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/October_2006#Norwegians

2935:

secondary sources, is comprehensive, and professionally written, 'but could be

2698: 2307: 2196: 1579: 1565: 1561: 1493:

that does not allow indefinite hosting of content? For what reason? See also:

954:

I'm not constructing strawmen. What you just admitted completely contradicts

4419: 4391: 4361: 4082: 4049: 3953:

closure, for the reasons above (those reasons in favor of endorse closure).

3793:

http://en.wikipedia.org/2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Antisemitic_incidents

3316: 499: 3271:. Closing admin based the deletion contrary to the consensus on the vague 1156:

I don't know that I can accept your assertion that this interpretation of

809: 3875: 2922:

says, because if the result of an AfD is "Keep", FLC can still decide it

2826: 2208: 1948: 1595: 1301: 749: 494:

way. They think, every Pokeman character wasn't in encyclopedia "P" when

474: 470: 306: 376:), but the early closure of the debate was a failure to follow process. 3334:

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

3022:

in and closed that way. If you want comments on an article take it to

2621:, where it says "Reasons for deletion"? Content forks is one of them. 2191:, this does not necessarily place either show in the same universe as 891:, you counted votes rather than weighed the quality of the arguments? 498:

was growing up, and it shouldn't be on Encyclopedia wikipedia either.

4612:, as it is essentially a request to reverse a previous XfD decision. 3971:

and comments that do not address that question should be discounted.

940:

No. We take the trend into account. Please don't construct strawmen.

856:: That response does not address the reason(s) this DRV was brought. 3583: 176:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Barack Obama's first 100 days

3283:. If one thing is "clear", it's that the deletion was a mistake.-- 2951:

I find this completely contradicting, confusing, and exasperating.

785:

While my opinion was "delete" I see no bad faith in my asking, or

4020: 2942:

If a page is deemed to be a content fork, it should be deleted

2926:

a content fork and oppose it being featured??? Based on which

3553:

WP:NOT#Knowledge (XXG) is not a publisher of original thought

3349:

WP:NOT#Knowledge (XXG) is not a publisher of original thought

3253:

with no reference to the discussion, and with only a link to

1624:

we would be losing potentially useful content. Sincerely, --

3117:. Some keep comments acknowledge room for improvement, too. 2536:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates#Content forks

1160:

is as uncontroversial as you make it out to be. I point to

779:

have on my user page?" - subsection "Copies of other pages"

227:, and most if not all of it is well-sourced and notable. -- 4021:

NOT#Knowledge (XXG) is not a publisher of original thought

2515:. Since FLC isn't the correct forum for deciding that and 1329:

Then wait a few months. If nothing has happened AfD then.

368:. I would strongly argue that this is not appropriate per 4839: 4835: 4831: 4809: 4805: 4000:

No argument (Stifle, Yamanam). No argument - no rebuttal.

3422:

consideration in the parent article. There are certainly

736:"Please familiarize yourself with the following policies" 2999:

Do you want the article deleted or not, Matthewedwards?

2172:

1) Why do you believe this article is needed given that

2016:

outcome, no matter what the "rough consensus" may show.

1489:

So you are essentially choosing to ignore the clause of

765:

My unanswered follow up question citing guidlines which

4531: 4527: 4519: 4511: 4198:

And then we can all get back to writing articles about

3202: 3198: 3194: 2474: 2470: 2466: 724: 604: 600: 592: 584: 462: 451: 148: 144: 136: 128: 4770:

And there should be an opportunity to do the same for

2930:? Content forking isn't one of them (although meeting 2000:

Knowledge (XXG):Deletion guidelines for administrators

706:). To be clear - While my argument of "delete" at the 469:

have or merit an article, it is instead one of twelve

2937:, has the potential to meet the FA or FL criteria. 1582:'s crossovers does not mean that sources exist that 887:

So, Ruslik, are you admitting that, in violation of

3384:was given as the delete reason by the closer, not 1919:Which is why AfDs are anti-logical. Sincerely, -- 4684:Merge nb and nn into no and use a system such as 2572:effect at FLC. You have to convince the editors 2285:a place to publish your own thoughts and analysis 3791:and a (too large) section in the main article: 3506:list of Middle East-related deletion discussions 4774:, with clarity, for natives and non-natives. -- 2520:does not need to be taken to AfD". When asked, 697:or why that editors "vote" did not fall under " 4627:Clarification: The native language categories 3712:Article is a fork of a section that cover it 3482:list of Palestine-related deletion discussions 1846:to determine new consensus on this guideline. 839:, and nobody was willing to support deletion. 4639:/2/3 and so on need restoring to distinguish 3518:list of Politics-related deletion discussions 2790:That's why I went to AfD. To get a decision. 881:, and nobody was willing to support deletion. 8: 3530:list of Judaism-related deletion discussions 704:User talk:Ruslik0#Closure question - comment 4489:The following is an archived debate of the 3669:. This is well within admin discretion. -- 3494:list of Israel-related deletion discussions 3430:issues in this series, but this was a good 3151:The following is an archived debate of the 2422:The following is an archived debate of the 752:'s opinion to "let this one bake for a bit" 562:The following is an archived debate of the 105:The following is an archived debate of the 4464: 3551:'s assumption that the violated policy is 3060: 2511:where it has been said that the page is a 2388: 2203:. The only connection is an indirect one ( 532: 246:Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama 184:Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama 76: 4126:See my comment above: argument number 4. 3528:: This debate has been included in the 3516:: This debate has been included in the 3504:: This debate has been included in the 3492:: This debate has been included in the 3480:: This debate has been included in the 2174:List of crossovers in fiction#Television 810:Knowledge (XXG) Page History Statistics. 655:have to read to the discussion for that) 124:User:TonyTheTiger/Obama's_first_100_days 84:User:TonyTheTiger/Obama's_first_100_days 48: 3315:, among others, are rather clear here. 2599:. See that "D" in "AFD"? It stands for 2237:The issue is, LA, that you continue to 57: 3396:. If it is true that the closer used 3079:Vague declarations of content forking. 2176:already exists and can be improved on? 580:User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers 540:User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers 40: 1592:Law & Order: Special Victims Unit 7: 2582:there is no point in reopening it. 2324:That is the problem - consensus did 1382:Knowledge (XXG):No original research 711:archival purposes may be subject to 346:established in political discourse. 4867:of the page listed in the heading. 4580:It will also be necessary to remove 4453:of the page listed in the heading. 3049:of the page listed in the heading. 2377:of the page listed in the heading. 2261:is not cause for inclusion, nor is 2211:, two characters from the original 521:of the page listed in the heading. 4348:when that isn't the actual issue, 2863:Talk:List of FIFA World Cup finals 1602:all exist in the same universe as 1392:a blog or web hosting service for 28: 4726:s are automatically shown in the 806:TDS' Article Contribution Counter 3630:and award MZMcBride a barnstar. 2269:other words, Knowledge (XXG) is 2185:Law & Order: Criminal Intent 742:— our guidelines on user pages") 4863:The above is an archive of the 4449:The above is an archive of the 3045:The above is an archive of the 3018:. The AfD could also have been 2373:The above is an archive of the 517:The above is an archive of the 18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review 4635:seem fine. The numbered ones, 3584:this dicussion on my talk page 3231:Closer disregarded discussion 1: 4852:22:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC) 4784:22:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC) 4480:22:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC) 4428:21:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC) 4414:19:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC) 4400:19:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC) 4385:18:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC) 4370:18:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC) 4328:18:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC) 4305:21:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC) 4280:15:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC) 4253:08:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC) 4238:04:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC) 4216:18:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC) 4178:08:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC) 4159:15:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC) 4136:05:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC) 4122:05:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC) 3716:And subject also is covered 3683:on any side of the discussion 3249:. The article was deleted by 3143:20:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC) 2441:List of FIFA World Cup finals 2396:List of FIFA World Cup finals 645:Did the closing admin ignore 508:20:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC) 486:18:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC) 446:05:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC) 96:23:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC) 89:Barack Obama's first 100 days 37: 4822:23:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC) 4766:23:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC) 4740:14:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC) 4699:06:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC) 4680:13:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC) 4668:O Brother Wherefore Art Thou 4657:18:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 4622:00:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 4600:16:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC) 4102:06:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC) 4072:06:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC) 4058:05:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC) 4043:22:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC) 3981:22:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC) 3963:17:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC) 3946:20:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 3917:00:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 3903:21:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 3885:20:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 3865:19:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 3844:18:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 3826:17:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 3810:17:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 3777:16:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 3755:16:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 3730:15:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 3705:15:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 3674:11:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 3662:10:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 3640:09:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 3621:12:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 3602:06:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 3472:05:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 3444:05:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 3411:05:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 3365:01:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 3355:issues with the article. -- 3325:01:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 3300:00:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 3279:, which is not a subpart of 3241:00:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 3097:Low-engagement participants. 3090:Concept was a moving target. 3036:12:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC) 3009:22:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 2995:05:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 2973:00:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 2905:00:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 2875:21:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 2857:21:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 2836:20:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 2812:00:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 2786:18:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 2772:16:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 2745:14:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 2728:10:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 2711:10:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 2687:00:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 2657:18:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 2643:16:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 2613:09:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 2592:05:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 2560:03:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 2413:19:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC) 2364:14:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC) 2339:18:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC) 2316:18:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC) 2297:13:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC) 2263:merely being true or useful. 2229:00:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC) 2162:23:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 2082:20:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC) 2068:18:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC) 2040:16:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC) 2026:16:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC) 1987:00:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC) 1973:18:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 1958:17:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 1924:20:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 1915:19:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 1906:19:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 1884:16:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 1856:14:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 1823:13:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC) 1792:20:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 1779:13:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 1757:11:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 1714:06:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 1705:06:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 1691:06:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 1678:06:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 1660:06:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 1643:06:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 1629:06:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 1616:06:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 1584:Homicide: Life on the Street 1573:05:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 1555:05:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 1528:05:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 1507:05:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 1485:05:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 1466:05:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 1444:00:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 1421:21:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 1339:21:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 1325:20:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 1311:20:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 1281:21:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 1236:20:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 1217:19:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 1202:19:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 1183:19:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 1152:19:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 1130:15:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 1092:17:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 1075:01:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 1041:01:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 1023:00:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 984:00:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 969:20:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 950:20:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 936:19:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 922:18:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 901:18:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 866:14:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 849:14:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 823:14:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 674:14:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 553:22:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC) 430:20:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) 408:13:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC) 386:21:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 359:20:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 341:19:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 316:19:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 296:19:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 270:19:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 237:19:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 215:18:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 4559:should be used for Bokmål, 3082:that a split is needed per 1765:say there is a time limit. 1263:this article had (and has) 1137:The community here applied 771:Disallowed uses of subpages 758:'s unanswered question of " 4890: 4800:is currently bokmål. And 2243:Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon 1808:A Nobody - you asked "But 804:of the article and/or use 769:suggest time limits (see: 328:Presidency of Barack Obama 225:Presidency of Barack Obama 180:Presidency of Barack Obama 32:Administrator instructions 4670:, I'm with you fellers.-- 3798:"anti-semitic" and B: --> 2259:notability by association 740:Knowledge (XXG):User page 4870:Please do not modify it. 4496:Please do not modify it. 4456:Please do not modify it. 4088:I hope my remarks - and 3718:in a ftm bloated section 3645:Overturn to no consensus 3158:Please do not modify it. 3052:Please do not modify it. 2429:Please do not modify it. 2380:Please do not modify it. 1888:From the same guideline 1267:less discussion on it's 1120:on the issue is needed. 1065:argument to use essays? 725:May 2008 - June 2008 dif 569:Please do not modify it. 524:Please do not modify it. 112:Please do not modify it. 50:Deletion review archives 4608:- I've moved this from 4350:"it is widely reported" 1942:the article should not 1940:in this particular case 4493:of the article above. 4204:Walter Willson Cobbett 3155:of the article above. 2426:of the article above. 1564:in general or even in 566:of the article above. 473:of our article on the 109:of the article above. 4802:nn:Category:Brukar no 4798:no:Category:Bruker no 2697:I agree with Stifle. 3374:Jalapenos do exist's 2865:or a subpage of it. 2663:WP:Guide to deletion 2199:has not appeared on 2193:Arrested Development 2092:Lady Aleena comments 1600:Arrested Development 1475:keep close of MFD. 4730:category as well.-- 4686:Category:User en-gb 4023:, and thus akin to 3572:On the other hand, 3555:is contradicted by 2281:not a free web host 2271:not a free web host 2215:, appeared in both 2145:Not a private copy: 1861:Overturn and delete 1840:request for comment 1761:But the guidelines 1452:and are willing to 1118:request for comment 1113:Overturn and relist 4637:Category:User nb-1 4297:Jalapenos do exist 4293:the AfD discussion 4245:Jalapenos do exist 4200:Ignaz Schuppanzigh 4170:Jalapenos do exist 4128:Jalapenos do exist 4035:Jalapenos do exist 3973:Jalapenos do exist 3613:Jalapenos do exist 3541:Jalapenos do exist 3263:Jalapenos do exist 3233:Jalapenos do exist 2187:crossed over with 2132:Article placement: 2109:Long term storage: 1686:... Sincerely, -- 1682:Which contradicts 1532:I've never argued 1402:criteria found at 1350:attmept to clarify 277:Overturn delection 4877: 4876: 4804:is unspecified. 4713:among the native 4463: 4462: 4236: 3944: 3863: 3735:Overturn deletion 3679:Overturn deletion 3659: 3533: 3521: 3509: 3497: 3485: 3470: 3453:Overturn deletion 3269:Overturn deletion 3059: 3058: 2967: 2961: 2899: 2893: 2806: 2800: 2766: 2760: 2725: 2681: 2675: 2661:Not according to 2637: 2631: 2554: 2548: 2387: 2386: 2239:beat a dead horse 1842:on this issue at 1517:WP:IGNOREALLRULES 1394:personal research 1169:and has numerous 676: 531: 530: 435:Overturn deletion 372:(and a dollop of 301:Overturn deletion 221:Overturn deletion 213: 67: 66: 4881: 4872: 4748:people who give 4563:for Nynorsk and 4547: 4536: 4535: 4507:Category:User nb 4498: 4472:Category:User nb 4465: 4458: 4277: 4264:assume otherwise 4227: 4222: 4156: 4119: 3943: 3941: 3934: 3914: 3857: 3767:doesn't cut it. 3701: 3695: 3689: 3657: 3524: 3512: 3500: 3488: 3476: 3461: 3456: 3336:, which states: 3293: 3288: 3225: 3210: 3192: 3160: 3140: 3061: 3054: 2965: 2959: 2897: 2891: 2804: 2798: 2764: 2758: 2723: 2708: 2703: 2679: 2673: 2635: 2629: 2552: 2546: 2497: 2482: 2464: 2431: 2389: 2382: 2255:I Love Lucy show 1655:. Sincerely, -- 663: 624: 609: 608: 571: 533: 526: 479:endorse deletion 443: 356: 350: 293: 287: 266: 257: 191: 168: 153: 152: 114: 87:– Overturned to 77: 63: 43: 38: 34: 4889: 4888: 4884: 4883: 4882: 4880: 4879: 4878: 4868: 4865:deletion review 4606:Procedural note 4537: 4509: 4505: 4494: 4491:deletion review 4454: 4451:deletion review 4273: 4225: 4152: 4115: 4111:Endorse closure 3937: 3935: 3912: 3782:Endorse closure 3710:Endorse closure 3699: 3693: 3687: 3667:Endorse closure 3628:Endorse closure 3459: 3344:core principles 3330:Endorse closure 3305:Endorse closure 3291: 3286: 3211: 3183: 3167: 3156: 3153:deletion review 3136: 3050: 3047:deletion review 3016:Endorse Closure 2983:final judgments 2733:Endorse closure 2716:Endorse closure 2706: 2699: 2597:Endorse closure 2483: 2455: 2439: 2427: 2424:deletion review 2378: 2375:deletion review 2213:Law & Order 1996:New Information 1892:. In addition, 1743:Endorse closure 1588:Law & Order 1477:Knowledge (XXG) 1386:userpage policy 1135:Endorse closure 746:of things..."). 610: 582: 578: 567: 564:deletion review 522: 519:deletion review 455:endorse closure 439: 391:Endorse closure 354: 348: 291: 285: 268: 262: 255: 244:- We also have 229:Dudemanfellabra 154: 126: 122: 110: 107:deletion review 75: 72:4 February 2009 68: 61: 41: 30: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 4887: 4885: 4875: 4874: 4859: 4858: 4857: 4856: 4855: 4854: 4825: 4824: 4791: 4790: 4789: 4788: 4787: 4786: 4709:s and even an 4702: 4701: 4682: 4643:properly from 4625: 4624: 4550: 4501: 4500: 4485: 4484: 4483: 4482: 4461: 4460: 4445: 4444: 4443: 4442: 4441: 4440: 4439: 4438: 4437: 4436: 4435: 4434: 4433: 4432: 4431: 4430: 4333: 4332: 4331: 4330: 4312: 4311: 4310: 4309: 4308: 4307: 4283: 4282: 4268: 4267: 4258: 4257: 4256: 4255: 4185: 4184: 4183: 4182: 4181: 4180: 4162: 4161: 4148: 4141: 4140: 4139: 4138: 4107: 4106: 4105: 4104: 4086: 4077: 4076: 4075: 4074: 4030: 4029: 4028: 4008: 4005: 4001: 3994: 3993: 3992: 3989: 3983: 3965: 3948: 3919: 3905: 3887: 3867: 3846: 3828: 3789: 3788: 3779: 3757: 3732: 3707: 3676: 3664: 3642: 3625: 3624: 3623: 3605: 3604: 3588: 3587: 3578: 3577: 3569: 3568: 3534: 3522: 3510: 3498: 3486: 3474: 3446: 3413: 3367: 3327: 3302: 3251:user:MZMcBride 3228: 3163: 3162: 3147: 3146: 3128: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3118: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3094: 3087: 3073: 3072: 3057: 3056: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3013: 3012: 3011: 2997: 2953:Matthewedwards 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2885:Matthewedwards 2838: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2792:Matthewedwards 2752:Matthewedwards 2747: 2730: 2713: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2667:Matthewedwards 2623:Matthewedwards 2594: 2540:Matthewedwards 2500: 2438: 2434: 2433: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2385: 2384: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2319: 2318: 2300: 2299: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2205:Lennie Briscoe 2189:In Plain Sight 2177: 2170: 2169:Two questions: 2150: 2149: 2142: 2135: 2129: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2116:Lack of edits: 2113: 2094: 2093: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2057: 2054: 2051: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1975: 1965:149.160.35.200 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1894:may be deleted 1858: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1534:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 1513:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 1495:WP:INTERESTING 1470: 1469: 1468: 1424: 1423: 1368: 1367: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1219: 1186: 1185: 1132: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1078: 1077: 1026: 1025: 997: 996: 995: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 988: 987: 986: 906: 905: 904: 903: 884: 883: 871: 870: 869: 868: 783: 782: 763: 756:User:Redfarmer 753: 747: 743: 728: 677: 662: 657: 656: 642: 640:encyclopedia"? 634: 627: 574: 573: 558: 557: 556: 555: 529: 528: 513: 512: 511: 510: 488: 448: 432: 410: 388: 363: 362: 361: 319: 318: 298: 273: 272: 260: 239: 171: 121: 117: 116: 101: 100: 99: 98: 74: 69: 65: 64: 56: 47: 36: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4886: 4873: 4871: 4866: 4861: 4860: 4853: 4849: 4845: 4841: 4837: 4833: 4829: 4828: 4827: 4826: 4823: 4819: 4815: 4811: 4807: 4803: 4799: 4796: 4793: 4792: 4785: 4781: 4777: 4773: 4769: 4768: 4767: 4763: 4759: 4755: 4751: 4747: 4743: 4742: 4741: 4737: 4733: 4729: 4725: 4721: 4716: 4712: 4708: 4704: 4703: 4700: 4696: 4692: 4687: 4683: 4681: 4677: 4673: 4672:Mike Selinker 4669: 4664: 4661: 4660: 4659: 4658: 4654: 4650: 4646: 4642: 4638: 4634: 4630: 4623: 4619: 4615: 4611: 4607: 4604: 4603: 4602: 4601: 4597: 4593: 4589: 4585: 4581: 4577: 4574: 4569: 4566: 4562: 4558: 4554: 4548: 4545: 4541: 4533: 4529: 4525: 4521: 4517: 4513: 4508: 4503: 4502: 4499: 4497: 4492: 4487: 4486: 4481: 4478: 4474: 4473: 4469: 4468: 4467: 4466: 4459: 4457: 4452: 4447: 4446: 4429: 4425: 4421: 4417: 4416: 4415: 4411: 4407: 4403: 4402: 4401: 4397: 4393: 4388: 4387: 4386: 4382: 4378: 4373: 4372: 4371: 4367: 4363: 4359: 4355: 4351: 4347: 4343: 4339: 4338: 4337: 4336: 4335: 4334: 4329: 4325: 4321: 4316: 4315: 4314: 4313: 4306: 4302: 4298: 4294: 4289: 4288: 4287: 4286: 4285: 4284: 4281: 4278: 4276: 4270: 4269: 4265: 4260: 4259: 4254: 4250: 4246: 4241: 4240: 4239: 4235: 4234: 4229: 4228: 4220: 4219: 4218: 4217: 4213: 4209: 4205: 4201: 4196: 4192: 4190: 4179: 4175: 4171: 4166: 4165: 4164: 4163: 4160: 4157: 4155: 4149: 4145: 4144: 4143: 4142: 4137: 4133: 4129: 4125: 4124: 4123: 4120: 4118: 4112: 4109: 4108: 4103: 4099: 4095: 4091: 4087: 4084: 4081: 4080: 4079: 4078: 4073: 4069: 4065: 4061: 4060: 4059: 4055: 4051: 4047: 4046: 4045: 4044: 4040: 4036: 4026: 4022: 4018: 4014: 4009: 4006: 4002: 3999: 3998: 3997: 3987: 3984: 3982: 3978: 3974: 3969: 3966: 3964: 3960: 3956: 3952: 3949: 3947: 3942: 3940: 3932: 3928: 3923: 3920: 3918: 3915: 3909: 3906: 3904: 3900: 3896: 3891: 3888: 3886: 3882: 3878: 3877: 3871: 3868: 3866: 3861: 3856: 3855: 3850: 3847: 3845: 3841: 3837: 3832: 3829: 3827: 3823: 3819: 3814: 3813: 3812: 3811: 3807: 3803: 3795: 3794: 3787: 3783: 3780: 3778: 3774: 3770: 3766: 3761: 3758: 3756: 3752: 3748: 3744: 3740: 3736: 3733: 3731: 3727: 3723: 3719: 3715: 3711: 3708: 3706: 3702: 3696: 3690: 3684: 3680: 3677: 3675: 3672: 3668: 3665: 3663: 3660: 3655: 3650: 3646: 3643: 3641: 3637: 3633: 3629: 3626: 3622: 3618: 3614: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3603: 3599: 3595: 3590: 3589: 3585: 3580: 3579: 3575: 3571: 3570: 3566: 3563:policy. (see 3562: 3558: 3554: 3550: 3546: 3542: 3538: 3535: 3531: 3527: 3523: 3519: 3515: 3511: 3507: 3503: 3499: 3495: 3491: 3487: 3483: 3479: 3475: 3473: 3469: 3468: 3463: 3462: 3454: 3450: 3447: 3445: 3441: 3437: 3433: 3429: 3425: 3421: 3417: 3414: 3412: 3408: 3404: 3399: 3395: 3391: 3387: 3383: 3379: 3375: 3371: 3368: 3366: 3362: 3358: 3354: 3350: 3347: 3345: 3339: 3335: 3331: 3328: 3326: 3322: 3318: 3314: 3310: 3306: 3303: 3301: 3298: 3297: 3294: 3289: 3282: 3278: 3274: 3270: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3260: 3256: 3252: 3248: 3243: 3242: 3238: 3234: 3229: 3226: 3223: 3219: 3215: 3208: 3204: 3200: 3196: 3191: 3187: 3182: 3178: 3174: 3170: 3165: 3164: 3161: 3159: 3154: 3149: 3148: 3145: 3144: 3141: 3139: 3134: 3123: 3119: 3116: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3098: 3095: 3091: 3088: 3085: 3080: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3070: 3069: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3055: 3053: 3048: 3043: 3042: 3037: 3033: 3029: 3025: 3021: 3017: 3014: 3010: 3006: 3002: 2998: 2996: 2992: 2988: 2984: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2970: 2964: 2958: 2954: 2949: 2947: 2943: 2939: 2938: 2933: 2929: 2925: 2921: 2917: 2906: 2902: 2896: 2890: 2886: 2882: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2854: 2850: 2846: 2842: 2839: 2837: 2833: 2829: 2828: 2822: 2819: 2813: 2809: 2803: 2797: 2793: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2783: 2779: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2769: 2763: 2757: 2753: 2748: 2746: 2742: 2738: 2734: 2731: 2729: 2726: 2721: 2717: 2714: 2712: 2709: 2704: 2702: 2696: 2688: 2684: 2678: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2640: 2634: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2595: 2593: 2589: 2585: 2580: 2575: 2571: 2570:precendential 2567: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2557: 2551: 2545: 2541: 2537: 2533: 2528: 2523: 2518: 2517:WP:DEL#REASON 2514: 2510: 2506: 2501: 2498: 2495: 2491: 2487: 2480: 2476: 2472: 2468: 2463: 2459: 2454: 2450: 2446: 2442: 2436: 2435: 2432: 2430: 2425: 2420: 2419: 2414: 2410: 2406: 2402: 2398: 2397: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2383: 2381: 2376: 2371: 2370: 2365: 2361: 2357: 2353: 2349: 2346: 2345: 2340: 2336: 2332: 2331:Soundvisions1 2327: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2317: 2313: 2309: 2305: 2302: 2301: 2298: 2294: 2290: 2289:Soundvisions1 2286: 2282: 2278: 2276: 2272: 2264: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2244: 2240: 2236: 2235: 2230: 2226: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2202: 2198: 2194: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2175: 2171: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2159: 2155: 2146: 2143: 2139: 2136: 2133: 2130: 2126: 2123: 2117: 2114: 2110: 2107: 2106: 2103: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2091: 2090: 2083: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2065: 2061: 2060:Soundvisions1 2058: 2055: 2052: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2018:Soundvisions1 2014: 2010: 2006: 2001: 1997: 1994: 1993: 1988: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1974: 1970: 1966: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1950: 1945: 1941: 1936: 1933: 1925: 1922: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1913: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1882: 1878: 1874: 1870: 1866: 1862: 1859: 1857: 1853: 1849: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1834: 1833: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1815:Soundvisions1 1811: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1793: 1790: 1786: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1768: 1764: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1755: 1752: 1747: 1744: 1741: 1715: 1712: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1689: 1685: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1658: 1654: 1650: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1640: 1636: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1589: 1585: 1581: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1552: 1548: 1544: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1504: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1483: 1478: 1474: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1459: 1455: 1451: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1442: 1440: 1436: 1431: 1426: 1425: 1422: 1418: 1414: 1413:Soundvisions1 1409: 1405: 1400: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1370: 1369: 1365: 1360: 1355: 1351: 1348: 1347: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1303: 1297: 1294: 1293: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1273:Soundvisions1 1270: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1237: 1233: 1229: 1225: 1220: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1184: 1180: 1176: 1172: 1168: 1163: 1159: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1150: 1145: 1140: 1136: 1133: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1119: 1114: 1111: 1110: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1080: 1079: 1076: 1072: 1068: 1067:Soundvisions1 1063: 1058: 1053: 1049: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1015:Soundvisions1 1012: 1011:Reply/comment 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 985: 981: 977: 972: 971: 970: 966: 962: 957: 953: 952: 951: 947: 943: 939: 938: 937: 933: 929: 925: 924: 923: 919: 915: 910: 909: 908: 907: 902: 898: 894: 890: 886: 885: 882: 878: 875: 874: 873: 872: 867: 863: 859: 858:Soundvisions1 855: 852: 851: 850: 846: 842: 838: 834: 830: 827: 826: 825: 824: 820: 816: 815:Soundvisions1 812: 811: 807: 803: 799: 793: 788: 780: 778: 772: 768: 764: 761: 757: 754: 751: 748: 744: 741: 737: 733: 729: 726: 722: 721: 720: 718: 714: 709: 705: 700: 694: 690: 685: 681: 675: 671: 667: 666:Soundvisions1 661: 654: 650: 648: 643: 641: 637: 636: 635: 632: 628: 625: 622: 618: 614: 606: 602: 598: 594: 590: 586: 581: 576: 575: 572: 570: 565: 560: 559: 554: 550: 546: 542: 541: 537: 536: 535: 534: 527: 525: 520: 515: 514: 509: 505: 501: 497: 492: 489: 487: 484: 480: 476: 472: 468: 464: 460: 456: 452: 449: 447: 444: 442: 436: 433: 431: 427: 423: 420:talks about. 419: 414: 411: 409: 405: 401: 396: 392: 389: 387: 383: 379: 375: 371: 367: 364: 360: 357: 351: 344: 343: 342: 338: 334: 329: 324: 321: 320: 317: 313: 309: 308: 302: 299: 297: 294: 288: 282: 278: 275: 274: 271: 267: 265: 259: 258: 251: 247: 243: 240: 238: 234: 230: 226: 222: 219: 218: 217: 216: 211: 207: 203: 199: 195: 190: 185: 181: 177: 172: 169: 166: 162: 158: 150: 146: 142: 138: 134: 130: 125: 119: 118: 115: 113: 108: 103: 102: 97: 94: 90: 86: 85: 81: 80: 79: 78: 73: 70: 60: 55: 54:2009 February 51: 46: 39: 35: 33: 23: 19: 4869: 4862: 4794: 4771: 4753: 4749: 4745: 4727: 4723: 4719: 4714: 4710: 4706: 4667: 4644: 4640: 4632: 4628: 4626: 4605: 4587: 4586:rather than 4583: 4579: 4578: 4570: 4564: 4560: 4556: 4552: 4504: 4495: 4488: 4470: 4455: 4448: 4292: 4274: 4231: 4226:Sean.hoyland 4223: 4197: 4193: 4186: 4153: 4116: 4110: 4031: 3995: 3985: 3967: 3950: 3938: 3921: 3907: 3889: 3874: 3869: 3852: 3848: 3830: 3796: 3790: 3781: 3759: 3743:Sean.hoyland 3734: 3709: 3688:Kari Hazzard 3682: 3678: 3666: 3644: 3627: 3536: 3525: 3513: 3501: 3489: 3477: 3465: 3460:Sean.hoyland 3457: 3452: 3448: 3415: 3369: 3341: 3337: 3329: 3304: 3296:(yada, yada) 3284: 3268: 3244: 3230: 3166: 3157: 3150: 3137: 3129: 3105: 3096: 3089: 3078: 3066: 3051: 3044: 3015: 2950: 2940: 2936: 2931: 2923: 2913: 2880: 2844: 2840: 2825: 2820: 2732: 2715: 2700: 2600: 2596: 2578: 2573: 2565: 2513:content fork 2503:The page is 2502: 2437: 2428: 2421: 2400: 2394: 2379: 2372: 2347: 2325: 2303: 2267: 2254: 2250: 2246: 2200: 2151: 2144: 2137: 2131: 2124: 2115: 2108: 2101: 2095: 1995: 1947: 1946:be deleted. 1943: 1939: 1934: 1893: 1889: 1876: 1871:" Also per 1868: 1860: 1835: 1809: 1784: 1762: 1742: 1476: 1472: 1433: 1429: 1398: 1373: 1363: 1358: 1353: 1349: 1300: 1296:Endorse keep 1295: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1222: 1134: 1112: 1061: 1047: 1010: 880: 876: 853: 836: 832: 828: 798:page history 795: 786: 784: 776: 775:"What may I 766: 759: 731: 716: 701:" and 3: --> 698: 692: 683: 679: 659: 658: 652: 644: 638: 630: 629: 577: 568: 561: 538: 523: 516: 495: 490: 478: 466: 459:encyclopedia 458: 454: 440: 434: 412: 394: 390: 365: 322: 305: 300: 276: 263: 253: 248:. When does 241: 220: 189:TonyTheTiger 173: 120: 111: 104: 82: 71: 29: 4477:Chick Bowen 4064:Tundrabuggy 4004:discussion. 3927:WP:NOT#NEWS 3747:Tundrabuggy 3424:WP:COATRACK 3403:Tundrabuggy 3028:Usrnme h8er 2928:FL criteron 2534:. See also 2181:I Love Lucy 1684:WP:PRESERVE 1666:WP:DELETION 1653:WP:PRESERVE 1622:WP:PRESERVE 1604:I Love Lucy 956:WP:NOTAVOTE 649:guidelines? 453:I conclude 418:WP:NOT#NEWS 400:Bigbluefish 370:WP:NOT#NEWS 93:Chick Bowen 4844:Gamlevegen 4776:Gamlevegen 4732:Gamlevegen 4663:Gamlevegen 4649:Gamlevegen 4592:Gamlevegen 4342:WP:ILIKEIT 3939:Sandstein 3432:WP:SUMMARY 3428:WP:POVFORK 3390:WP:SUMMARY 3247:WP:SUMMARY 3122:WP:SUMMARY 3084:WP:SUMMARY 2987:Eluchil404 2584:Eluchil404 2283:nor is it 2197:John Munch 1944:at present 1580:John Munch 1566:John Munch 1562:Crossovers 545:Eluchil404 281:WP:NOTNEWS 250:WP:NOTNEWS 206:WP:CHICAGO 59:February 5 45:February 3 4344:, citing 4090:Jalapenos 3922:Overturn, 3739:Sjakkalle 3654:Sjakkalle 2920:WP:DELPOL 2720:Sjakkalle 2619:WP:DELPOL 2579:no effect 2522:he stated 2405:Aervanath 2221:Redfarmer 2009:talk page 1979:Redfarmer 1848:Redfarmer 1771:Redfarmer 1697:Redfarmer 1670:Redfarmer 1635:Redfarmer 1608:Redfarmer 1547:Redfarmer 1511:See also 1499:Redfarmer 1458:Redfarmer 1390:WP is not 1317:Redfarmer 1269:talk page 1228:Redfarmer 1209:Redfarmer 1175:Redfarmer 1173:issues.) 1122:Redfarmer 1048:including 961:Redfarmer 928:Redfarmer 893:Redfarmer 802:talk page 792:talk page 651:(But you 252:come in? 4808:ends at 4614:VegaDark 4406:Davewild 4377:Davewild 4320:Davewild 4025:WP:SYNTH 3991:delete". 3913:IronDuke 3908:Overturn 3895:Joshdboz 3870:Overturn 3836:Davewild 3831:Overturn 3760:overturn 3658:(Check!) 3436:Cerejota 3416:Overturn 3394:WP:SYNTH 3386:WP:Synth 3353:WP:SYNTH 3313:WP:SYNTH 3277:WP:SYNTH 2963:contribs 2895:contribs 2849:Dabomb87 2802:contribs 2762:contribs 2737:Dabomb87 2724:(Check!) 2677:contribs 2633:contribs 2601:deletion 2550:contribs 2352:WP:WIARM 2275:deletion 2247:The Wire 2209:Ed Green 2195:, since 2125:Privacy: 1921:A Nobody 1912:Kbdank71 1881:Kbdank71 1863:. From 1836:Comment: 1789:A Nobody 1711:A Nobody 1688:A Nobody 1657:A Nobody 1649:the GFDL 1626:A Nobody 1596:The Wire 1570:A Nobody 1525:A Nobody 1482:A Nobody 1162:this MfD 750:User:Kww 715:." I am 713:deletion 491:Overturn 475:New Deal 471:sections 463:wikinews 422:Davewild 413:Overturn 333:Joshdboz 323:Overturn 20:‎ | 4795:comment 4610:WP:UCFD 4540:restore 4520:history 4358:WP:FORK 4275:Chillum 4208:Ravpapa 4189:McBride 4154:Chillum 4117:Chillum 4094:Ravpapa 3986:Summary 3968:Comment 3955:Yamanam 3951:Endorse 3849:Endorse 3818:JoshuaZ 3802:Untwirl 3769:JoshuaZ 3737:as per 3594:Ravpapa 3574:McBride 3557:McBride 3545:McBride 3537:Comment 3449:Comment 3420:WP:SIZE 3370:Comment 3309:WP:FORK 3214:restore 3186:protect 3181:history 3100:points. 3020:snowwed 2841:Comment 2821:Endorse 2566:Comment 2486:restore 2458:protect 2453:history 2401:endorse 2356:J.Mundo 2348:Endorse 2304:Endorse 2138:Not OR: 2128:places. 1935:Comment 1873:seresin 1865:WP:USER 1473:Endorse 1435:seresin 1404:WP:USER 1331:JoshuaZ 1257:Comment 1167:WP:SPAM 1084:JoshuaZ 1057:WP:DGFA 1052:WP:DGFA 1033:JoshuaZ 976:JoshuaZ 942:JoshuaZ 914:JoshuaZ 889:WP:DGFA 854:Comment 829:Endorse 689:WP:DGFA 647:WP:DGFA 613:restore 593:history 483:GRBerry 441:Chillum 242:Comment 210:WP:LOTM 157:restore 137:history 4830:True. 4814:Taemyr 4758:Taemyr 4722:s and 4691:Taemyr 4017:WP:NOT 4013:WP:NOT 3931:WP:NOT 3890:Relist 3765:WP:NOT 3722:Brunte 3649:WP:NOT 3632:Stifle 3561:WP:NOT 3549:ChrisO 3398:WP:NOT 3382:WP:NOT 3378:ChrisO 3357:ChrisO 3292:crewer 3281:WP:NOT 3273:WP:NOT 3259:WP:NOT 3255:WP:NOT 3190:delete 3024:WP:RfC 3001:Stifle 2946:WT:MOS 2867:Stifle 2843:Where 2778:Stifle 2707:(talk) 2649:Stifle 2605:Stifle 2509:WP:FLC 2505:listed 2462:delete 2251:Heroes 2074:Ruslik 2032:Ruslik 1898:Ruslik 1879:". -- 1454:WP:IAR 1430:policy 1408:WP:IAR 1388:- and 1194:Ruslik 1171:WP:COI 1144:WP:NOT 841:Ruslik 787:anyone 395:during 378:Stifle 374:WP:CSB 366:Relist 264:Review 4707:nn-2' 4544:cache 4528:watch 4524:links 4354:WP:OR 4346:WP:RS 3860:Help! 3714:good. 3218:cache 3207:views 3199:watch 3195:links 3138:juice 3133:Mango 3115:WP:OR 2969:email 2916:WP:GD 2901:email 2808:email 2768:email 2683:email 2639:email 2574:there 2556:email 2532:WP:FL 2527:WP:GD 2490:cache 2479:views 2471:watch 2467:links 2354:. -- 2308:Hobit 2102:Time: 2013:WP:OR 2005:WP:OR 1767:WP:UP 1746:WP:OR 1543:WP:OR 1538:WP:OR 1521:WP:UP 1491:WP:UP 1450:WP:UP 1378:WP:OR 1359:again 1158:WP:UP 1139:WP:UP 1062:essay 879:keeps 837:keeps 617:cache 601:watch 597:links 349:LotLE 286:LotLE 161:cache 145:watch 141:links 62:: --> 16:< 4848:talk 4834:and 4818:talk 4780:talk 4762:talk 4754:nn-2 4750:nn-1 4736:talk 4711:nn-1 4695:talk 4676:talk 4653:talk 4631:and 4618:talk 4596:talk 4532:logs 4516:talk 4512:edit 4424:talk 4420:Tarc 4410:talk 4396:talk 4392:Tarc 4381:talk 4366:talk 4362:Tarc 4324:talk 4301:talk 4249:talk 4233:talk 4212:talk 4206:. -- 4202:and 4174:talk 4132:talk 4098:talk 4083:Tarc 4068:talk 4054:talk 4050:Tarc 4039:talk 3977:talk 3959:talk 3899:talk 3881:talk 3840:talk 3822:talk 3806:talk 3773:talk 3751:talk 3745:--- 3741:and 3726:talk 3636:talk 3617:talk 3598:talk 3565:here 3526:Note 3514:Note 3502:Note 3490:Note 3478:Note 3467:talk 3440:talk 3426:and 3407:talk 3361:talk 3321:talk 3317:Tarc 3311:and 3287:brew 3237:talk 3203:logs 3177:talk 3173:edit 3032:talk 3005:talk 2991:talk 2957:talk 2918:and 2889:talk 2883:it. 2871:talk 2861:Try 2853:talk 2832:talk 2796:talk 2782:talk 2756:talk 2741:talk 2701:Tony 2671:talk 2653:talk 2627:talk 2617:See 2609:talk 2588:talk 2544:talk 2475:logs 2449:talk 2445:edit 2409:talk 2360:talk 2335:talk 2312:talk 2293:talk 2225:talk 2207:and 2160:) @ 2078:talk 2064:talk 2036:talk 2022:talk 1983:talk 1969:talk 1954:talk 1902:talk 1852:talk 1819:talk 1810:when 1785:when 1783:BUt 1775:talk 1701:talk 1674:talk 1639:talk 1612:talk 1598:and 1551:talk 1503:talk 1462:talk 1417:talk 1364:does 1354:only 1335:talk 1321:talk 1307:talk 1277:talk 1232:talk 1213:talk 1198:talk 1179:talk 1126:talk 1088:talk 1071:talk 1050:the 1037:talk 1019:talk 980:talk 965:talk 946:talk 932:talk 918:talk 897:talk 862:talk 845:talk 833:keep 819:talk 773:and 738:is " 670:talk 653:will 631:NOTE 605:logs 589:talk 585:edit 549:talk 504:talk 500:Ikip 426:talk 404:talk 382:talk 355:talk 337:talk 312:talk 292:talk 256:Grsz 233:talk 149:logs 133:talk 129:edit 42:< 4840:no: 4836:no: 4832:nn: 4812:. 4810:no: 4806:nb: 4752:or 4724:nn' 4720:nb' 4590:.-- 4262:to 4019:as 3876:DGG 3854:Guy 3532:. 3520:. 3508:. 3496:. 3484:. 3434:.-- 3222:AfD 2932:all 2881:for 2827:DGG 2507:at 2494:AfD 2326:not 2249:or 2217:SVU 1949:DGG 1875:: " 1751:Mgm 1399:not 1374:why 1302:DGG 1265:far 1261:and 1224:it. 1149:Joe 808:or 800:or 777:not 717:not 708:MFD 691:. ( 684:not 680:now 621:MfD 481:. 467:not 307:DGG 202:bio 165:MfD 22:Log 4850:) 4820:) 4782:) 4772:nb 4764:) 4746:nb 4738:) 4728:no 4715:nb 4697:) 4678:) 4655:) 4645:no 4641:nb 4633:nb 4629:no 4620:) 4598:) 4588:no 4584:nb 4565:no 4561:nn 4557:nb 4553:no 4542:| 4530:| 4526:| 4522:| 4518:| 4514:| 4426:) 4412:) 4398:) 4383:) 4368:) 4356:, 4326:) 4303:) 4251:) 4230:- 4214:) 4176:) 4134:) 4100:) 4070:) 4056:) 4041:) 3979:) 3961:) 3933:. 3901:) 3883:) 3842:) 3824:) 3808:) 3775:) 3753:) 3728:) 3720:. 3703:) 3697:| 3671:TS 3638:) 3619:) 3600:) 3592:-- 3567:). 3464:- 3442:) 3409:) 3363:) 3323:) 3239:) 3220:| 3216:| 3205:| 3201:| 3197:| 3193:| 3188:| 3184:| 3179:| 3175:| 3034:) 3007:) 2993:) 2971:) 2924:is 2903:) 2873:) 2855:) 2845:is 2834:) 2810:) 2784:) 2770:) 2743:) 2685:) 2655:) 2641:) 2611:) 2590:) 2558:) 2538:. 2492:| 2488:| 2477:| 2473:| 2469:| 2465:| 2460:| 2456:| 2451:| 2447:| 2411:) 2399:– 2362:) 2337:) 2314:) 2295:) 2287:. 2227:) 2201:CI 2154:LA 2080:) 2066:) 2038:) 2024:) 1985:) 1971:) 1956:) 1904:) 1854:) 1821:) 1777:) 1763:do 1703:) 1676:) 1668:. 1641:) 1614:) 1594:, 1590:, 1586:, 1553:) 1505:) 1497:. 1464:) 1441:) 1439:¡? 1437:( 1419:) 1337:) 1323:) 1309:) 1279:) 1234:) 1215:) 1200:) 1181:) 1128:) 1090:) 1073:) 1039:) 1021:) 982:) 967:) 948:) 934:) 920:) 899:) 864:) 847:) 821:) 767:do 732:no 727:). 672:) 619:| 615:| 603:| 599:| 595:| 591:| 587:| 551:) 506:) 428:) 406:) 384:) 339:) 314:) 235:) 212:) 163:| 159:| 147:| 143:| 139:| 135:| 131:| 52:: 4846:( 4816:( 4778:( 4760:( 4734:( 4693:( 4674:( 4651:( 4616:( 4594:( 4549:) 4546:) 4538:( 4534:) 4510:( 4422:( 4408:( 4394:( 4379:( 4364:( 4322:( 4299:( 4247:( 4210:( 4172:( 4130:( 4096:( 4066:( 4052:( 4037:( 3975:( 3957:( 3897:( 3879:( 3862:) 3858:( 3838:( 3820:( 3804:( 3771:( 3749:( 3724:( 3700:C 3694:T 3691:( 3634:( 3615:( 3596:( 3586:. 3438:( 3405:( 3359:( 3319:( 3235:( 3227:) 3224:) 3212:( 3209:) 3171:( 3124:. 3086:. 3030:( 3003:( 2989:( 2966:• 2960:• 2955:( 2898:• 2892:• 2887:( 2869:( 2851:( 2830:( 2805:• 2799:• 2794:( 2780:( 2765:• 2759:• 2754:( 2739:( 2680:• 2674:• 2669:( 2651:( 2636:• 2630:• 2625:( 2607:( 2586:( 2553:• 2547:• 2542:( 2499:) 2496:) 2484:( 2481:) 2443:( 2407:( 2358:( 2333:( 2310:( 2291:( 2277:. 2223:( 2158:T 2156:( 2076:( 2062:( 2034:( 2020:( 1981:( 1967:( 1952:( 1900:( 1867:" 1850:( 1817:( 1773:( 1753:| 1699:( 1672:( 1637:( 1610:( 1549:( 1501:( 1460:( 1415:( 1333:( 1319:( 1305:( 1275:( 1230:( 1211:( 1196:( 1177:( 1124:( 1086:( 1069:( 1035:( 1017:( 978:( 963:( 944:( 930:( 916:( 895:( 860:( 843:( 817:( 762:" 668:( 626:) 623:) 611:( 607:) 583:( 547:( 502:( 496:I 424:( 402:( 380:( 352:× 335:( 310:( 289:× 231:( 208:/ 204:/ 200:/ 198:c 196:/ 194:t 192:( 170:) 167:) 155:( 151:) 127:(

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 4 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index