1041:
with it except some self-appointed editors have inserted themselves as authorities. This even resulted in an RfC because I had posted a link to a TfD discussion, the result?, TfDs are now offcially under ARS as well. And DrVs have always been as it is an article that can be improved to satisfy the original concerns of the AfD. As to why we don't do more? Well lately it's been a non-stop barrage of accusations of canvassing from the same editors who have routinely lobbed that against us for a very long time, with little to no evidence whatsoever that we are in fact a vote-stacking group a of inclusionists. Several of the deletionists in our ranks are quite insulted by that as well as those, like myself who aren't particularly embracing either camp. My hunch s most of us are somewhere in the middle and don't need the drama. If you have any constructive suggestion feel free to ping my talkpage as ARS has been turned into a battleground by our detractors.
2968:
a singleton writer being listed under both composer and lyricist? 3 Some less notable person than JM is known for one lyric and one composion only? Furthermore, a category is a navigation tool, not a definition of who wrote what, so anybody interested in songs that JM is involved with will go to the article and discover exactly what his contribution was. If you applied the logic that BRG is using you would have separate, say the Lennon/McCatney category into "songs written by Lennon, but credited to Lennon/McCartney", ditto, McCartney. Please note : If a songwriter is purely a lyricist or a composer I see no problem categorizing accordingly, nor putting something into the JM category to establish he is principally a lyricist who also composed music. --
2661:
AfD closed properly and is there extending circumstances that proose a better outcome. Please aside all the ARS generalized accusations, we each act according to our own interests and if there is any coordination to parrot each other I'm utterly unaware of it but also believe it to be just as ill-concieved as coordinated efforts to remove content that is encyclopedic. Thanks for the many visual cues and loaded phraseology but I'll continue to assume good faith that all are here to improve the project. If you wish to dole out shame there are plenty of more appropriate websites to do so.
2948:'s comment that "While there are many music aficionados who would appreciate the nuances of splitting a single artists songs based on what component they created, there are many more amateurs who would only be baffled as they navigated through categories trying to understand why a song they associate with Johnny Mercer isn't listed under songs written by but is instead in songs with music by" there only needs to be a cross-reference such as was done in
380:. When a deletion discussion has roughly the same number of people supporting and opposing deletion, the administrator closing the debate should take into account when determining the result the strength of arguments, and whether either side had the force of a Knowledge policy or guideline behind it. That was exactly what happened here, although the basic delete closure without an explanation of this might have been a suboptimal choice.
1778:, and lo and behold lots of ARS members turn up and vote "overturn". I am quite aware that many ARS members aren't voting machines and that a lot do good work to rescue saveable articles (including yourself). However, a number more do little else but vote Keep on rescue AfDs. ARS should be able to co-ordinate the good work that it does without becoming a votestacking forum - something which many people believe it is already.
2698:. I think editors arguing here about the borders of purely or largely etymological articles would do well to read that AfD and DRV. I still think it is a fair argument to say that we do not do articles like "Red cunt hair" (which is a very different article than "Hair (unit of measurement)") largely on the basis of WP:NOT regardless of sources noting the existence of the phrase.
518:- clearly worth keeping and far away from being a dictionary entry. Topic has a long enough history and the article was well written and had good sources. Why was this deleted in the first place? Both discussions ended very close and were within weeks. Do we repeat AfDs until an admin can be found who's willing to delete the article? --
3493:- Nominator hit it on the head. The policy on CSD says that if its gone through an AFD, unless a new Copyright infringement is discovered, then an article cannot be speedied. The AFD didn't have much in the way of comments, granted, but it was held open for plenty of time, with no delete votes other than the AFD's nominator.
3108:
and discuss the merits there, not here, or in a more general forum. The closer said: "If wider consensus is to split all of the "written by" categories out into "lyrics by" and "music by", this can be reversed. That, however, is a very large undertaking and will require more input than this". As for
2967:
Not only did I nominate the merge, but encouraged BRG to bring the matter here for further discussion. I also notified BRB on his talkpage and at
Wikisongs. Whereas I agree with BRG's comments regarding JM and writers of that era, what happens when 1. WP can't verify who wrote what? 2. What's to stop
2578:
Word articles which fall somewhere inbetween a dictionary definition stub and a lengthy well-written and well sourced article are treated in an entirely random and haphazard fashion, and might be kept and expanded, rewritten into something different, redirected, deleted, or who knows what else, based
1505:
with no prejudice to relisting for further input. There clearly wasn't a consensus to delete. If it had been me closing, I would have closed as "no consensus" just to be safe since it's actually borderline "keep" that could fall to "delete" with just one additional reasonably sane opinions as to why.
775:
members have rescued many many items and will continue to improve
Knowledge in this manner. Jumping on editors for stepping out of form seems likely over-reacting. If closers on AfD and DrV can't adequately weight the many facets of a discussion that is a different issue that ARS has no control over.
2715:
the best venue to have a reasonable talk about that issue (given that emotions about the contingent outcome of the article will get in the way). I also can agree that rescue is appropriate (though just barely). Lastly, the relevance of the rescue template to the article at DRV is another issue and
2495:
sets of unrelated page histories, your redirect included, at that title. So the history merging administrator will have to perform a selective undeletion of just the history that actually went into forming the page as it stands in the draft. If it's the route chosen, give me a nudge and I'll merge
1397:
well sourced at all, despite all the claims by the people who wanted it kept and refused to explain their claim. Listing quotations of a term being used does not establish the merit of the term any more than every other word in the language. What you're doing is listing the vote rationales devoid of
1342:
to no consensus. (disclosure: I recommended Keep in the AfD) After taking some time to distill the arguments in the disucssion, I see a clear "no consensus". There were more "keep" arguments than "delete" arguments (12 to 10). The keepers basically said "it's notable and it's already more than a
774:
tag and point to the DrV - which in turn points to the AfD. Potential rescuers would need to take in all the salient stated deficiencies and see if the article was indeed rescueable. I find the toxic approach of labelling all the work of the rescue project as canvassing uncivil and unproductive. Our
748:
It seems, as a personal observation, that any AfD involving an article "tagged for rescue" has lately become filled with ARS members voting "keep" with little or no reference to guidelines or policy. Whether or not this is the explicit purpose of ARS, bringing unreasoned "keep" votes to AfDs appears
1040:
I'm not sure anyone has ever suggest vote-stacking or canvassing was OK? And ARS, IMHO, has indeed taken steps to address the perceptions of some editors such as yourself, who only see ARS as inclusionists or something. And when someone visits our talkpage with less than neutral posts we would deal
994:
Outdent. If we needed to call them anything besides volunteers you could use editors, fellow human beings, Wikipedians, etc. Anything else seems to present your POV and a bad faith assumption. Closers look at the merits of !votes not the volume of noise to signal. We know there are AfD participants
928:
I think all projects go through some soul-searching and that's not a bad thing, I appreciate any constructive suggestions and also invite you and anyone else to make solid suggestion to my talkpage and I will suss them out one by one. If we were the
Article Mercy Angel Squad putting articles out of
2660:
We actually do have many articles on words. and this can be one of them. As for can it be something else, possibly but I don't have a strong opinion or interest in doing battle on the matter. This issue for AfD is can this be a good article and what is the path to it. For DrV the issue is was the
1957:
How would canvasing affect things? The majority of people said Keep, so would object to being simply ignored, and thus would choose to overturn this decision. You have some editors, mostly administrators it seems, who watch this page and seem to
Endorse the actions of any other administrator, no
858:
The point is the same ARS has not and does not endorse canvassing despite several editors insisting so despite lack of any evidence. Could this user posted a more neutral post, certainly, is it fair to slander an entire project based on this - not so much. As usual, the over-reaction to perceived
763:
More accusations of canvassing of ARS yet DRV is in fact one area in which we can help. In this case I don't see what we can do without actually being able to work on the article but making blanket accusations against the whole project seems less than productive. If the article did exist we would
3163:
to the conclusion of this DRV. It was just my opinion about what should be done once the DRV was closed. I suggest the new CfD discussion be closed pending the outcome here, since having 2 ongoing processes for the same thing is confusing. Sorry if my comments were misinterpreted in this regard.
2644:
and article development expressed in the AFD discussions, and the userspace draft immediately at hand. You may well have put thought into your reply, but the end product was a poor one that was contrary to policy, when a good one was right there staring you in the face, supplied on a platter by
2374:
Should you be discussing that here, or in the AFD? If you are going to discuss it, then you need to allow everyone to see what the original page was. And this is suppose to be about following the consensus of those participating, not ignoring them and doing what you want instead, otherwise the
1355:
1 Keep per WP:NOTDIC 1 Keep
Sourced, WP is not censored 1 Keep Sourced, notable 3 Delete arguments: Delete Article is ridiculous, WP:DICDEF, Not notable 1 Delete WP:DICDEF 6 Delete
1269:
And the delete arguments were IDONTLIKEIT. of the two, well sourced is much nearer to policy. I was undecided myself, & therefore didn't comment at the afd, But looking at it there was no consensus. There's no way to judge what the closer may have based the close on, as he has never said.
2120:
Shame on the people who either didn't read the policy that they were happily pointing to, or didn't put it into practice. Shame on the self-styled ARS "members" who aren't actually article rescuers, for your efforts generating so much palaver that you wholly obscured the work that was done by
1717:
is really canvassing (I'd rather say it's a friendly notice), it does not counteract our goal here, i.e. to determine consensus based on arguments. Your approach would allow any editor to disrupt any AFD/DRV process by simply posting a notice at WT:ARS or similar, thus allowing them to get any
1706:
per DGG and
LinguistAtLarge. Both demonstrate that, once the ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT !votes are discounted, the main arguments were about whether this article was really only a dictionary entry or did have further encyclopedic value. There were good arguments for both sides but none was really
1077:
I appreciate your insight and agree as above that maybe this isn't the best venue. My concern was to address the oft-repeated accusation that I feel should be addressed directly and I've done that. There are some valid concerns and i believe they can be addressed systematically without causing
1016:
That doesn't mean it is ok to votestack. Just the opposite. Adding noise doesn't make it easier to just remove the noise again. It makes it harder for any closing admin to properly read consensus for a discussion. I have every confidence in our AfD closers, but we shouldn't set them up for
3195:
Whoa, ease up, tiger. "Votes" in DRVs are typically taken as opinions about what the closing administrator should direct, not what we should all drop and do right away. I didn't think it was necessary to specify "at the close of the DRV", just as the other commenters did not. I did previously
914:. Even framing things using those terms is automatically divisive and puts the focus on editors instead of articles. You probably don't share my impression of what has been happening lately. It wasn't my intention to start a discussion or get into specifics here, just to share my observation.
2936:
I think a "Songs written by X" category is appropriate, with either "Songs with music by X" or "Songs with lyrics by X" used where appropriate for any where he wrote only one or the other. And for someone like Frank
Loesser, who was a major lyricist but also wroth both lyrics and music for a
1618:
I'm not entirely sure that would be useful; once canvassing has taken place it is impossible to withdraw, with the result that a future DRV would be just as tainted as this one. The community may wish to consider how long it is willing to put up with what is becoming a recurring problem.
2620:
Pointing out our oldest policy to you is in no way part of any "problem", except perhaps if you then ignore that policy and continue to suggest that we should run counter to it. If anything is actually the problem, it is the lack of willingness on those who sport the ARS badges to
1392:
You've done just the opposite. This is as far from "an objective analysis of the merit of the arguments" as you can get; it's a list of votes, without the arguments. For example, notability was not something at issue but suitability for an encyclopedia. And this article was
1021:
guys at ARS the most fervent enforcers of this? Why aren't you on the lookout for anything that even gives a hint that your project is becoming (even partially) a tool to stack votes at AfD and now DRV (A DRV I might add, for an article which was nominated because it was
704:
a mechanism for voting in a certain manner at AfD and DRV would probably lead to an MfD for the project. However, canvassing is clearly indicated here, as many Keep voters on the original AfD were ARS members, and thus likely to vote
Overturn here (as you can see below).
1343:
DICDEF". The deleters basically said "it's a non-notable DICDEF or I don't like it". Neither side really supported their arguments with evidence, other than the references already in the article. Thus, instead of a "keep", it should be lowered to "no consensus". Data:
1541:
Did the closing editor simply take one look at the title, and dismiss it as nonsense, or did they take the time to read the arguments from both sides? Also, those who wish to endorse this, have you actually read through the AFD? What delete argument convinced you?
974:. (Tagging an article for rescue doesn't mean that rescue actually happens. And the converse is true, too. Rescue happens even when no tagging occurs.) You won't find any silly bloc voting at either its subsequent deletion review or its second AFD discussion.
905:
Benjiboi, I don't doubt that the ARS wikiproject members have good intentions and do good work. I think perhaps the idea of improving articles and hereby preventing them from being deleted may have been co-opted by some members into an ideological battle between
449:
This probably belongs on a list somewhere, so ideally a merge would have occurred instead. But target isn't clear. As Stifle indicated, the closer ideally would have provided an explanation (and again, ideally, mentioned a willingness to merge given a target).
2036:, despite the fact that they've rescued several articles, both at AFD and Proposed Deletion. This is the nub of the problem. We have people calling themselves rescuers who actually are not, since they don't do article work. And we have people who actually
1127:
If my actions are classed as canvassing, then I sincerely apologise. It was suggested to me that I inform ARS of the DRV, and the idea that this could be construed as canvassing honestly never occurred to me; all I can do is to plead ignorance/stupidity.
2897:
In fact, I did not know the change was up for consideration, as I received a notice on my talk page on the 18th, but did not happen to be editing on
Knowledge from the 18th until after the discussion had closed. So I was unable to put forth my arguments.
685:
Nonsense - ARS' remit is to provide sources and cleanup articles that are at AfD. It is specifically *not* a vote-gathering exercise. It is sad to see the cynical impression that some have garnered of the ARS so quickly confirmed by one of its members.
2986:
The cases of "What's to stop a singleton writer being listed under both composer and lyricist?" and "Some less notable person than JM is known for one lyric and one composion only" is covered by what I said earlier: "Where a songwriter primarily wrote
3109:
the particular instance: here was only one support of the original proposal; the nom himself , after introducing the nom by saying "I consider this a very contentious nomination," said "Not adverse to this suggestion" to an alternate proposal.
1290:
arguments. They were "Hey, we've been through this previously and decided to create a separate project for dictionary definitions" arguments. Have one citation, have sixteen: a dictionary definition is a dictionary definition. If only this were
2051:, but the net effect that it has had on AFD and on Deletion Review is to wholly obscure two things: the article was rescued, and (as can be seen from the efforts of yet another article rescuer in order to answer the question posed below) was
210:: The debate fell clearly within admin discretion and it's important we maintain our core principles, esp. project scope. Additionally, the arguments from the delete side were much stronger. I see no reason to dig up the buried horse. --
2403:"... you need to allow everyone to see what the original page was." Err, I linked to the current draft. And, the ultimate goal of any discussion anywhere on the project should be to improve Knowledge. Ignore the page title. :-) --
1736:
So if I'd posted a notice of this DRV to all the editors that !voted Delete on the AfD, that would be a friendly notice as well? Given that a very high percentage of the Keep !voters on the AfD were ARS members? I think not.
3222:
is the upstart. BRG's views are in accordance with mine on this (that 'written by' means or should mean both music and lyrics) but certainly the whole area is littered with difficulties (eg co-writers, often 5 or 6 of them).
3238:
Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second
2040:
article rescuers, with fairly long lists of rescues that they can point to, who aren't ARS "members". The problem here is that the self-styled "members" have been canvassing and stuffing non-existent ballots, whilst the
2610:"usages in popular culture" was not the correct path, and policy tells you that. As to what this article has the potential to be: It has the potential to be what was outlined in the very first AFD discussion, which is
2260:
is two paragraphs which consist entirely of an extended dictionary definition. So my question is: what's the next paragraph? What do the people voting "overturn" here propose to add here? How does this article grow?
1062:
I don't see ARS as all inclusionists. I see it as dramatically more inclusionist than it was when I joined in April of last year, certainly. I don't think that this conversation will really get us anywhere.
2845:
1748:
You're assuming - seemingly in bad faith - that ARS is the Borg and think, act, vote alike. Instead each is responsible for their own actions just like everywhere else. If a similar note were posted to
465:
Striking !vote. I'm annoyed with the ARS issues and the canvassing claims that keep getting thrown around in poor faith here and elsewhere. Finally L at Large shows this was probably no consensus.
859:
canvassing has done far more disruption than the original post ever did. It's also a leap of bad faith that the DRV closer isn't able to fairly close a discussion and apply due weight appropriately.
167:
2189:
I'm happy w/ the merge option suggested above. I still think the deletion decision was a reasonable interpretation of DICDEF, but there is some friction over the borders of that policy to be sure.
2276:
It's a language or "word" article. Some logical growth would be
Etymology, History, Notable usages in literature, Usages in popular culture. It really depends on what sources provide to work with.
2074:, collectively, taken (even the nominator in the second AFD discussion was persuaded by it, once it was pointed out to xem); and the action of (selectively, see below) history merging the draft at
1474:) there, whilst many of the Keeps are vague armwaving that somewhow it isn't a dicdef or it's notable purely because there are lots of sources (at least six votes say something along those lines).
3455:
should have gone to AFD. And judging from the first AFD, there were multiple claims of importance (winning awards, reaching the International Championship of High School A Cappella semifinals) so
1718:
discussion speedy closed, which cannot be the result we want to have. I think we should just ignore this posting (for which Chzz even apologized above) and concentrate on the AFD at hand. Regards
734:
If ARS has a remit limited to providing sources and cleaning up articles that are at AfD, why was there a notification regarding this DRV? From my perspective, it certainly looks like canvassing.
2866:
2070:
As such, clearly the action taken by the closing administrator, of deleting the article, was the wrong one; clearly following the path pointed out in the first AFD discussion is the action that
663:
in much the same way. In both cases, one should not take the attempts to pervert something into something else that it is not, by a battleground-seeking minority, as evidence that it actually
967:
2109:
of renaming and refactoring articles to fix them. Read the rationales as they stand, in the light of the very policy that they cite, and clearly the correct course of action is in fact
2143:
and put the article back on the path that was outlined for it two months ago — a path that is fully in accord with deletion policy and the policies pointed to in both AFD discussions.
2913:
Putting songs like "Autumn Leaves" and "Moon River" in a category of "Songs written by Johnny Mercer" minimizes the roles of the other partners in the team that created these songs.
995:
on both ends of a deletion/inclusion continuum who make rather empty comments. I think in general our closers can suss out those issues in the best interests of the overall project.
2879:
2857:
2607:
1466:
Personally I would've gone for some merge/redirect with the unit of measurement article, but there's nothing wrong with this close. Those arguing above that Delete !votes are
227:- I personally would have closed it as no consensus, but I trust the closing admin's judgment. Also, the arguments to delete the article were stronger than those to keep. –
3156:
2625:, accompanied by vague counter-to-policy handwaving along the lines of "We can just grow a dictionary article, with etymology and quotations." when pressed for how they
246:- competently closed by weighing arguments instead of counting votes. Given the delete arguments were stronger than the keep arguments, a delete result was a good call.
2815:
2133:
discussion into a discussion of ARS and away from a discussion of whether our content and deletion policies were correctly applied for this article. You know where
1377:
Note: I am not arguing "delete" or "keep" here. I'm arguing that an objective analysis of the merit of the arguments clearly points to a "no consensus" closure. —
660:
2579:
on the personality of the editor who finds it, the particular group of editors who wander into the article's AfD page, or perhaps the phase of the moon that day.
1198:
I don't feel that there was consensus to delete the article. I also feel like they were just taking stabs at the apple only a few weeks after the first AFD.--
3389:
720:. Absolutely unacceptable behavior. In cases like this we really should simply close the discussion altogether, but I suppose that'll just stir up drama. --
2811:
2760:
2417:
Doh! I thought that was a page it was merged to. Nevermind, should've been paying more attention. There are clearly a lot of references to the article.
1356:
Article is nonsense/ridiculous 1 Delete Article is ridiculous + WP:DICDEF 1 Delete Not notable 1
3476:- Having been kept in an afd, less than five months ago no less, and had claims of notability, there was not proper criteria for speedy deletion. --
3258:
are the one that closed the discussion. Therefore, you are the one that I should "courteously invite ... to take a second look." Have you done so? --
2636:
Even now, as you point out some people's lack of adherence to policy (which is all that that essay's complaint, as quoted, really boils down to), you
2033:
3424:"If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements."
844:
is a guideline, not a policy. Not sure how that makes a difference here, though; it was still wholly unacceptable to canvass for "overturn" votes. --
78:. The original AfD was within the discretionary range and it's clear the closing admin based their decision on the strength of the arguments made. –
48:
34:
3142:
2875:
2603:
2298:
2102:
804:, which could created regardless of the outcome of the AfD if new content was added. There is a lot ARS could be doing instead of vote stacking.
659:
No, it isn't. There have been some persistent attempts by one or two editors to pervert it into such. But there were also attempts to pervert
3419:
2920:
categories for one songwriter: "Songs written by X," "Songs with music by X," and "Songs with lyrics by X." While I would think this to be the
2134:
2048:
552:
43:
1709:@Stifle: We are here to get consensus on the decision of an admin's AFD close decision. Consensus is, like in that AFD, something that does
2778:
2330:
1585:
1328:
1183:
635:
155:
1753:
I wouldn't assume all responding editors were vote-stacking at all. We are compelled to assume that all are here to improve Knowledge.
280:- Correct policy weighted close. There were a lot of ilikeit keeps, but not much that addressed the reasons why the AfD was begun. --
3377:
1351:
1 Keep Already more than a WP:DICDEF 4 Keep Sourced, repetetive nomination 1 Keep + move to
1208:
1161:
588:
2995:
situations where an important piece of information is unknown. (In at least one case I managed to be able to make a good guess; see
1527:
368:
39:
2487:
for GFDL compliance (see above for some of the editors who got this article to where it stands today and whose history attribution
2618:. Indeed, the current draft is an existence proof. You'll find that it's about a verifiable unit of measurement known as a hair.
1958:
matter what it is. Seriously, have those who said Endorse here, ever once said Overturn? Seems like you have an automatic bias.
880:
What else would you like a group of users all coming from the same place and then voting the same (with one exception) be called?
2471:
2173:
1926:
1630:
You're again assuming bad faith that ARS members have stated some opinion that all articles, or at least all article tagged with
1212:
592:
427:
338:
311:
89:
2949:
1814:
Bjweeks made a perfectly reasonable call. I would prefer if AfDs were scheduled a bit more than five weeks apart, though with
2484:
2079:
1750:
815:
Knock it off, ARS has never and still doesn't advocate violating policies. Please desist in suggestion so which does violate
176:
3033:, which is a shame because you are probably correct in your assumptions and your good faith is not in dispute in any way. --
2991:
I think a 'Songs written by X' category is appropriate." The first is a different issue, and it certainly is of a kind with
3398:
2227:
2075:
1843:
1017:
failure. Point is, using ARS for votestacking is wrong and it brings up a question I've had for a while now. Why aren't
919:
754:
21:
3219:
2483:
That's added to the difficulty, alas! Should this draft be placed into article space, it has to be history merged with
1853:
1829:
2928:
either music or lyrics there should be two categories: "Songs with music by X" and "Songs with lyrics by X," with the
1866:- agreed, moving the draft into article space would be ok. Someone could open a new AfD, but it wouldn't be a speedy.
3196:
apologise if my comments led to a misunderstanding, though. If you want to close the CfD you started, you can do so.
2711:
to this article. I can agree w/ Benjiboi that the discussion isn't perfectly germane to the DRV. This is decidedly
1398:
their reasoning, to make it look like the two sides were equally cogent in their arguments, when it wasn't the case.
2113:. The boldfaced words should be ignored in favour of the policies cited in the rationales, and what those policies
2032:
done by the self-styled rescuers in the second. Ironically, neither LinguistAtLarge nor Phil Bridger are listed as
1411:
All I have done is condense the arguments so the discussion can be analyzed at a glance. The closing admin probably
3215:
2231:
2083:
1986:
You accusing other editors of voting in a biased manner certainly cheered me up on a dull, wet, Wednesday morning!
1352:
1348:
416:
Apparently, other editors would've given a great deal less weight to Smerdis of Tlon's argument than I would have!—
3561:
3327:
3280:
3242:
2795:
2739:
2095:
1429:
1383:
1365:
105:
17:
963:
2773:
2326:
1581:
1323:
1179:
915:
750:
631:
3173:
Then close the new CfD discussion. My understanding of your comment was that you thought a CfD discussion was
2257:
797:
3515:
3314:
3133:
2162:
With regard to the last point in your penultimate paragraph, that's a matter I raised on the DRV talk page.—
2028:
did some rescue work in the first AFD discussion. Despite the canvassing and the tagging, there was little
2002:
1665:
1609:
896:
650:
501:
good close - arguments by those favouring deletion were obviously stronger than those favouring retention.
489:
385:
578:. The project has been approved to assess the viability of content for the project and vote accordingly.--
1947:
1204:
1155:
801:
584:
236:
3539:
as clear process error. I have a reasonable confidence the deleting admin would acknowledge it as such.
3498:
1911:
per Stifle (moved from "Overturn" because even though I feel the closure was in error, I agree that the
1467:
1287:
929:
their misery it likely would have similar concerns along another bent axis so I appreciate the insight.
610:"The project has been approved to assess the viability of content for the project and vote accordingly."
362:
268:
125:
3347:
2690:
I think there is some discussion to be had about DICDEF and its limits. We do articles on words, the
2460:
for the moment. It's a remotely plausible search term, and those shouldn't be redlinks on Knowledge.—
3038:
2973:
2705:
2468:
2170:
2021:
1987:
1923:
1871:
1779:
1738:
1634:
1620:
1475:
1425:
1379:
1361:
768:
739:
706:
560:
424:
335:
308:
285:
251:
526:
3550:
3531:
3519:
3510:, it's a bright-line rule that a page that has survived AFD can't be speedied except for copyvios.
3502:
3485:
3468:
3464:
3446:
3442:
3316:
3267:
3249:
3232:
3200:
3197:
3190:
3168:
3165:
3150:
3147:
3135:
3120:
3092:
3042:
3012:
2977:
2961:
2784:
2768:
2765:
2728:
2677:
2654:
2597:
2567:
2549:
2521:
2505:
2478:
2440:
2412:
2408:
2398:
2367:
2351:
2335:
2316:
2310:
2292:
2270:
2266:
2243:
2221:
2198:
2180:
2152:
2006:
1992:
1981:
1949:
1933:
1903:
1875:
1858:
1834:
1798:
1784:
1769:
1743:
1731:
1690:
1669:
1656:
1625:
1613:
1590:
1571:
1565:
1533:
1497:
1480:
1458:
1433:
1406:
1387:
1369:
1334:
1318:
1315:
1304:
1300:
1281:
1261:
1257:
1243:
1225:
1188:
1169:
1145:
1119:
1094:
1072:
1057:
1035:
1011:
983:
945:
923:
900:
886:
875:
853:
849:
835:
810:
791:
758:
743:
729:
725:
711:
695:
691:
676:
654:
640:
621:
605:
565:
539:
531:
510:
506:
493:
474:
459:
434:
405:
389:
372:
345:
318:
289:
272:
255:
238:
219:
215:
201:
94:
84:
3343:
3301:
2629:
an article. And this problem is compounded by AFD and Deletion Review discussion canvassing that
1252:. The keep arguments generally seemed to be "but it's well sourced", ignoring the basic argument.
3528:
3481:
3310:
3129:
2880:
Knowledge:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 18#Category:Songs with lyrics by Johnny Mercer
2662:
2582:
2277:
2059:, by the time of the second AFD discussion. The actions pointed out in the first AFD discussion
1888:
1775:
1754:
1714:
1675:
1641:
1601:
1079:
1042:
996:
930:
860:
820:
776:
485:
402:
2932:
where, a person wrote both being put into both categories. Where a songwriter primarily wrote
2724:
2650:
2563:
2517:
2501:
2363:
2347:
2306:
2239:
2194:
2148:
2025:
1940:
1794:
1493:
1403:
1216:
1199:
1151:
1068:
1031:
979:
841:
672:
596:
579:
575:
548:
229:
3430:
I think the correct procedure would have been to relist or reopen. I approached the deleting
2572:
Well, dismissing my thoughtful reply and experienced with this type of article response with
2342:
Actually, it's not a next paragraph, by the looks of things. It's a preceding paragraph. ☺
3494:
3407:
3228:
2878:
on April 18. With very little discussion, the rename was approved, effective April 24. (See
2527:
2457:
2418:
2376:
2215:
2105:
policy, so happily pointed to by the people opining to delete in the second AFD discussion,
1959:
1847:
1823:
1543:
1510:
1471:
1454:
358:
264:
2924:
way of handling this, I would accept the idea that for people like Johnny Mercer who wrote
3431:
3034:
2996:
2969:
2526:
Answered? We need the closing administrator to explain their reasoning for their action.
2461:
2163:
2013:
1916:
1867:
1725:
1449:
The correct finding was "no consensus." "IDONTLIKEIT" arguments should have been ignored.
1234:
816:
735:
470:
455:
417:
328:
301:
281:
247:
2886:
posted an opinion in favor of the change; one other said "put it on hold" and one wrote
357:, notavote. Deletion had the arguements, keeping had the numbers. I don't like numbers.
3460:
3438:
2909:
music. Mercer wrote both for only one or two songs; he was by far known primarily as a
2453:
2404:
2262:
1296:
1253:
1220:
1138:
1115:
845:
721:
687:
600:
502:
398:
211:
194:
79:
3546:
3477:
3456:
3427:
3415:
3411:
3263:
3246:
3186:
3116:
3088:
3008:
2957:
2945:
1912:
1292:
1277:
1023:
717:
617:
613:
571:
121:
70:
2606:
and we don't do dictionary articles. Expanding the prior article with etymology or
3072:
3030:
2720:
2646:
2559:
2513:
2497:
2359:
2343:
2302:
2235:
2190:
2144:
1820:
via ARS, and I cannot see the deleted article to judge the merits of the arguments.
1790:
1713:!voting a certain way but on their arguments. Even if one were to think posting at
1489:
1423:
consensus based on the arguments and supporting evidence given in the discussion. —
1399:
1064:
1027:
975:
881:
805:
668:
536:
3159:
discussion has been started. I didn't mean to suggest that this should be started
1570:
Do you have any evidence to back up your fairly severe accusation of bad faith? -
2256:
A lot of people are claiming that this article has merit in an encyclopedia. The
2016:
has, possibly unknowingly, identified the nub of the problem here. This article
3511:
3224:
3177:
than a DRV. If you had meant "once the DRV was closed," perhaps you should have
3026:
2207:
2094:, in the first AFD discussion, and it is a route that is in accordance with our
1998:
1661:
1605:
1450:
892:
646:
381:
800:
where it could be improved. Half the votes were for the article to be moved to
1720:
716:
Blatant and wholly inappropriate canvassing by the person who brought this to
466:
451:
2716:
shouldn't be handled under the broader issue of relevance to dicdef articles.
1314:
to no consensus. I don't see much of a clear leaning in either direction. --
1131:
1111:
962:
You've not observed enough data to form a correct conclusion. For example:
401:. I believe the arguments for deletion outweighed the arguments against it.
187:
2701:
It is also fair, in my opinion, to have discussions about the relevance of
2581:
We do have articles on words and this has the potential to be a good one.
2045:
have been working on the articles and not bothering with the silly badges.
3541:
3259:
3245:) Was this done? It could have saved all of you a lot of typing... --
3182:
3111:
3084:
3004:
2953:
1272:
74:– A contentious DRV for a contentious AfD. However, I am closing this as
3079:
is necessary, a case for that may exist; but that needs to be discussed
2695:
2129:. And shame on the people critical of those latter, who have diverted
2719:
I'm not sure yet what the best venue is or what the best course is.
2315:
Aren't those all typical things you find in an dictionary entry? -
1233:- The delete arguments were much stronger than the keep arguments.
1789:
You've unknowingly identified the nub of the problem. See below.
3527:
unless it's a copyvio, it should not have been A7'd per policy.
1774:
No, let's be pragmatic about this. Chzz advertises this AfD at
1707:
stronger, so the correct outcome would have been "no consensus".
2512:
The question posed in this section is now answered, I think.
3437:
but they do not appear to have been active since the 25th.
2230:, that the people opining to keep, refactor, and rename to
1640:
will be voted for keep when I know that's not true at all.
3309:. Unanimous agreement that a procedural error occurred. –
3067:
of the team are known to have written lyrics or music to
1470:
are missing the point that at least there's a rationale (
2901:
To me, "Songs written by X" implies songs where X wrote
2234:, in both AFD discussions, were right, notwithstanding?
667:, or is intended to be by non-battlers, what it is not.
3434:
3384:
3370:
3362:
3354:
2852:
2838:
2830:
2822:
2375:
consensus process and AFD discussion become pointless.
2356:
2057:
exactly the way pointed out in the first AFD discussion
1165:
556:
162:
148:
140:
132:
2941:
of songs, yet another treatment might be appropriate.
2111:
not the boldfaced words that prefixed those rationales
819:. I'll look to what can be done about userspace work.
3218:
dates from 2005 so this is not a new venture; indeed
2206:
Properly closed, no problems. Should remain deleted.
184:
No clear consensus, so should have defaulted to keep
2117:, and have said all along for about eight years now.
1488:
Within the discretion of the closing administrator.
1026:, rather than because it lacked sources or polish)?
3059:Check the words there again. What was stated there
3025:Unfortunately your solution to Ricochet fails both
2491:needs to be retained). Unfortunately, we now have
1674:You want me to cite my own experience? Duly noted.
1600:this DRV as irretrievably tainted by canvassing at
1347:Keep arguments: Keep Sourced, notable, move to
796:The article has been in user space for over a week
3243:Knowledge:Deletion_review#What_is_this_page_for.3F
2576:is part of the problem - from a relevant essay -
749:to be what happens when that rescue tag goes on.
700:I suggest you re-think that. Indicating that ARS
3426:. Whilst the discussion was rather short and a
2633:. Shame on the supposed rescuers who did that!
2645:several editors, across two AFD discussions.
661:Talk:Deletionism and inclusionism in Knowledge
620:. It is not an article inclusion thinktank. -
298:. That should've been a no consensus outcome.
1915:canvassing has invalidated this discussion).—
1110:no consensus outcome would have been correct.
891:I'd rather you knocked off the disingenuity.
8:
2999:, where I've tried to make it clear that it
3326:The following is an archived debate of the
2890:it. This does not appear to be a consensus
2874:This category was proposed for renaming to
2812:Category:Songs with lyrics by Johnny Mercer
2794:The following is an archived debate of the
2761:Category:Songs with lyrics by Johnny Mercer
1604:, with liberty to relist in a week or two.
574:about content under deletion review is not
104:The following is an archived debate of the
3294:
2753:
618:WP:ARS#What the Rescue template is not for
263:- I see no consensus to delete from that.
63:
2602:Rubbish. It's not part of any problem.
2034:Knowledge:Article Rescue Squadron/Members
2950:Category:Songs with lyrics by Tom Lehrer
2623:actually work on rescue in this instance
3143:Category:Songs written by Johnny Mercer
2876:Category:Songs written by Johnny Mercer
2638:totally fail to address the rescue work
2103:Knowledge:Knowledge is not a dictionary
614:WP:ARS#So ARS wants to keep everything?
3420:Knowledge:Criteria for speedy deletion
2135:Knowledge talk:Article Rescue Squadron
2090:be taken. The route was shown, by an
2049:Knowledge talk:Article Rescue Squadron
1846:to mainspace would be a-ok with me. -
1415:even look at the article. They should
553:Knowledge talk:Article Rescue Squadron
2916:Some persons have objected to having
7:
2694:example of a marginal article being
2228:User:Chzz/Hair (unit of measurement)
2076:User:Chzz/Hair (unit of measurement)
2047:This is a problem for addressing on
1938:Agree to speedy close, per Stifle. –
1844:User:Chzz/Hair (unit of measurement)
612:No, it hasn't. You may want to read
3564:of the page listed in the heading.
3283:of the page listed in the heading.
3003:a guess, but with good reason.) --
2742:of the page listed in the heading.
484:good close, no procedural problems.
2556:read what the question actually is
1842:On the other hand, an IAR move of
1150:Specifically, it was suggested by
28:
2297:No, it isn't — or shouldn't be.
3128:There was no clear consensus. -
3071:While you might make a case for
1711:not rely on the number of people
3560:The above is an archive of the
3279:The above is an archive of the
2738:The above is an archive of the
1078:disruption and that is my aim.
3459:really didn't apply anyway. --
3406:The article was deleted under
2642:their ideas for further rescue
2485:Special:Undelete/Red cunt hair
2107:itself includes an explanation
2080:Special:Undelete/red cunt hair
1751:Knowledge:WikiProject Deletion
547:: Note that this DRV has been
1:
3254:Kbdank71, it looks as though
2604:Knowledge is not a dictionary
2574:Knowledge is not a dictionary
2299:Knowledge is not a dictionary
3418:discussion in January. From
3414:in March having survived an
3220:Category:Songs by songwriter
2612:not an article about a word
397:– Proper admin closure per
3587:
3216:Category:Songs by lyricist
3075:, if you wish to say that
2640:of the original rescuers,
2252:What's the next paragraph?
2232:Hair (unit of measurement)
2226:The existence of proof at
2084:Hair (unit of measurement)
1704:Overturn to "No consensus"
1353:Hair (unit of measurement)
1349:Hair (unit of measurement)
964:Biblical definition of God
2096:Knowledge:deletion policy
2086:, is the one that should
1024:outside the project scope
970:) was not tagged, but it
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
3567:Please do not modify it.
3333:Please do not modify it.
3286:Please do not modify it.
3077:deleting the conclusion'
3063:verifiable, namely that
2801:Please do not modify it.
2745:Please do not modify it.
2631:eclipsed the rescue work
2616:not a dictionary article
2065:did not involve deletion
1818:it is not as important.
1267:Overturn to no consensus
111:Please do not modify it.
95:15:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
40:Deletion review archives
3551:16:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
3532:16:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
3520:13:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
3503:01:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
3486:21:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
3469:18:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
3447:18:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
3317:17:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
3268:16:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
3250:17:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
3233:11:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
3201:11:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
3191:11:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
3169:03:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
3151:01:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
3136:17:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
3121:16:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
3093:01:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
3043:06:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
3013:22:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
2978:20:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
2962:19:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
2785:17:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
2729:20:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
2678:22:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
2655:22:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
2598:18:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
2568:16:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
2554:Yes, answered. Please
2550:15:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
2522:12:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
2506:12:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
2479:09:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
2441:03:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
2413:03:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
2399:03:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
2368:02:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
2352:01:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
2336:02:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
2311:01:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
2293:01:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
2271:00:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
2244:22:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
2222:18:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
2199:12:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
2181:15:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
2153:12:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
2123:actual article rescuers
2082:, and then renaming to
2007:09:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
1993:06:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
1982:03:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
1950:23:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
1934:22:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
1904:22:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
1876:22:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
1859:22:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
1835:21:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
1799:12:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
1785:06:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
1770:00:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
1744:17:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
1732:17:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
1691:18:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
1670:08:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
1657:00:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
1626:17:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
1614:13:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
1591:12:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
1566:10:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
1534:09:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
1498:07:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
1481:06:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
1459:04:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
1434:22:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
1407:00:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
1388:03:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
1370:03:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
1335:23:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
1305:23:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
1282:23:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
1262:22:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
1244:22:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
1226:21:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
1189:08:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
1146:08:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
1120:21:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
1095:10:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
1073:00:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
1058:20:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
1036:19:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
1012:01:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
984:01:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
946:10:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
924:01:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
901:09:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
887:00:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
876:00:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
854:00:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
836:00:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
811:23:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
792:22:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
759:13:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
744:21:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
730:21:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
712:21:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
696:21:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
677:01:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
655:08:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
641:21:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
606:21:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
566:20:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
540:20:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
511:20:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
494:12:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
475:22:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
460:00:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
435:18:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
406:16:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
390:13:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
373:10:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
346:22:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
319:08:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
290:08:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
273:01:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
256:23:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
239:22:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
220:22:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
202:22:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
3330:of the article above.
3146:and have at it there.
3069:specified other songs.
2798:of the article above.
2092:actual article rescuer
802:Hair (unit of measure)
108:of the article above.
2061:could have been taken
1887:per LinguistAtLarge.
1295:somewhere.... ;-) --
817:our civility policies
2078:with the history at
1850:(formerly Eldereft)
1826:(formerly Eldereft)
916:Delicious carbuncle
751:Delicious carbuncle
327:Struck, see below.—
3065:particular members
2764:– Relist on CfD –
2608:cargo-cult written
2127:the article itself
2030:actual rescue work
521:Avant-garde a clue
3574:
3573:
3293:
3292:
2930:very small number
2752:
2751:
2456:redirected it to
2334:
2220:
1997:Yes, many times.
1857:
1833:
1821:
1589:
1224:
1187:
1144:
885:
809:
639:
604:
523:
200:
76:deletion endorsed
3578:
3569:
3401:
3396:
3387:
3373:
3365:
3357:
3335:
3295:
3288:
3175:more appropriate
2894:of the change.
2869:
2864:
2855:
2841:
2833:
2825:
2803:
2781:
2776:
2771:
2754:
2747:
2710:
2704:
2674:
2668:
2594:
2588:
2546:
2543:
2540:
2537:
2534:
2531:
2476:
2466:
2458:Figure of speech
2437:
2434:
2431:
2428:
2425:
2422:
2395:
2392:
2389:
2386:
2383:
2380:
2324:
2322:
2289:
2283:
2218:
2214:
2212:
2178:
2168:
2072:should have been
1978:
1975:
1972:
1969:
1966:
1963:
1943:
1931:
1921:
1900:
1894:
1851:
1827:
1819:
1766:
1760:
1728:
1723:
1687:
1681:
1653:
1647:
1639:
1633:
1579:
1577:
1562:
1559:
1556:
1553:
1550:
1547:
1522:
1331:
1326:
1321:
1240:
1239:
1202:
1177:
1175:
1143:
1141:
1135:
1129:
1091:
1085:
1054:
1048:
1008:
1002:
942:
936:
884:
872:
866:
832:
826:
808:
788:
782:
773:
767:
629:
627:
582:
534:
529:
519:
432:
422:
343:
333:
316:
306:
232:
208:Endorse deletion
199:
197:
191:
185:
179:
174:
165:
151:
143:
135:
113:
92:
82:
64:
53:
33:
3586:
3585:
3581:
3580:
3579:
3577:
3576:
3575:
3565:
3562:deletion review
3428:non-admin close
3397:
3395:
3392:
3383:
3382:
3376:
3369:
3368:
3361:
3360:
3353:
3352:
3331:
3328:deletion review
3284:
3281:deletion review
3198:Good Ol’factory
3166:Good Ol’factory
3148:Good Ol’factory
2997:Ricochet (song)
2884:Only one person
2865:
2863:
2860:
2851:
2850:
2844:
2837:
2836:
2829:
2828:
2821:
2820:
2799:
2796:deletion review
2779:
2774:
2769:
2743:
2740:deletion review
2708:
2702:
2672:
2666:
2592:
2586:
2544:
2541:
2538:
2535:
2532:
2529:
2496:the histories.
2489:most definitely
2475:
2472:
2462:
2435:
2432:
2429:
2426:
2423:
2420:
2393:
2390:
2387:
2384:
2381:
2378:
2318:
2287:
2281:
2216:
2208:
2177:
2174:
2164:
2043:actual rescuers
2022:LinguistAtLarge
1976:
1973:
1970:
1967:
1964:
1961:
1941:
1930:
1927:
1917:
1898:
1892:
1764:
1758:
1726:
1721:
1685:
1679:
1651:
1645:
1637:
1631:
1573:
1560:
1557:
1554:
1551:
1548:
1545:
1532:
1520:
1426:LinguistAtLarge
1380:LinguistAtLarge
1362:LinguistAtLarge
1357:
1329:
1324:
1319:
1237:
1235:
1171:
1139:
1133:
1130:
1089:
1083:
1052:
1046:
1006:
1000:
940:
934:
908:"inclusionists"
870:
864:
830:
824:
786:
780:
771:
765:
623:
532:
527:
431:
428:
418:
342:
339:
329:
315:
312:
302:
230:
195:
189:
186:
175:
173:
170:
161:
160:
154:
147:
146:
139:
138:
131:
130:
109:
106:deletion review
90:
80:
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
3584:
3582:
3572:
3571:
3556:
3555:
3554:
3553:
3534:
3522:
3505:
3488:
3471:
3404:
3403:
3393:
3380:
3374:
3366:
3358:
3350:
3338:
3337:
3322:
3321:
3320:
3319:
3291:
3290:
3275:
3274:
3273:
3272:
3271:
3270:
3235:
3209:
3208:
3207:
3206:
3205:
3204:
3203:
3141:Just nominate
3138:
3123:
3102:
3101:
3100:
3099:
3098:
3097:
3096:
3095:
3050:
3049:
3048:
3047:
3046:
3045:
3018:
3017:
3016:
3015:
2981:
2980:
2872:
2871:
2861:
2848:
2842:
2834:
2826:
2818:
2806:
2805:
2790:
2789:
2788:
2787:
2750:
2749:
2734:
2733:
2732:
2731:
2717:
2699:
2688:
2687:
2686:
2685:
2684:
2683:
2682:
2681:
2680:
2658:
2510:
2509:
2508:
2473:
2447:
2446:
2445:
2444:
2443:
2372:
2371:
2370:
2340:
2339:
2338:
2313:
2254:
2253:
2249:
2248:
2247:
2246:
2201:
2186:
2185:
2184:
2183:
2175:
2157:
2156:
2055:rescuable, in
2011:
2010:
2009:
1995:
1952:
1936:
1928:
1906:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1708:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1694:
1693:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1536:
1525:
1500:
1483:
1468:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
1461:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1337:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1264:
1247:
1228:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1122:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
992:
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
968:AfD discussion
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
912:"deletionists"
903:
889:
746:
732:
714:
698:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
611:
542:
513:
496:
479:
478:
477:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
429:
409:
408:
392:
375:
351:
350:
349:
348:
340:
322:
321:
313:
292:
275:
258:
241:
222:
182:
181:
171:
158:
152:
144:
136:
128:
116:
115:
100:
99:
98:
97:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3583:
3570:
3568:
3563:
3558:
3557:
3552:
3548:
3544:
3543:
3538:
3537:snow overturn
3535:
3533:
3530:
3526:
3523:
3521:
3517:
3513:
3509:
3506:
3504:
3500:
3496:
3492:
3489:
3487:
3483:
3479:
3475:
3472:
3470:
3466:
3462:
3458:
3454:
3451:
3450:
3449:
3448:
3444:
3440:
3436:
3433:
3429:
3425:
3421:
3417:
3413:
3409:
3408:speedy delete
3400:
3391:
3386:
3379:
3372:
3364:
3356:
3349:
3345:
3342:
3341:
3340:
3339:
3336:
3334:
3329:
3324:
3323:
3318:
3315:
3312:
3308:
3304:
3303:
3299:
3298:
3297:
3296:
3289:
3287:
3282:
3277:
3276:
3269:
3265:
3261:
3257:
3253:
3252:
3251:
3248:
3244:
3240:
3236:
3234:
3230:
3226:
3221:
3217:
3213:
3210:
3202:
3199:
3194:
3193:
3192:
3188:
3184:
3180:
3176:
3172:
3171:
3170:
3167:
3162:
3158:
3154:
3153:
3152:
3149:
3145:
3144:
3139:
3137:
3134:
3131:
3127:
3124:
3122:
3118:
3114:
3113:
3107:
3104:
3103:
3094:
3090:
3086:
3082:
3078:
3074:
3070:
3066:
3062:
3058:
3057:
3056:
3055:
3054:
3053:
3052:
3051:
3044:
3040:
3036:
3032:
3028:
3024:
3023:
3022:
3021:
3020:
3019:
3014:
3010:
3006:
3002:
2998:
2994:
2990:
2985:
2984:
2983:
2982:
2979:
2975:
2971:
2966:
2965:
2964:
2963:
2959:
2955:
2951:
2947:
2942:
2940:
2935:
2931:
2927:
2923:
2922:most accurate
2919:
2914:
2912:
2908:
2904:
2899:
2895:
2893:
2889:
2885:
2881:
2877:
2868:
2859:
2854:
2847:
2840:
2832:
2824:
2817:
2813:
2810:
2809:
2808:
2807:
2804:
2802:
2797:
2792:
2791:
2786:
2782:
2777:
2772:
2767:
2763:
2762:
2758:
2757:
2756:
2755:
2748:
2746:
2741:
2736:
2735:
2730:
2726:
2722:
2718:
2714:
2707:
2700:
2697:
2693:
2689:
2679:
2676:
2675:
2669:
2659:
2657:
2656:
2652:
2648:
2643:
2639:
2634:
2632:
2628:
2624:
2617:
2613:
2609:
2605:
2601:
2600:
2599:
2596:
2595:
2589:
2580:
2575:
2571:
2570:
2569:
2565:
2561:
2557:
2553:
2552:
2551:
2548:
2547:
2525:
2524:
2523:
2519:
2515:
2511:
2507:
2503:
2499:
2494:
2490:
2486:
2482:
2481:
2480:
2477:
2469:
2467:
2465:
2459:
2455:
2451:
2448:
2442:
2439:
2438:
2416:
2415:
2414:
2410:
2406:
2402:
2401:
2400:
2397:
2396:
2373:
2369:
2365:
2361:
2358:
2355:
2354:
2353:
2349:
2345:
2341:
2337:
2332:
2328:
2323:
2321:
2314:
2312:
2308:
2304:
2300:
2296:
2295:
2294:
2291:
2290:
2284:
2275:
2274:
2273:
2272:
2268:
2264:
2259:
2258:current draft
2251:
2250:
2245:
2241:
2237:
2233:
2229:
2225:
2224:
2223:
2219:
2213:
2211:
2205:
2202:
2200:
2196:
2192:
2188:
2187:
2182:
2179:
2171:
2169:
2167:
2161:
2160:
2159:
2158:
2155:
2154:
2150:
2146:
2142:
2138:
2136:
2132:
2128:
2124:
2118:
2116:
2112:
2108:
2104:
2099:
2097:
2093:
2089:
2085:
2081:
2077:
2073:
2068:
2066:
2062:
2058:
2054:
2050:
2044:
2039:
2035:
2031:
2027:
2023:
2019:
2015:
2012:
2008:
2004:
2000:
1996:
1994:
1991:
1990:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1980:
1979:
1956:
1953:
1951:
1948:
1945:
1944:
1937:
1935:
1932:
1924:
1922:
1920:
1914:
1910:
1907:
1905:
1902:
1901:
1895:
1886:
1883:
1877:
1873:
1869:
1865:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1855:
1849:
1845:
1841:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1831:
1825:
1817:
1813:
1810:
1800:
1796:
1792:
1788:
1787:
1786:
1783:
1782:
1777:
1773:
1772:
1771:
1768:
1767:
1761:
1752:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1742:
1741:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1730:
1729:
1724:
1716:
1712:
1705:
1702:
1692:
1689:
1688:
1682:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1667:
1663:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1655:
1654:
1648:
1636:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1624:
1623:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1611:
1607:
1603:
1599:
1596:
1592:
1587:
1583:
1578:
1576:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1564:
1563:
1540:
1537:
1535:
1531:
1529:
1524:
1519:
1517:
1513:
1509:
1504:
1501:
1499:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1484:
1482:
1479:
1478:
1473:
1469:
1465:
1462:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1445:
1444:
1435:
1432:
1431:
1427:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1405:
1401:
1396:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1386:
1385:
1381:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1368:
1367:
1363:
1354:
1350:
1341:
1338:
1336:
1332:
1327:
1322:
1317:
1313:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1294:
1289:
1286:They weren't
1285:
1284:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1274:
1268:
1265:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1248:
1246:
1245:
1241:
1232:
1229:
1227:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1201:
1197:
1194:
1190:
1185:
1181:
1176:
1174:
1167:
1163:
1160:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1142:
1137:
1136:
1126:
1123:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1106:
1096:
1093:
1092:
1086:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1056:
1055:
1049:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1020:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1010:
1009:
1003:
993:
985:
981:
977:
973:
969:
965:
961:
947:
944:
943:
937:
927:
926:
925:
921:
917:
913:
909:
904:
902:
898:
894:
890:
888:
883:
879:
878:
877:
874:
873:
867:
857:
856:
855:
851:
847:
843:
840:That's true.
839:
838:
837:
834:
833:
827:
818:
814:
813:
812:
807:
803:
799:
795:
794:
793:
790:
789:
783:
770:
762:
761:
760:
756:
752:
747:
745:
741:
737:
733:
731:
727:
723:
719:
715:
713:
710:
709:
703:
699:
697:
693:
689:
684:
678:
674:
670:
666:
662:
658:
657:
656:
652:
648:
644:
643:
642:
637:
633:
628:
626:
619:
615:
609:
608:
607:
602:
598:
594:
590:
586:
581:
577:
576:WP:CANVASSing
573:
569:
568:
567:
564:
563:
558:
554:
550:
546:
543:
541:
538:
537:
535:
530:
522:
517:
514:
512:
508:
504:
500:
497:
495:
491:
487:
486:Bali ultimate
483:
480:
476:
472:
468:
464:
463:
462:
461:
457:
453:
448:
444:
443:
436:
433:
425:
423:
421:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
407:
404:
400:
396:
393:
391:
387:
383:
379:
376:
374:
370:
367:
364:
360:
356:
353:
352:
347:
344:
336:
334:
332:
326:
325:
324:
323:
320:
317:
309:
307:
305:
299:
297:
293:
291:
287:
283:
279:
276:
274:
270:
266:
262:
259:
257:
253:
249:
245:
242:
240:
237:
234:
233:
226:
223:
221:
217:
213:
209:
206:
205:
204:
203:
198:
193:
192:
178:
169:
164:
157:
150:
142:
134:
127:
123:
122:Red cunt hair
120:
119:
118:
117:
114:
112:
107:
102:
101:
96:
93:
88:
87:
83:
77:
73:
72:
71:Red cunt hair
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
3566:
3559:
3540:
3536:
3524:
3507:
3490:
3473:
3452:
3423:
3405:
3344:The Newtones
3332:
3325:
3306:
3302:The Newtones
3300:
3285:
3278:
3255:
3237:
3211:
3178:
3174:
3160:
3140:
3125:
3110:
3105:
3080:
3076:
3068:
3064:
3060:
3000:
2992:
2988:
2943:
2938:
2933:
2929:
2925:
2921:
2917:
2915:
2910:
2906:
2902:
2900:
2896:
2891:
2887:
2883:
2873:
2800:
2793:
2759:
2744:
2737:
2712:
2691:
2670:
2664:
2641:
2637:
2635:
2630:
2627:would rescue
2626:
2622:
2619:
2615:
2611:
2590:
2584:
2577:
2573:
2555:
2528:
2492:
2488:
2463:
2449:
2419:
2377:
2319:
2285:
2279:
2255:
2209:
2203:
2165:
2140:
2139:
2130:
2126:
2122:
2119:
2115:actually say
2114:
2110:
2106:
2101:Indeed, the
2100:
2091:
2087:
2071:
2069:
2064:
2060:
2056:
2052:
2046:
2042:
2037:
2029:
2026:Phil Bridger
2017:
1988:
1960:
1954:
1942:Juliancolton
1939:
1918:
1909:Speedy close
1908:
1896:
1890:
1884:
1863:
1839:
1816:no consensus
1815:
1811:
1780:
1762:
1756:
1739:
1719:
1710:
1703:
1683:
1677:
1649:
1643:
1621:
1598:Speedy close
1597:
1574:
1544:
1538:
1526:
1523:
1515:
1511:
1507:
1502:
1485:
1476:
1463:
1446:
1424:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1394:
1378:
1360:
1358:
1339:
1311:
1271:
1266:
1249:
1242:
1230:
1200:TonyTheTiger
1195:
1172:
1158:
1152:TonyTheTiger
1132:
1124:
1107:
1087:
1081:
1050:
1044:
1018:
1004:
998:
971:
938:
932:
911:
907:
868:
862:
828:
822:
784:
778:
707:
701:
664:
624:
580:TonyTheTiger
561:
544:
525:
520:
515:
498:
481:
447:weak endorse
446:
445:
419:
394:
377:
365:
354:
330:
303:
295:
294:
282:Clay Collier
277:
260:
243:
231:Juliancolton
228:
224:
207:
188:
183:
110:
103:
85:
75:
69:
58:
3495:Umbralcorax
3155:I see that
2944:To satisfy
1913:inadvertent
1288:IDONTLIKEIT
972:was rescued
645:Yes it is.
359:Usrnme h8er
265:Umbralcorax
3410:criterion
3081:elsewhere.
3035:Richhoncho
2970:Richhoncho
2464:S Marshall
2166:S Marshall
2020:rescued.
2014:Black Kite
1989:Black Kite
1919:S Marshall
1868:PhilKnight
1781:Black Kite
1740:Black Kite
1622:Black Kite
1477:Black Kite
1217:WP:CHICAGO
842:WP:CANVASS
764:apply the
736:PhilKnight
708:Black Kite
597:WP:CHICAGO
570:Notifying
562:Black Kite
420:S Marshall
331:S Marshall
304:S Marshall
248:PhilKnight
59:2 May 2009
49:2009 May 3
35:2009 May 1
3461:Chiliad22
3457:WP:CSD#A7
3439:Guest9999
3435:last week
3181:that. --
3157:a new CfD
2926:primarily
2911:lyricist.
2405:MZMcBride
2317:A Man In
2263:MZMcBride
1572:A Man In
1472:WP:DICDEF
1421:implement
1417:interpret
1413:shouldn't
1297:MZMcBride
1254:Quantpole
1170:A Man In
846:MZMcBride
722:MZMcBride
688:Fritzpoll
622:A Man In
549:canvassed
503:Fritzpoll
399:guideline
212:MZMcBride
3529:MuZemike
3525:Overturn
3508:Overturn
3491:Overturn
3478:Oakshade
3474:Overturn
3453:Overturn
3307:Overturn
3247:Kbdank71
2946:Alansohn
2892:in favor
2452:: I've
2331:past ops
2327:conspire
2141:Undelete
1885:Overturn
1586:past ops
1582:conspire
1539:Overturn
1528:wuz here
1503:Overturn
1447:Overturn
1340:Overturn
1312:Overturn
1293:codified
1196:Overturn
1184:past ops
1180:conspire
1162:contribs
1108:Overturn
636:past ops
632:conspire
516:Overturn
403:MuZemike
369:contribs
296:Overturn
261:Overturn
44:2009 May
20: |
3399:restore
3363:history
2905:lyrics
2888:against
2867:restore
2831:history
2766:King of
2721:Protonk
2696:Nucular
2647:Uncle G
2560:Uncle G
2514:Uncle G
2498:Uncle G
2360:Uncle G
2344:Uncle G
2303:Uncle G
2236:Uncle G
2204:Endorse
2191:Protonk
2145:Uncle G
2053:further
1955:Comment
1864:Comment
1840:Comment
1812:Endorse
1791:Uncle G
1490:Protonk
1486:Endorse
1464:Endorse
1400:Dominic
1316:King of
1250:Endorse
1231:Endorse
1221:WP:LOTM
1125:Comment
1065:Protonk
1028:Protonk
976:Uncle G
669:Uncle G
601:WP:LOTM
545:Comment
499:Endorse
482:Endorse
395:Endorse
378:Endorse
355:Endorse
278:Endorse
244:Endorse
225:Endorse
177:restore
141:history
3512:Stifle
3241:(from
3225:Occuli
3212:Relist
3126:Relist
3106:Relist
2706:rescue
2614:, and
2454:boldly
2357:thusly
2210:Verbal
2063:, and
1999:Stifle
1776:WT:ARS
1715:WT:ARS
1662:Stifle
1635:rescue
1606:Stifle
1602:WT:ARS
1451:Edison
1238:Yeller
893:Stifle
769:rescue
647:Stifle
572:WP:ARS
557:(diff)
382:Stifle
3432:admin
3385:watch
3378:links
3239:look.
3161:prior
3073:WP:OR
3031:WP:OR
2993:other
2989:both,
2952:. --
2934:both,
2918:three
2853:watch
2846:links
2545:Focus
2493:three
2436:Focus
2394:Focus
2320:Bl♟ck
1977:Focus
1854:cont.
1830:cont.
1575:Bl♟ck
1561:Focus
1173:Bl♟ck
1134:Chzz
625:Bl♟ck
533:Chord
467:Hobit
452:Hobit
190:Chzz
163:watch
156:links
52:: -->
16:<
3547:talk
3516:talk
3499:talk
3482:talk
3465:talk
3443:talk
3371:logs
3355:edit
3348:talk
3264:talk
3229:talk
3187:talk
3179:said
3117:talk
3089:talk
3039:talk
3029:and
3027:WP:V
3009:talk
2974:talk
2958:talk
2903:both
2839:logs
2823:edit
2816:talk
2725:talk
2692:best
2665:Banj
2651:talk
2585:Banj
2564:talk
2518:talk
2502:talk
2474:Cont
2450:Note
2409:talk
2364:talk
2348:talk
2307:talk
2280:Banj
2267:talk
2240:talk
2217:chat
2195:talk
2176:Cont
2149:talk
2131:this
2024:and
2003:talk
1929:Cont
1891:Banj
1872:talk
1795:talk
1757:Banj
1678:Banj
1666:talk
1644:Banj
1610:talk
1514:LLST
1494:talk
1455:talk
1430:Talk
1419:and
1384:Talk
1366:Talk
1301:talk
1278:talk
1258:talk
1168:. -
1166:here
1156:talk
1116:talk
1112:Ikip
1082:Banj
1069:talk
1045:Banj
1032:talk
999:Banj
980:talk
933:Banj
920:talk
910:and
897:talk
863:Banj
850:talk
823:Banj
798:here
779:Banj
755:talk
740:talk
726:talk
692:talk
673:talk
651:talk
616:and
528:hexa
507:talk
490:talk
471:talk
456:talk
430:Cont
386:talk
363:talk
341:Cont
314:Cont
286:talk
269:talk
252:talk
216:talk
149:logs
133:edit
126:talk
32:<
3542:DGG
3416:AfD
3390:XfD
3388:) (
3311:Mgm
3260:BRG
3256:you
3183:BRG
3130:Mgm
3112:DGG
3085:BRG
3083:--
3061:was
3005:BRG
2954:BRG
2939:lot
2907:and
2882:.)
2858:XfD
2856:) (
2713:not
2663:--
2583:--
2278:--
2137:is.
2125:on
2088:now
2038:are
2018:was
1889:--
1848:2/0
1824:2/0
1755:--
1727:Why
1676:--
1642:--
1395:not
1273:DGG
1213:bio
1080:--
1043:--
1019:you
997:--
931:--
861:--
821:--
777:--
718:DRV
593:bio
551:at
168:XfD
166:) (
91:Man
22:Log
3549:)
3518:)
3501:)
3484:)
3467:)
3445:)
3422::
3412:A7
3305:–
3266:)
3231:)
3214:–
3189:)
3119:)
3091:)
3041:)
3011:)
3001:is
2976:)
2960:)
2783:♠
2727:)
2709:}}
2703:{{
2673:oi
2653:)
2593:oi
2566:)
2558:.
2520:)
2504:)
2411:)
2366:)
2350:)
2329:-
2309:)
2301:.
2288:oi
2269:)
2261:--
2242:)
2197:)
2151:)
2005:)
1946:|
1899:oi
1874:)
1822:-
1797:)
1765:oi
1722:So
1686:oi
1668:)
1652:oi
1638:}}
1632:{{
1612:)
1584:-
1496:)
1457:)
1428:•
1382:•
1364:•
1333:♠
1303:)
1280:)
1260:)
1236:Ol
1223:)
1182:-
1164:)
1140:►
1118:)
1090:oi
1071:)
1053:oi
1034:)
1007:oi
982:)
941:oi
922:)
899:)
882:BJ
871:oi
852:)
831:oi
806:BJ
787:oi
772:}}
766:{{
757:)
742:)
728:)
702:is
694:)
675:)
665:is
653:)
634:-
603:)
559:.
555:-
509:)
492:)
473:)
458:)
388:)
371:)
288:)
271:)
254:)
235:|
218:)
196:►
81:TN
42::
3545:(
3514:(
3497:(
3480:(
3463:(
3441:(
3402:)
3394:|
3381:|
3375:|
3367:|
3359:|
3351:|
3346:(
3313:|
3262:(
3227:(
3185:(
3132:|
3115:(
3087:(
3037:(
3007:(
2972:(
2956:(
2870:)
2862:|
2849:|
2843:|
2835:|
2827:|
2819:|
2814:(
2780:♣
2775:♦
2770:♥
2723:(
2671:b
2667:e
2649:(
2591:b
2587:e
2562:(
2542:m
2539:a
2536:e
2533:r
2530:D
2516:(
2500:(
2470:/
2433:m
2430:a
2427:e
2424:r
2421:D
2407:(
2391:m
2388:a
2385:e
2382:r
2379:D
2362:(
2346:(
2333:)
2325:(
2305:(
2286:b
2282:e
2265:(
2238:(
2193:(
2172:/
2147:(
2098:.
2067:.
2001:(
1974:m
1971:a
1968:e
1965:r
1962:D
1925:/
1897:b
1893:e
1870:(
1856:)
1852:(
1832:)
1828:(
1793:(
1763:b
1759:e
1684:b
1680:e
1664:(
1650:b
1646:e
1608:(
1588:)
1580:(
1558:m
1555:a
1552:e
1549:r
1546:D
1530:@
1521:▼
1518:R
1516:✰
1512:A
1508:-
1492:(
1453:(
1404:t
1402:·
1359:—
1330:♣
1325:♦
1320:♥
1299:(
1276:(
1256:(
1219:/
1215:/
1211:/
1209:c
1207:/
1205:t
1203:(
1186:)
1178:(
1159:·
1154:(
1114:(
1088:b
1084:e
1067:(
1051:b
1047:e
1030:(
1005:b
1001:e
978:(
966:(
939:b
935:e
918:(
895:(
869:b
865:e
848:(
829:b
825:e
785:b
781:e
753:(
738:(
724:(
690:(
671:(
649:(
638:)
630:(
599:/
595:/
591:/
589:c
587:/
585:t
583:(
524:-
505:(
488:(
469:(
454:(
426:/
384:(
366:·
361:(
337:/
310:/
300:—
284:(
267:(
250:(
214:(
180:)
172:|
159:|
153:|
145:|
137:|
129:|
124:(
86:X
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.