Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2009 March 10

1918:

someone could have boldly reverted the merge. The closer would then have needed to defend it as an editing decision at the article talk page, and an admin has no special powers in editing decisions. This would be true in all such closings--if not immediately after, then any time later, possibly using the argument that consensus had changed. We have two alternatives: discuss contested merges and redirects in a public process like XfD--which is what we currently do for some of them, or discuss them at the talk page--which is also what we currently do for some of them. We have two competing processes that can yield contradictory results.

2134:

event', that may have been valid when made, were disproven by the presentation of the academic sources. By the finish of the afd there were no longer any valid deletion points. This should haver been considered in the closing and why i believe it was done incorrectly. I admit i have no idea what this continuing denial of those sources is about to quote core policy "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources". Sources like these are what the encyclopedia is based on. --

2536:

AfD discussion? Why should anyone chime in if the closer can reach their own conclusion using arguments not found in the discussion? To me the issue is fundemental: what is the role of the closer vs. the role of those discussing. The admin bit should be used as a mop. Certainly you take strength of argument into account. But you don't discount policy-based arguments because you disagree with them. Otherwise we live in a land where whoever closes the discussion makes the call. And that's going to cause problems.

1029:

mentions, brief, but not “trivial”. It seems to be used as an example in serious study, but is it really a subject in itself? Can you provide the paper written by Michele Knobel and Colin Lankshear, presented at the NRC Annual Meeting? I want to see what these references say about the subject. Does a source actually say that this story has had lasting impact and significance? I’m still inclined to think that this story should be fleshed out as part of the encompassing subject,

3114:(e/c)I was the nominator - you presumed a great deal of negativity on my part. That I hadn't looked at previous nominations, that I simply "don't like" the article, and that I was, in essence, forum-shopping to get a result that I desperately wanted. Such assertions do not appear to assume a great deal of good faith on my part, especially as I explain within the AfD (I didn't only comment in the nom) why I had renominated it. Have you read the AfD in full? 3705:, couldn't have been closed any other way. Relisting is only permitted where no more than one or two editors have contributed, or where the contributions were lacking in policy-based arguments, and it's this way exactly because relisting articles over and over in the forlorn hope that the debate might swing one way rarely accomplishes anything. Anyone can feel free to renominate after a reasonable time if the article hasn't improved. 207:(I'm sure I could find plenty more). Now, I know that these refs were not present in the article that was deleted, but I still believe that, even without them, it should've been AfDed. I could simply undelete and send it to AfD myself, but since I heavily contributed to the article (albeit like a year and a half ago), I figured it was best to bring it here first and not simply overrule two other admins. 3664:, meaning keep for now. The debate had already attracted sufficient participation. There was a mix of opinions. The ground moved during the debate, with continued editing of the article. The close was definitely appropriate. Leave it at least a month or two, and if the article stabilises in an unsatisfactory form, feel free to renominate. -- 2577:, and three !votes for delete on the grounds that there is no coverage that they can find in WP:RS. The sources being referred to are self-published blogs - how do you close it? Do you no consensus it because you mustn't judge the sources and whether they meet the cited policies, or do you make the judgement that the sources 1211:, i thought that would be clear by linking to them. I think it has been conlusively proven that this is beyond a news event and has historical notability (if it's still being written about in 2009). Please explain what more can be done to individual establish notability other than provide multiple reliable academic sources? -- 2980:. The editor did not have the right to go against consensus. Don't vote to endorse simply because you don't like the article. That isn't what this is about. The point of the AFD process is to form a consensus before taking any action, not for an administrator to ignore everything said, and do whatever he feels like it. 2633:

point about the sources it needs to be done in the discussion. Think of it like an admin/secetary taking minutes in a board room meeting, you summarise the discussion and note the decision made but you do not change them based on your own feelings or record a decison that wasnt made. That's get you fired! --

3191:

of those papers. It clearly isn't. You only have to look at their titles ("The future of reputation", "Momentum - A new and empowering way of looking at and organizing social change", "New Literacies", "Global Privacy Protection", and "Memes and Affinities") to see that. Also, those papers weren't

3020:

and Cho Sun, both of which are reliable. The nomination also did not take into consideration the previous nominations. What I'm see here isn't a change in consensus but a change in editors and the hope that an admin would be more bias against the article. That is all this nomination achieve in doing.

2597:

You close it as no consensus because there wasn't one, simple as that. If the sources were in dispute it needs to be done in the afd not by the closer. There is no hurry to delete an article, we should always look to keep if it is unclear that's why it defaults to that. Otherwise we risk damaging the

2492:

I think that absent a response asking just that question you need to assume the statement they made was informed. If you suspect it wasn't then ask them. Are you really saying that in any discussion AfD discussion one should dive into details about each of the sources? By the same token, would you

1863:

outcome had significant arguments in in the AfD. It isn't the closer's job to find a compromise novel from the discussion, it is their job to identify consensous. I'd have disagreed with it as I don't think the AfD went that way, but it would have been a better close. If you felt consensous was for

1781:

People go into a merge discussion with another mindset. In AFD they're more likely to look for reasons to delete something. As for my reasoning. I found the outcome no consensus best because the delete and keep arguments were both equally bad. Merging and redirecting may be allowable as an individual

1242:

As i pointed out above and yet again you have ignored 'the major subject of the books is not Internet vigilantism as you wrongly suggest but socialology, internet privacy and internet memes' notability does not required that works are exclusively about the subject this stated on the policy page which

1104:

All baseball players are discussed in the context of baseball. Your logic would lead us to merging all of those to one article also, so clearly there is a point where being part of a wider issue doesn't justify merger to that issue. So would you conclude that that all Internet vigilantism should be

478:

clearly. In addition, since the time of the deletion debate she has been discussed for several pages in a book on view of Jesus (ISBN 0826449166 p 208) and is has an extended interview in another documentary entitled, "God in the Box". I think the original deletion was a mistake. The new evidence

3059:

My lack of good faith? How could you even accuse me of this? Where did I attack you? I raised the concern that this article was nominated on WP:IDONTLIKEIT not that your nomination was done on bad faith. Just so you know I read the entire debate and my argument is legitmate in all ways. You have not

2868:

So what? Knowledge (XXG) has changed since it was founded in many significiant ways and admins using their discretion in closing difficult or close AFDs is enshrined in our deletion policy. This looks like a good close by an experienced and clueful admin who made the best choice available. Reemember

2515:

to strength of argument into account. However, when you come to close a long AfD it would simply be ludicrous to attempt to contact dozens of editors to ask them to clarify their comments. All I am saying here is that a "Keep, mentioned in XYZ paper" !vote, when reading that XYZ source shows that it

2412:

the specific policy in which they were based, but I'm afraid it's reasonable to assume that the closer will know that. — Also, I don't agree at all that "a sysop has discretion to discount any number of !votes" and I challenge that very strongly indeed. I think the closer has discretion to discount

2218:

That's not always the case, and has been especially highlighted by BLP deletions recently where even policy-based consensus was to Keep. I can only answer one question - through weighing up the arguments, and looking at the article (and thus its sources), should the article be Kept as a stand-alone,

2133:

That is also incorrect, there was no consensus and equally strong points for keep and deletion (are we ignoring the 14 or so editors who expressed that this was adequately covered in reliable sources, is that not a valid point rooted in notability policy?), the points for deletion based on the 'news

719:

So just to clarify you do believe notability has been established your concern is just with the current form of the article? The reason I'm asking is needs better sources from the pool of existing sources is generally not grounds for deletion but rather for editing. Now that we have the list of 65

3452:

It appears to me that this closure was a misreading of the AfD discussion. Although some editors changed their !votes after an infusion of dubiously relevant refs into the article, little opportunity was afforded them to rechange their opinions after those refs were called into question. Requesting

1356:

only mentions the issue in passing in a piece about cats and dogs on the Internet, and most of the rest are either blogs or reference them. There is practically no secondary analysis of the incident or its significance, except in a discussion on Internet vigilantism. Thus, the obvious close was to

1289:

Except they weren't discussing the topic of "girl who lets her dog crap on a subway", were they? They were discussing Internet vigilantism and Internet memes and merely mentioned the event in passing. On a more serious point, is an article about a dog crapping on a subway train a suitable subject

985:

Afds should be closed based on the consensus. As there wasn't one here it reverts to keep, it's not up to an individual closing editor to make a unilateral decision that goes against the wider consensus based solely on their views alone. If this were the case afd disucssion would be pointless. As i

2662:

If you needed more sources, we could've found some of the massive coverage in the Korean media about this specific incident. Most people felt there was enough to warrant the article's existance. So, even when most people believe an article is notable, it doesn't matter, because its all about the

2535:

Certainly you need to take into account strength of argument. But you are replacing your own judgement about the value of the sources with what was concluded in the discussion. That isn't a closers role. If the closer's role was to evaluate the quality of sources, what would be the point of the

2121:

As mentioned above, if you wish, I can withdraw this closure and re-close it as Delete. There was certainly a consensus for that once the strength of argument was considered (in fact, it was mostly unanimous). I only closed it as redirect in an attempt to place the material in a suitable location.

1975:

While I personally would have argued for the merge, we need to have a policy that deletions cannot occur without consensus and there wasn't consensus. If there isn't consensus then it should be recorded as no consensus. In the case of an article that has gone up 4 times, I'd say the consensus is

1823:

That was a major point i was making. As you say it's not an unreasonable decision but it was the opinion of the closing and rendered the whole afd discussion pointless. If this is how afds are going to be closed why don't we just an admin make a quick yes or no decision. I'm not against developing

750:

I'm fine with that as a resolution. "Theories of D.M. Murdock", "Writings of D.M. Murdock".... In some sense Acharya S is not a living person, D.M. Murdock is a living person. Acharya S is just a pen name. The goal was never a biography of Murdock but a descriptive article of Murdock's ideas.

3138:

I believe the nomination was in good faith, there should be no dispute about that. It had a valid point when made, however the afd provided sources that were not previously available that revealed the event was more than a single news event but the subject of academic writings some time after the

2632:

Your misunderstnading of Afd closing and consensus that you are demonstrating here is likely the reason why you closed this one wrongly in my opinion. It is not up to the closing editor to change the consensus. Closing is not an afd comment, it's a summary of the discussion, if you want to make a

1934:

I did consider a bold revert, using the new sources to create a longer more substantial article but considering the strength of some of the objections to the article, it would likely have caused an edit war so I decided to request a review the decision instead, i posted the academic sources quite

1734:

While arguments on both sides may have been weak, it is inappropriate to merge and redirect the article when it's clearly not supported by the community at large. It does have its downsides. People on AFD often think too much in black and white and rarely consider compromises which is why I would

1477:

I'm going to stop flogging this particular dead horse because you've taken more than enough crap from me and I'm not personally investing in this article (though I'm certainly personally invested on the point of principle). I need to take the wider question about sysops ignoring the consensus to

1173:

Trying to take a break from WP, but... I'm not seeing anything about a topic needing to be discussed in isolation. Is Hamlet (the character) discussed outside of Hamlet the play? Is the ideal gas law discussed outside of the context of gases? I think you are adding a requirement to WP:N which

350:– No consensus to overturn or undelete exists at this time. As several people in this discussion say, the subject is borderline notable, and a draft that relied on neutral sources could probably pass muster here. The issue of the innacuracy of the list of previous AfDs has to do with the use of 2387:

types which are easiest to discount - and here's my reasoning; if people can't be bothered to write a rationale for their case, why should the closing admin should be bothered to take note of their views? I mean, how long does it take to write "I believe source X,Y and Z are enough to establish

2197:

Right, so they said something based on policy and no one challenged it in the discussion. If you felt there was an issue there you should have brought it up in the discussion rather than as the closer. That would have given people the oppertunity to disagree with your reading of the material.

1917:

more generally, we have a problem with the use of merge and redirect as closes in Afd. They are basically editing decisions, but they are also frequent AfD compromises. And they are also sometimes used after afd in order to in effect reverse the decision. for example, instead of appealing this,

1028:

OK, more than a superficial look is needed here. You are not a newbie complaining about the deletion of your poo article. You have good points. There is a historical perspective here. There are lots of news reports, but they go for far longer than a “short burst”. The subject received many

2878:

I said I'd stopped replying to this, because it's not personal to Black Kite; it's symptomatic of the authoritarian approach to adminship which is the thing I'm disparaging. But I have to come back out of my shell to reply to this. Spartaz: I'll be the judge of what I should be doing.

2335:— I've said this before on DRV, but I'd like to see a clear guideline on exactly what proportion of well-reasoned arguments from established editors it's reasonable for a closer to ignore. When the process changed from VfD to AfD and sysops were given a certain amount of discretion, how 1583:. There was no consensus to delete, so the closing admin was right not to delete the article. In addition, the article covers what amounts to a news story of brief interest in tabloids, so the editor Black Kite was right to merge it into a wider article to frame it in the proper context. 2923:, within admin discretion. The redirect outcome and target were not novel – they were suggested during the AfD. I am wary of what appears to be a trend of "compromise" closes coming to DRV, but this close is based on a reasonable interpretation of consensus rather than a naive average. 2107:. This discussion is not a further afd but a review of the closing. What you think of the article is not up for discussion. Views need to be expressed based on whether you think the closing was a correct reflection of the afd regardless of what you would have contributed to the afd. -- 2181:

The problem is, when I see a !vote like "strong keep, discussed in the New York Times" and then I read that source to see that it is a trivial mention of the event in an article about cats and dogs, one does tend to think that people are (a) not actually reading the sources, and (b)

1372:

Sorry to beat a dead horse, but these comments on the sources are original arguments not found in the AfD (as far as I know). Shouldn't your close (and this DrV) be based on arguments in the AfD rather than novel ones? As everyone likes to remind us, this is DrV and not AfD2.

3515:

I think 6 to 6 on delete !votes (if you count the nom and don't count the double vote). Objections to the references were made on the 8th, this was closed on the 10th. Given that many of the delete !votes came before improvement, keep would have been a slightly better close.

3161:

of any academic papers; in all of them it was mentioned in passing as an example of an Internet meme, vigilantism or Internet privacy. You are not helping by misrepresenting this, and your opinion that AfDs and DRVs are being "poorly executed" are only your opinion, not fact.

2751:, a good overview of weak arguements - in both directions - but an essay, not even a guideline. Introducing a list of arguements/!votes ignored and making that exclusive would just go further towards the whole thing being a vote, which it isn't. If anything, I would prefer if 2339:

discretion did the community intend to provide? — I also deplore that it takes a real consensus at DRV to overturn a sysop who ignores the consensus at AfD. That makes the whole AfD process fairly pointless, you might as well refer deletions to a sysop for an arbitrary

1119:

Straw man. If practically none of the sources discuss the incident except as part of that subject, then you have no independent notability. Baseball players, however, although they are generally only notable for playing baseball, have separate notability guidelines

735:

If, as you suggest, "the goal of this article is to document her work not her life," then might I suggest you write an article on her books (if you feel her work is notable). That might be a better avenue than a biography of a living person. Just a thought. Thanks.

1782:

action, but we're talking about how the discussion should've been closed. A no consensus close wouldn't stop you from merging. As for a merge discussion not being binding, neither is a deletion discussion. The difference is that merge policy is a lot more vague. -

1935:

late in the afd and I believe the outcome would have been an obvious keep if they were presented earlier which is something a closing admin should consider. I think there is more than enough info now for the article to be spun out from it's current place within

1559:. There seemed to be little consensus either way and the policies cited and examples given to keep were a bit more compelling than the converse reasons to remove. That all previous AfDs had also kept seems relevant as well. I would have gone with no consensus. 2746:

I'm going to have to agree with Black Kite here. Knowledge (XXG) is neither a democracy or a beurocracy and introducing more rules on the issue is just inviting to wikilawyerism. You want a list of what admins will almost instantly discount? Have a look at

3498:

discourages relisting such debates where many comments have been made. That several users changed their comments from delete to keep and that several established users disagreed on keeping or deleting even after relisting is what pushed this to an NC.

2152:, give no reason for Keeping at all, or are actually arguing for a merge. Now, I agree that some of the Delete votes were a bit thin as well, but that's how I got to where I am. And let's get this straight - no one is denying those sources exist - but 2791:. I do think that if the "discussion" were the only deciding factor that would give undue emphasis to those who posted last in the debate. So the !vote count has to be one of the elements that informs the closer's assessment of the consensus.— 1889:. Since it does, and it fits well in that article (indeed, the sources in the article actually fit better in that article than a stand alone one, for the reasons I mentioned above) I would have thought that a redirect is entirely appropriate. 2219:

Deleted, or would the information be better placed elsewhere? As I've said, was there not a clear redirect target where the information already existed, then my close would have been Delete on strength of argument and quality of sources per

2616:

do - you examine the sources. An AfD is not necessarily unclear because some people have voted in different ways. If the sources are good, you close Keep; if the sources are unreliable or otherwise poor, you close Delete; if it isn't clear,

591:

I voted for deletion due to lack of notability, but I now think there are enough sources. (Just barely.) I'm not sure the article is polished enough to go into mainspace yet, but then most of what's in mainspace isn't polished either...

3550:

or endorse as no consensus. I voted on March 2 to delete. After work done on the 7th and 8th I voted to keep. I am note sure all discussants were aware of the late revisions. I think many deletes would change their votes upon

546:

For the record, the deleting admin, Sandstein, userified this document for me months ago, and suggested DRV once notability had been established. I can notify him again if desired. He approved recreation of the page as

2413:

any !vote if, and only if, the sysop has a good faith belief that the !voter is a sockpuppet or attempting to disrupt the discussion. I think the closer should otherwise take the !vote fully into account when closing.—

3011:

First off I think the inherit bias against these types of article is extreme which is an issue that needs to be address in wiki policy. Repeated nominations for AfD is not good and is in fact done mainly based on

2841:

override sysop discretion. Because that's all that sysop discretion is for: it's a fudge of the original "Votes for Deletion" process to overcome disruption or abuse, not a license for the sysop to disregard the

2663:

opinion of the administrator. Everyone else is just wasting their time then. One editor's opinion should never outweight that of all others. If editors can not agree, then the ruling should be no consensus.

1143:

rather than a strawman. So you are arguing that only reason we don't merge all baseball players is that we have separate notability guidelines for them? Isn't WP:N the "catch all" guideline and isn't it met?

2550:

Also, I was hoping you could adress this question "would you argue that those "endorse as reasonable close" !votes here should be discounted because it isn't clear that they've read the discussion?". Thanks!

1481:

I'll leave you with this: "evaluating the strength of discussion" is rather hard to distinguish from "closing admin's personal opinion", but "counting the votes" is a transparent and objectively-quantifiable

3066:

Per WP:ONEEVENT I believe this should be erased from Knowledge (XXG), this was a small interest story for a short while in the internet community but beyond the dog poop incident she is without question not

1909:

I think there was no consensus. Solving by a compromise is always possible, but the objections to the article would not really be met by a merger. I didn't !vote in the AfD, because I couldn't decide about

1485:

And I think the closer's job is to implement the "consensus", which I think is a fudge to allow the admin to discount questionable !votes in a system that's fundamentally closer to democracy than it is to

913: 2869:

the consensus is judged by strenght of argument not headcount and the closer took account of BLP issues as well as the need to retain sourced content. You should given them a barnstar not berate them.

1766:

where I discounted some Delete votes and closed as No Consensus. On this basis the two possible outcomes were redirect or delete - and I'd suggest that the merge/redirect into a more suitable article

2103:

states that a closing should be based on a rough consensus. There was absolutely no consensus for a redirect, rough or otherwise. I think some people need to review the guidelines on closing afds and

3681:, hard to see the discussion as a clear keep or delete. I'll also look to adding the google news refs and books but it will have to wait a day or two while I catch up on rl work and other wp duties. 3173:

And that there is any "misrepresentation" is merely your opinion, not a fact. That's the whole problem with this is that you are claiming as "fact" something that the discussion didn't agree with.

2440:

If that was the case, we might as well just count votes. If people just type in variations on "Keep, notable" or "Delete, not notable" without explaining why, then how is the closer supposed to know

498: 1050:

Sticking with original "Endorse (keep, merge and redirect)". Insufficient secondary source coverage of the subject in isolation. Subject should be treated as part of the larger subject only. --

588: 532: 445: 930:

Closing did not reflect the consensus or lack of one in this case. Multiple reliable sources were provided during the afd that disproved the assertions made by the closing editor that this was a

470:. She is rather well known but during the debate the people who wanted to keep the article were unable to provide examples of where she is cited outside of the web. She provided a long list 2647:

So - and this is a hypothetical example - you are saying that a closing admin should weigh a comment which says "Keep - well sourced" equally to one which says "Delete - no reliable sources"

1290:

for a supposedly serious reference work? Or does it merely present Knowledge (XXG)'s many enemies with an example of how risible this "encyclopedia" has become? I know which way I'd lean.

2444:

they think that is the case? Similarly "Keep, sourced" or "Delete, unsourced" isn't helpful either - how good or bad or those sources? Have the commenters even read them? We can't tell.

3069:

Nothing new here. Finally the main point is that this DRV is contesting the improper merge. The debate clear showed no consensus or keep therefore this should be overturned regardless.

1868:

you'd have suggested the redirect/merge as a participant. It isn't an unreasonable outcome, but not one that should be imposed by the closer unless it has consensus in the discussion.

1002:

is published this year, 4 years after the event and it's news related coverage), a media journal, The Sociological Review (DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.2008.00793.x) and a paper written by

167:

Tagged for speedying by an admin I totally trust, and deleted by another admin I totally trust, I still think there are sufficient claims of notability, or at least enough for an AfD.

2493:

argue that those "endorse as reasonable close" !votes here should be discounted because it isn't clear that they've read the discussion? If not, could you explain the difference?

1428:. And that's not just alphabet soup, it's actually demonstrated here - on the current AfD that at least one previous Keep voter switched to Delete, and another suggested a Merge. 2388:

notability" or similar? And I'll point out again, there was compromise here. If I'd votecounted after discarding the votes with little rationale, then the result would have been

3016:, not with the intention of improving an article. This event has had a profound impact Koeran culture and has had effects on Internet vigilantism which is well documented in the 1259:

NOTNEWS does not require academic sources that talk about an event in its own right. Or any sources that talk about it in its own right. That people were discussing the topic

2167:

Most were saying it's notable because it meets our guidelines and has plenty of RSes. That's not a weak argument, that's a strong one and shouldn't be discounted in any way.

1706:

in detail..." - Practically all of those sources mention the event in passing whilst discussing a larger subject, rather than directly, and the few that do can be covered by

184: 2100: 3139:

event. I think these issues with afds and deletion reviews (considering some of the ill informed responses to this which i have no doubt are based on a certain amount of

995: 680: 1801:

I'd have brought this here too, but NW beat me to the admin's talk page. The close, while not an unreasonable result, had nothing at all to do with the AfD. There was

672: 3435: 3305:

The admin's interpretation of consensus, !votes, and all the other AfD jazz was all within the proper procedure and the outcome was logically coherant from the debate.

1828:

until it is enough to spin out which should happen considering the sources but i don't want to instigate an edit war when that happens because the afd said redirect. --

1332:

and thus given little weight. Of the rest, most tried to claim that because the incident has been discussed in reliable sources, it must stay. Being discussed in the

1192:

is relevant here. The incident itself falls foul of this guideline, but a mention of it in the wider article is reasonable here, because the sources talk about it

2271:

There was no consensus for redirection. The closer just acted on his own opinion of the matter, making no reference to the discussion in the closing statement.

1398:, i.e. that there had been three previous AfDs and nothing had changed since then. Did you discount this point of view, and if so, please could you explain why?— 1105:

merged into that one article? If not, what would cause you to do otherwise? And shouldn't that decision rest with the community rather than the closing admin?

993: 990:

was established with multiple reliable sources in the afd including significant coverage in several books (3 or maybe 4 i think written some years after the event

724:

the goal of this article is to document her work not her life, that's why the article is Acharya S (the pen name) and not D.M. Murdock (the author's real name).

1158:

No, I don't believe that it is - otherwise I would have closed as Keep. As I said above, practically none of the sources discuss the incident in isolation. The

48: 1082:

That's irrelevant, anything can be part of a wider topic. You think all articles are sourced from books specifically about that subject? Refer to footnote 1 in

991: 466:. Most everyone agreed that the article was about her theories and her books were a reliable source on her theories. However there was another argument about 3611:

there is nothing to prevent renomination after a suitable period, but an appeal of a non-consensus close always seems to me to border a little on the stubborn.

1763: 1348:

article (and improves that one) than it does on its own. And let's look at those sources in a bit more detail - "Multiple reliable sources" is misleading. The

691:

but I am, by far and wide, not ruling this out as an article - just with better sources. Higher standards are rightly placed on BLP articles, both in terms of

34: 2728:

Ding! exactly. And this is the problem here. If you have something to add to the discussion, add to the discussion, don't add to the discusison in the close.

143: 1090:

as you wrongly suggest but socialology, internet privacy and internet memes which really suggests to me that you've made no effort to review them at all. --

1599:

A no consensus afd deafults to keep not redirect. Again, academic coverage has been provided, please read the above comments. Books arent news sources. --

43: 3038:

take it into account. I am dismayed at your lack of good faith in this matter - had you read the AfD fully, you would realise that I was most certainly

1010:

present at the NRC Annual Meeting. This clearly demostrating the event has lasting impact and significance within the academic community. nothing in the

770:, and work on the content and sourcing. I would think this would be the best option. In addition, another option might be to start an article at either 1681:

Could you identify the part of policy/guidelines that require something to be covered "in it's own right". Not to mention a definition of that phrase.

609:

No new evidence - reliable sources and proof of notability - have been provided. As such, I endorse the close for the deletion of this article. Thanks.

2156:- they are passing mentions illustrating other issues such as Internet memes or Internet vigilantism. I'm not sure how many times I have to say this. 2200:] specifically "The consensus is that, while the closer made good arguments, they were solely his own, and unsupported by the debate; they belonged 1754:

Why would a "requested merger" attract comments any different from the AfD? Also, it could never be binding; merges are completely allowable under

1086:

policy. These are not trivial mentions within another subject. The detail the event as an example and in fact the major subject of the books is not

1848:

Would you have rather I deleted it, then? Once I'd discarded the weak !votes there was certainly a consensus for that, but I tried to compromise.

1395: 1352:

article is actually written from an Internet vigilantism angle (as does the Chosun piece), which makes the redirect more relevant than a keep; the

158: 2787:

I'm conscious of the large number of responses I'm making on this DRV, but it does raise issues I feel are important. — I certainly don't feel

684: 3143:

and other negative views of the article) being poorly excuted are bigger than this single case and probably required discussion elsewhere. --

2621:

you close No Consensus. Futhermore, keeping articles which should be deleted damages the project as much as deleting ones which shouldn't be.

965:

material is needed for such things to get their own articles, with none of the sources providing such material. The result of the merge, at

501:

is listed on her deletion page. These are two entirely different people and articles. Regardless of the outcome this should be corrected.

3423: 1000: 39: 1344:

is after all a newspaper. Furthermore, I didn't go for Delete - though I was tempted - because the content actually sits better in the

901: 200: 3561: 1805:. If the closer felt that was the right outcome he should have commented in the AfD, not closed. I'd say no consensus, perhaps keep. 1162:

reference, which some editors claimed were a fantastic reliable source, is in fact a humorous piece on cats and dogs on the Internet!

168: 623:

How does several pages in a academic book site and extended interview in a documentary not constitute new evidence of notability?

2968: 2774: 710: 310: 2516:

is a throwaway sentence in an irrelevant article (or for that matter, a "Delete, no reliable sources" !vote when reliable sources

3565: 2890: 2856: 2802: 2716: 2573:

required. Here is a hypothetical: You have an AfD, 3 keep !votes on the basis that the sources in the article are reliable per

2474: 2424: 2351: 2316: 1497: 1454: 1409: 21: 3444: 3097:

Those grounds were already addressed in the previous debate. I believe there was more of a consensus in this debate to move to

433: 2705:(outdent) None of the above, that's a false dichotomy. What you do is express your view and let someone else close it later.— 1225:

Find multiple reliable academic sources that talk about the event in its own right, rather than treating it as an example of

997: 961:. Decision firmly rooted in policy. The “incident” was a single event. No amount of news reporting justifies an article. 922: 176: 2520:

clearly shown in the article) is definitely going to be discounted to some extent. Otherwise you are simply vote-counting.

2408:

I respectfully disagree. I can see only two "keeps" that weren't grounded in policy. Admittedly some votes might not have

1953:

Except that your new sources have exactly the same problem as the previous ones - they only discuss the "event" in passing.

1736: 1662:

cover it as an event in its own right - only as an example of Internet vigilantism - all the sources are about that topic,

2042: 2837:

Sorry, but I do think that in the absence of socking or other attempts to disrupt/abuse the system, the consensus really

2248:

To neon white: fine, if you think that "There was absolutely no consensus for a redirect", then my 2nd opinion would be "

1443:

How can that apply to a decision that wasn't based on consensus but on your evaluation of the strength of the arguments?—

471: 3725: 3373: 3325: 851: 806: 383: 325: 93: 17: 2198:

Instead you are imposing your interpretation of the source on everyone else without a change to respond to that. See

1758:. Admins cannot be vote-counting machines; otherwise we could set up a script to close all AfDs. Strength of argument 778:. These are just suggestions, as I do not think the present BLP passes either notability or reliable sources. Thanks. 251:

I don't think it needs to be AfD'd. If Mike uses the sources above, it will meet the criteria for inclusion (IMO). ···

113: 683:(the best of the above). Where are the references in other academic works? the news articles? Pretty short in coming 454: 3060:

brought any new information or consensus that was not covered in the previous AfD. Your reason for deletion was

634:

There is no new evidence from reliable sources that establish notability - still not a notable subject. Thanks.

2940:- I would have preferred deletion, clearly, but this close is consistent with the discussion that took place. 2293: 2276: 2038: 775: 242: 3140: 3083: 3013: 771: 191:

that was just published today; there are stories about his new project N.A.S.A. on plenty of music blogs, and

1526:

Per consensus, per it is a wise decision, and per it is within discretion and no procedural faults occurred.

3710: 3310: 1787: 1744: 1627: 1328:. Few convincing Keep arguments were presented. There are 15 Keep !votes, many of those were variations on 1067:

All of the GoogleBooks references you mention above discuss the incident as part of a wider issue - that of

767: 656: 574: 518: 480: 287: 272: 2372: 2149: 1329: 664: 3557: 1936: 109: 70: 2384: 2104: 688: 3652: 3599: 2962: 2768: 1980: 755: 728: 704: 627: 539: 505: 487: 304: 172: 3714: 3697: 3673: 3656: 3639: 3622: 3603: 3578: 3542: 3525: 3507: 3481: 3462: 3362: 3314: 3297: 3276: 3266: 3245: 3227: 3198: 3182: 3168: 3152: 3123: 3109: 3098: 3092: 3077: 3051: 3029: 3003: 2972: 2949: 2932: 2897: 2873: 2863: 2828: 2809: 2778: 2737: 2723: 2686: 2657: 2642: 2627: 2607: 2590: 2560: 2545: 2526: 2502: 2481: 2450: 2431: 2398: 2358: 2323: 2305:. There was no consensus in that debate. Closer's discretion doesn't empower them to disregard that.— 2297: 2280: 2261: 2229: 2213: 2192: 2176: 2162: 2143: 2128: 2116: 2092: 2075: 2046: 2028: 2016: 1997: 1982: 1959: 1948: 1929: 1895: 1877: 1854: 1837: 1814: 1789: 1776: 1746: 1716: 1690: 1672: 1649: 1631: 1608: 1592: 1575: 1551: 1534: 1504: 1472: 1461: 1434: 1416: 1382: 1363: 1296: 1284: 1271:

to require otherwise is, well, basically impossible and certainly an unreasonable hurdle. Even worse,

1252: 1235: 1220: 1202: 1183: 1168: 1153: 1134: 1114: 1099: 1077: 1059: 1042: 1023: 978: 952: 840: 787: 757: 745: 730: 714: 643: 629: 618: 601: 578: 560: 541: 522: 507: 489: 372: 314: 291: 274: 257: 246: 229: 214: 192: 82: 676: 3538: 3241: 3223: 3193: 3163: 3148: 3087: 2887: 2853: 2823: 2799: 2713: 2652: 2638: 2622: 2603: 2521: 2471: 2445: 2421: 2393: 2348: 2313: 2224: 2187: 2157: 2139: 2123: 2112: 1992: 1954: 1944: 1890: 1885: 1849: 1833: 1825: 1771: 1711: 1667: 1604: 1494: 1467: 1451: 1429: 1406: 1358: 1345: 1291: 1248: 1230: 1226: 1216: 1197: 1163: 1140: 1129: 1095: 1087: 1072: 1068: 1030: 1019: 966: 948: 939: 836: 783: 741: 639: 614: 211: 3569: 2376: 1125: 565:

Fair enough. I can't come to an opinion on whether or not this should be undeleted and am remaining

3669: 3393: 3293: 3119: 3047: 2945: 2586: 2289: 2272: 2257: 2088: 1587: 1547: 1055: 1038: 974: 699:. The latter appears to have been accomplished quite well here, the former is still, imo, lacking. 597: 351: 238: 3495: 2380: 3682: 3631: 3306: 3258: 2928: 2148:(condense for neatness) Except that there are at least 10 of those 14 Keep votes that are either 2012: 1783: 1740: 1560: 871: 556: 365: 268: 2788: 2755:

were the ignored part and ONLY discussion was taken into account. That way, people just posting

3552: 1640:

Aren't books that cover the topic evidence of something other than a short burst of coverage?

3573: 2748: 1755: 1707: 1619: 1189: 696: 3648: 3635: 3595: 3262: 2981: 2958: 2764: 2664: 1977: 962: 752: 725: 700: 624: 536: 502: 484: 369: 300: 3591: 2460: 1699: 1425: 1337: 1121: 1011: 931: 721: 3534: 3521: 3219: 3178: 3017: 2957:, valid close given the discussion and within reasonable discretion of the closing admin. 2880: 2846: 2792: 2733: 2706: 2556: 2541: 2498: 2464: 2414: 2341: 2306: 2209: 2172: 1873: 1810: 1686: 1645: 1487: 1444: 1399: 1378: 1280: 1179: 1149: 1110: 1007: 832: 779: 737: 635: 610: 208: 3587: 3533:. This one appeared to be muddled enough to make a "no consensus" closure appropriate. 2651:? If that's what you're saying, I think the misunderstanding of how AfD works is yours. 2574: 692: 463: 3630:

A relisting wouldn't have been a bad idea but I see no other problem with the closure.--

2763:

would barely even be noticed. I do however recognize that this is probably unrealistic.

1466:

That depends whether you evaluate consensus as vote-counting or strength of discussion.

3665: 3477: 3458: 3389: 3357: 3346: 3286: 3115: 3043: 2941: 2582: 2371:

number of !votes that they feel don't address the issues concerned. However, it's the

2253: 2084: 1584: 1543: 1207:

Your completely ignoring the points i made. The multiple reliable sources refer to the

1051: 1034: 1003: 970: 762:

If you want to go in that direction you could go to a userfied version first, like the

593: 403: 2220: 1083: 475: 467: 3618: 3586:

The article has been significantly improved since it was put up for AfD and it meets

2924: 2060: 2025: 2008: 1925: 867: 827: 552: 358: 252: 237:

the deleting admin has now advocated reinstatement - off to afd land for this puppy?

224: 204: 188: 1987:

No deletion has occurred. And consensus does not mean "no clear result" - it means

3501: 3273: 2870: 1528: 1174:

isn't there. That's not unreasonable in a discussion, but it is in a close (IMO).

196: 79: 3236:

Please point to any consensus for a redirect. Have you even looked at the afd? --

2186:

that being mentioned in a RS makes something automatically notable. It doesn't.

3706: 3472:

Well, I can see that this is going nowhere. Nomination withdrawn; please close.

3102: 3070: 3022: 1623: 570: 514: 479:

however I believe demands reconsideration. I can't view the deleted article but

283: 1542:: I would've closed as 'delete,' but you fight the battles you can win here. -- 655:, while I suspect that notability can be established, the sources currently in 3517: 3453:

either a reopening and relisting at AfD, or a reversal to a "delete" closure.

3192:

even discussed at the AFD - because the first mention of them is in this DRV.

3174: 2729: 2552: 2537: 2494: 2205: 2168: 1869: 1806: 1682: 1641: 1374: 1276: 1175: 1145: 1106: 1071:

and related subjects - which is where the article was merged. Also see below.

668: 3473: 3454: 3353: 3285:

Although I also would have closed as delete. The reasoning was sound to me.

3042:

trying to mix it up and get the article deleted through participation bias.

528: 399: 346: 180: 2845:

This use of sysop discretion is very far from what the founders intended.——

3613: 2083:, good, well-reasoned closure, completely within guidelines/policies. -- 2055: 1920: 660: 1989:"no clear result after strength of argument has been taken into account" 3034:

Actually, if you look at my comment within the AfD, you'll see that I

2024:

Completely within guidelines. The redirect is entirely appropriate.

513:

Can someone clarify which article and which AFD are being appealed?

1702:

says "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject

483:

is a tentative version of what the article will could look like.

499:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Acharya Sita Ram Chaturvedi

3647:- I see nothing wrong with a no-consensus outcome for that AFD. 589:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/Acharya_S_(2nd_nomination)

533:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Acharya S (2nd nomination)

1394:— in this summary you don't address User:Mgm's point based on 3257:

Close was explained by admin and reasonable. No fault here.--

720:

3rd party cites its pretty easy to work some in. As far as

1864:

delete that's exactly what I think you should have done.

3062:

Contested PROD. Non-notable, single event internet meme.

1336:

or other RS doesn't contradict it being in violation of

3430: 3416: 3408: 3400: 908: 894: 886: 878: 548: 497:

This has nothing to do with the deletion review but...

440: 426: 418: 410: 150: 136: 128: 120: 2101:

Knowledge (XXG):Deletion guidelines for administrators

282:

as the deleting admin now concurs in the restoration.

2463:

on that, unless there's a reason to think otherwise?—

2122:Would re-closing it be a better course of action? 1209:books, journals and papers not to the news sources 472:User talk:Jclemens/Acharya_S#Acharya.27s_Response 3187:Seriously? He is claiming that the event is the 2649:even if there aren't any reliable sources quoted 1263:well after the fact is enough to show it wasn't 3218:Consistent with discussion, AfD is not a vote. 2367:I would say a sysop has discretion to discount 2818:Yes, but not the overriding one. Or else it 1803:nothing resembling consensous for that action 8: 2511:If you are closing XfDs correctly, then you 2007:as solidly within process per our policies. 1014:guideline can be applied to this article. -- 677:examples of sites she is no longer listed on 3372:The following is an archived debate of the 3082:The AFD nom was on notability grounds, not 850:The following is an archived debate of the 462:The original submission was for failure of 382:The following is an archived debate of the 299:as a big, white ball of crystalized water. 92:The following is an archived debate of the 3531:Endorse no consensus as original nominator 3339: 1739:with full-fledged AFD-like discussions. - 1267:a news story and had lasting notability. 1033:, but I’ll need to look into it later. -- 820: 339: 223:based on the references now presented. ··· 63: 2054:. Absolutely the right thing was done. — 1188:I think we're talking at cross-purposes. 2569:To a certain extent, such an evaluation 1884:had not the material already existed at 1273:it wasn't something discussed in the AfD 2459:I should think that you'd be guided by 2061: 1269:everything is discussed in some context 986:pointed out quite clearly, notability 7: 2288:reasonable and well-reasoned close. 2204:the debate, not as the close of it." 1762:to be taken into account - see also 1735:prefer such things to be handled my 3728:of the page listed in the heading. 3328:of the page listed in the heading. 2581:meet WP:RS and close accordingly? 809:of the page listed in the heading. 328:of the page listed in the heading. 78:Good job on finding some sources – 1275:so it shouldn't be an issue here. 959:Endorse (keep, merge and redirect) 28: 1939:which makes a merge pointless. -- 1770:the compromise that you mention. 1737:Knowledge (XXG):Requested mergers 1618:as the correct outcome. See also 3513:endorse or weak overturn to keep 2250:overturn, and re-close as delete 3724:The above is an archive of the 3324:The above is an archive of the 2154:they are not about this subject 1243:i think you need to revisit. -- 805:The above is an archive of the 324:The above is an archive of the 18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review 3272:Endorse per my comment above. 1396:WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED 1: 2612:No - that's exactly what you 1882:Now that would be reasonable 3101:than there was for a merge. 1139:Actually I was shooting for 364:, and should be taken up at 1392:Further question for closer 943:04:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 3751: 3715:09:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 3698:05:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 3674:03:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 3657:03:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 3640:03:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 3623:03:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 3604:03:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 3579:03:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 3543:02:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 3526:02:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 3508:01:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 3482:12:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 3463:01:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 3363:13:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 3315:20:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC) 3298:05:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC) 3277:22:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3267:21:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3246:19:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3228:17:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3199:22:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3183:21:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3169:19:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3153:19:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3124:17:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3110:17:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3093:16:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3078:16:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3064:, the previous reason was 3052:16:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3030:16:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3004:10:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 2973:09:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 2950:09:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 2933:04:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 2898:00:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC) 2874:22:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 2864:15:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 2829:15:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 2810:12:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 2779:09:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 2738:18:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 2724:18:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 2687:12:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC) 2658:11:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC) 2643:19:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 2628:19:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 2608:18:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 2591:17:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 2561:17:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 2546:17:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 2527:15:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 2503:14:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 2482:12:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 2451:09:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 2432:08:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 2399:07:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 2359:02:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 2324:02:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 2298:01:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 2281:00:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 2262:01:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 2230:15:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 2214:12:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 2193:07:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 2177:02:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 2163:23:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 2144:23:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 2129:23:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 2117:22:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 2093:20:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 2076:19:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 2047:19:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 2029:19:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 2017:16:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 1998:14:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 1983:14:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 1960:23:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 1949:23:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 1930:13:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 1896:16:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 1878:15:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 1855:14:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 1838:18:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 1815:12:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 1790:08:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 1777:10:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 1747:10:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 1717:15:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 1691:12:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 1673:18:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 1650:15:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 1632:09:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 1609:18:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 1593:09:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 1576:09:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 1552:08:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 1535:08:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 1505:17:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 1473:16:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 1462:16:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 1435:15:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 1417:13:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 1383:12:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 1364:07:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 1297:22:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 1285:22:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 1253:22:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 1236:18:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 1221:18:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 1203:17:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 1184:17:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 1169:16:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 1154:15:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 1135:14:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 1115:12:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 1100:18:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 1078:08:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 1060:12:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC) 1043:07:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 1024:06:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 979:06:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 953:04:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 841:20:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC) 788:12:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC) 758:03:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC) 746:21:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC) 731:13:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC) 715:10:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC) 644:09:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC) 630:03:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC) 619:01:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC) 602:17:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 579:09:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 561:16:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 542:14:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 527:The article on the author 523:09:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 508:05:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 490:05:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 373:02:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC) 315:09:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 292:09:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 275:09:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 258:04:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 247:01:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 230:22:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 215:22:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 83:14:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3731:Please do not modify it. 3379:Please do not modify it. 3331:Please do not modify it. 2303:Overturn to no consensus 2037:the merge and redirect. 1732:Overturn to no consensus 1557:Overturn to no consensus 1357:move the content there. 857:Please do not modify it. 812:Please do not modify it. 776:Writings of D.M. Murdock 772:Theories of D.M. Murdock 587:For what it's worth, in 389:Please do not modify it. 331:Please do not modify it. 99:Please do not modify it. 40:Deletion review archives 3350:– Withdrawn – — Martin 768:User:Jclemens/Acharya S 657:User:Jclemens/Acharya S 531:. The relevant AFD is 481:User:Jclemens/Acharya S 3679:Endorse “no consensus” 3662:Endorse “no consensus” 3376:of the article above. 2757:"It's a notable event" 854:of the article above. 831:– Closure endorsed. – 386:of the article above. 267:per refs presented. - 110:Sam Spiegel (musician) 96:of the article above. 71:Sam Spiegel (musician) 2761:"sources are invalid" 1340:at all - because the 988:beyond a single event 2938:Endorse as nominator 2033:I wholly concur and 1937:Internet Vigilantism 1886:Internet vigilantism 1826:Internet vigilantism 1426:Consensus can change 1346:Internet vigilantism 1227:Internet vigilantism 1141:Reductio ad absurdum 1088:Internet vigilantism 1069:Internet vigilantism 1031:Internet vigilantism 967:Internet vigilantism 681:vehement refutations 474:which I think meets 2461:the relevant policy 1326:Endorse own closure 352:Special:Prefixindex 685:google new archive 659:are a mishmash of 366:Template talk:Afd2 171:an interview from 76:Speedy Restoration 3738: 3737: 3577: 3361: 3338: 3337: 3244: 3151: 3099:Dog poop incident 2641: 2606: 2142: 2115: 1947: 1836: 1607: 1590: 1251: 1219: 1098: 1022: 951: 942: 819: 818: 661:the subjects site 338: 337: 3742: 3733: 3694: 3688: 3584:Overturn to keep 3555: 3548:Overturn to keep 3504: 3447: 3442: 3433: 3419: 3411: 3403: 3381: 3351: 3340: 3333: 3290: 3240: 3239: 3147: 3146: 3107: 3075: 3027: 3000: 2997: 2994: 2991: 2988: 2985: 2895: 2885: 2861: 2851: 2822:just be a vote. 2807: 2797: 2789:we need a "rule" 2721: 2711: 2683: 2680: 2677: 2674: 2671: 2668: 2637: 2636: 2602: 2601: 2479: 2469: 2429: 2419: 2356: 2346: 2321: 2311: 2138: 2137: 2111: 2110: 2073: 2072: 2068: 2064: 2058: 1943: 1942: 1832: 1831: 1603: 1602: 1588: 1572: 1566: 1531: 1502: 1492: 1459: 1449: 1414: 1404: 1247: 1246: 1215: 1214: 1094: 1093: 1018: 1017: 969:is sensible. -- 963:Secondary source 947: 946: 938: 937: 925: 920: 911: 897: 889: 881: 859: 821: 814: 673:self publishings 653:Not that article 551:in the interim. 457: 452: 443: 429: 421: 413: 391: 363: 357: 340: 333: 255: 227: 179:an article from 163: 161: 153: 139: 131: 123: 101: 64: 53: 33: 3750: 3749: 3745: 3744: 3743: 3741: 3740: 3739: 3729: 3726:deletion review 3703:Endorse closure 3692: 3686: 3502: 3443: 3441: 3438: 3429: 3428: 3422: 3415: 3414: 3407: 3406: 3399: 3398: 3377: 3374:deletion review 3329: 3326:deletion review 3288: 3237: 3157:It was not the 3144: 3103: 3071: 3023: 3018:Washington Post 2998: 2995: 2992: 2989: 2986: 2983: 2894: 2891: 2881: 2860: 2857: 2847: 2806: 2803: 2793: 2720: 2717: 2707: 2681: 2678: 2675: 2672: 2669: 2666: 2634: 2599: 2478: 2475: 2465: 2428: 2425: 2415: 2355: 2352: 2342: 2320: 2317: 2307: 2135: 2108: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2056: 1940: 1829: 1824:the article at 1616:Endorse closure 1600: 1581:Endorse closure 1570: 1564: 1529: 1501: 1498: 1488: 1458: 1455: 1445: 1413: 1410: 1400: 1342:Washington Post 1334:Washington Post 1244: 1212: 1194:in that context 1091: 1015: 1008:Colin Lankshear 944: 935: 921: 919: 916: 907: 906: 900: 893: 892: 885: 884: 877: 876: 855: 852:deletion review 810: 807:deletion review 453: 451: 448: 439: 438: 432: 425: 424: 417: 416: 409: 408: 387: 384:deletion review 361: 355: 329: 326:deletion review 253: 225: 203:short one from 157: 155: 149: 148: 142: 135: 134: 127: 126: 119: 118: 97: 94:deletion review 62: 55: 54: 51: 46: 37: 31: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 3748: 3746: 3736: 3735: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3717: 3700: 3676: 3659: 3642: 3625: 3606: 3581: 3545: 3528: 3510: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3450: 3449: 3439: 3426: 3420: 3412: 3404: 3396: 3390:Faith in Place 3384: 3383: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3347:Faith in Place 3336: 3335: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3317: 3300: 3280: 3269: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3248: 3231: 3230: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3141:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 3131: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3126: 3112: 3095: 3084:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 3054: 3014:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 3006: 2975: 2952: 2935: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2900: 2892: 2858: 2843: 2832: 2831: 2813: 2812: 2804: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2718: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2594: 2593: 2564: 2563: 2548: 2530: 2529: 2506: 2505: 2485: 2484: 2476: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2435: 2434: 2426: 2403: 2402: 2362: 2361: 2353: 2327: 2326: 2318: 2300: 2290:Carlossuarez46 2283: 2273:Colonel Warden 2265: 2264: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2096: 2095: 2078: 2049: 2031: 2019: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1912: 1911: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1818: 1817: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1694: 1693: 1676: 1675: 1653: 1652: 1635: 1634: 1612: 1611: 1596: 1595: 1578: 1554: 1537: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1499: 1483: 1479: 1456: 1438: 1437: 1420: 1419: 1411: 1386: 1385: 1367: 1366: 1354:New York Times 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1160:New York Times 1102: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1004:Michele Knobel 982: 981: 932:'news' article 928: 927: 917: 904: 898: 890: 882: 874: 862: 861: 846: 845: 844: 843: 817: 816: 801: 800: 799: 798: 797: 796: 795: 794: 793: 792: 791: 790: 650: 649: 648: 647: 646: 604: 585: 584: 583: 582: 581: 544: 460: 459: 449: 436: 430: 422: 414: 406: 394: 393: 378: 377: 376: 375: 336: 335: 320: 319: 318: 317: 297:Speedy Restore 294: 280:Speedy restore 277: 262: 261: 260: 239:Carlossuarez46 232: 165: 164: 146: 140: 132: 124: 116: 104: 103: 88: 87: 86: 85: 61: 56: 47: 38: 30: 29: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3747: 3734: 3732: 3727: 3722: 3721: 3716: 3712: 3708: 3704: 3701: 3699: 3696: 3695: 3689: 3680: 3677: 3675: 3671: 3667: 3663: 3660: 3658: 3654: 3650: 3646: 3643: 3641: 3637: 3633: 3629: 3626: 3624: 3620: 3616: 3615: 3610: 3607: 3605: 3601: 3597: 3593: 3589: 3585: 3582: 3580: 3575: 3571: 3567: 3563: 3559: 3554: 3549: 3546: 3544: 3540: 3536: 3532: 3529: 3527: 3523: 3519: 3514: 3511: 3509: 3506: 3505: 3497: 3494: 3493:Closing admin 3491: 3490: 3483: 3479: 3475: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3460: 3456: 3446: 3437: 3432: 3425: 3418: 3410: 3402: 3395: 3391: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3382: 3380: 3375: 3370: 3369: 3364: 3359: 3355: 3349: 3348: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3334: 3332: 3327: 3322: 3321: 3316: 3312: 3308: 3307:Themfromspace 3304: 3301: 3299: 3296: 3295: 3292: 3291: 3284: 3281: 3279: 3278: 3275: 3270: 3268: 3264: 3260: 3256: 3253: 3252: 3247: 3243: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3229: 3225: 3221: 3217: 3214: 3213: 3200: 3197: 3196: 3190: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3180: 3176: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3167: 3166: 3160: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3150: 3142: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3125: 3121: 3117: 3113: 3111: 3108: 3106: 3100: 3096: 3094: 3091: 3090: 3085: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3076: 3074: 3068: 3063: 3058: 3055: 3053: 3049: 3045: 3041: 3037: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3028: 3026: 3019: 3015: 3010: 3007: 3005: 3002: 3001: 2979: 2976: 2974: 2970: 2967: 2964: 2960: 2956: 2953: 2951: 2947: 2943: 2939: 2936: 2934: 2930: 2926: 2922: 2919: 2918: 2899: 2896: 2888: 2886: 2884: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2872: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2862: 2854: 2852: 2850: 2844: 2840: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2830: 2827: 2826: 2821: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2811: 2808: 2800: 2798: 2796: 2790: 2786: 2785: 2780: 2776: 2773: 2770: 2766: 2762: 2758: 2754: 2750: 2745: 2744: 2739: 2735: 2731: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2722: 2714: 2712: 2710: 2704: 2688: 2685: 2684: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2656: 2655: 2650: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2640: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2626: 2625: 2620: 2615: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2605: 2596: 2595: 2592: 2588: 2584: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2562: 2558: 2554: 2549: 2547: 2543: 2539: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2528: 2525: 2524: 2519: 2514: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2504: 2500: 2496: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2483: 2480: 2472: 2470: 2468: 2462: 2458: 2457: 2452: 2449: 2448: 2443: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2433: 2430: 2422: 2420: 2418: 2411: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2400: 2397: 2396: 2391: 2386: 2382: 2378: 2374: 2373:WP:ITSNOTABLE 2370: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2360: 2357: 2349: 2347: 2345: 2338: 2334: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2325: 2322: 2314: 2312: 2310: 2304: 2301: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2287: 2284: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2267: 2266: 2263: 2259: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2231: 2228: 2227: 2222: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2211: 2207: 2203: 2199: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2191: 2190: 2185: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2174: 2170: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2161: 2160: 2155: 2151: 2150:WP:ITSNOTABLE 2147: 2146: 2145: 2141: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2127: 2126: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2114: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2097: 2094: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2079: 2077: 2074: 2069: 2059: 2053: 2050: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2036: 2032: 2030: 2027: 2023: 2020: 2018: 2014: 2010: 2006: 2003: 1999: 1996: 1995: 1990: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1981: 1979: 1974: 1971: 1970: 1961: 1958: 1957: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1946: 1938: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1922: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1908: 1905: 1897: 1894: 1893: 1888: 1887: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1875: 1871: 1867: 1862: 1859:Yes in fact. 1858: 1857: 1856: 1853: 1852: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1839: 1835: 1827: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1816: 1812: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1797: 1791: 1788: 1785: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1775: 1774: 1769: 1765: 1761: 1757: 1753: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1745: 1742: 1738: 1733: 1730: 1729: 1718: 1715: 1714: 1709: 1705: 1701: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1674: 1671: 1670: 1665: 1661: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1621: 1617: 1614: 1613: 1610: 1606: 1598: 1597: 1594: 1591: 1586: 1582: 1579: 1577: 1574: 1573: 1567: 1558: 1555: 1553: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1538: 1536: 1533: 1532: 1525: 1522: 1521: 1506: 1503: 1495: 1493: 1491: 1484: 1480: 1478:RFC, I think. 1476: 1475: 1474: 1471: 1470: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1460: 1452: 1450: 1448: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1436: 1433: 1432: 1427: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1418: 1415: 1407: 1405: 1403: 1397: 1393: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1365: 1362: 1361: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1330:WP:ITSNOTABLE 1327: 1324: 1323: 1298: 1295: 1294: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1234: 1233: 1228: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1218: 1210: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1201: 1200: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1167: 1166: 1161: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1151: 1147: 1142: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1133: 1132: 1127: 1123: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1103: 1101: 1097: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1076: 1075: 1070: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1057: 1053: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1021: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1001: 998: 996: 994: 992: 989: 984: 983: 980: 976: 972: 968: 964: 960: 957: 956: 955: 954: 950: 941: 933: 924: 915: 910: 903: 896: 888: 880: 873: 869: 868:Dog poop girl 866: 865: 864: 863: 860: 858: 853: 848: 847: 842: 838: 834: 830: 829: 828:Dog poop girl 825: 824: 823: 822: 815: 813: 808: 803: 802: 789: 785: 781: 777: 773: 769: 765: 761: 760: 759: 756: 754: 749: 748: 747: 743: 739: 734: 733: 732: 729: 727: 723: 718: 717: 716: 712: 709: 706: 702: 698: 694: 690: 686: 682: 678: 674: 670: 666: 662: 658: 654: 651: 645: 641: 637: 633: 632: 631: 628: 626: 622: 621: 620: 616: 612: 608: 607:Endorse Close 605: 603: 599: 595: 590: 586: 580: 576: 572: 568: 564: 563: 562: 558: 554: 550: 545: 543: 540: 538: 534: 530: 526: 525: 524: 520: 516: 512: 511: 510: 509: 506: 504: 500: 496: 492: 491: 488: 486: 482: 477: 473: 469: 465: 456: 447: 442: 435: 428: 420: 412: 405: 401: 398: 397: 396: 395: 392: 390: 385: 380: 379: 374: 371: 367: 360: 353: 349: 348: 344: 343: 342: 341: 334: 332: 327: 322: 321: 316: 312: 309: 306: 302: 298: 295: 293: 289: 285: 281: 278: 276: 273: 270: 266: 263: 259: 256: 250: 249: 248: 244: 240: 236: 233: 231: 228: 222: 219: 218: 217: 216: 213: 210: 206: 205:Rolling Stone 202: 198: 194: 190: 189:Boston Herald 187:one from the 186: 182: 178: 174: 170: 160: 152: 145: 138: 130: 122: 115: 111: 108: 107: 106: 105: 102: 100: 95: 90: 89: 84: 81: 77: 73: 72: 68: 67: 66: 65: 60: 59:10 March 2009 57: 50: 49:2009 March 11 45: 41: 36: 23: 19: 3730: 3723: 3702: 3690: 3684: 3678: 3661: 3644: 3627: 3612: 3608: 3583: 3553:TonyTheTiger 3547: 3530: 3512: 3500: 3492: 3451: 3378: 3371: 3345: 3330: 3323: 3302: 3294: 3287: 3282: 3271: 3254: 3215: 3194: 3188: 3164: 3158: 3104: 3088: 3072: 3065: 3061: 3056: 3039: 3035: 3024: 3008: 2982: 2977: 2965: 2954: 2937: 2920: 2882: 2848: 2838: 2824: 2819: 2794: 2771: 2760: 2756: 2752: 2708: 2665: 2653: 2648: 2623: 2618: 2613: 2578: 2570: 2522: 2517: 2512: 2466: 2446: 2441: 2416: 2409: 2394: 2389: 2385:WP:JUSTAVOTE 2368: 2343: 2336: 2332: 2308: 2302: 2285: 2268: 2249: 2225: 2201: 2188: 2183: 2158: 2153: 2124: 2105:WP:CONSENSUS 2080: 2065: 2051: 2034: 2021: 2004: 1993: 1988: 1972: 1955: 1919: 1906: 1891: 1883: 1865: 1860: 1850: 1802: 1798: 1772: 1767: 1759: 1751: 1731: 1712: 1703: 1668: 1664:not this one 1663: 1659: 1615: 1580: 1568: 1562: 1556: 1539: 1527: 1523: 1489: 1468: 1446: 1430: 1401: 1391: 1359: 1353: 1349: 1341: 1333: 1325: 1292: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1231: 1208: 1198: 1193: 1164: 1159: 1130: 1073: 1049: 987: 958: 929: 856: 849: 826: 811: 804: 763: 707: 689:google books 652: 606: 566: 494: 493: 461: 388: 381: 345: 330: 323: 307: 296: 279: 264: 234: 220: 212:(Kicking222) 197:The Guardian 195:a review in 166: 98: 91: 75: 69: 58: 35:2009 March 9 3649:Umbralcorax 3596:Pastor Theo 3594:standards. 2959:Usrnme h8er 2765:Usrnme h8er 2598:project. -- 2099:Incorrect. 1978:jbolden1517 1486:autocracy.— 1338:WP:NOT#NEWS 1012:WP:NOT#NEWS 999:, this one 766:article at 753:jbolden1517 726:jbolden1517 701:Usrnme h8er 625:jbolden1517 594:--Akhilleus 537:jbolden1517 503:jbolden1517 485:jbolden1517 370:Chick Bowen 301:Usrnme h8er 3570:WP:CHICAGO 3535:SchuminWeb 3238:neon white 3220:dougweller 3195:Black Kite 3165:Black Kite 3145:neon white 3089:Black Kite 2883:S Marshall 2849:S Marshall 2842:consensus. 2825:Black Kite 2795:S Marshall 2753:'''Vote''' 2709:S Marshall 2654:Black Kite 2635:neon white 2624:Black Kite 2600:neon white 2523:Black Kite 2467:S Marshall 2447:Black Kite 2417:S Marshall 2395:Black Kite 2377:WP:ILIKEIT 2344:S Marshall 2340:decision.— 2309:S Marshall 2226:Black Kite 2189:Black Kite 2159:Black Kite 2136:neon white 2125:Black Kite 2109:neon white 1994:Black Kite 1956:Black Kite 1941:neon white 1892:Black Kite 1851:Black Kite 1830:neon white 1773:Black Kite 1713:Black Kite 1669:Black Kite 1601:neon white 1490:S Marshall 1482:criterion. 1469:Black Kite 1447:S Marshall 1431:Black Kite 1402:S Marshall 1360:Black Kite 1293:Black Kite 1245:neon white 1232:Black Kite 1213:neon white 1199:Black Kite 1165:Black Kite 1131:Black Kite 1126:WP:ATHLETE 1092:neon white 1074:Black Kite 1016:neon white 945:neon white 936:neon white 833:Eluchil404 780:Ism schism 738:Ism schism 636:Ism schism 611:Ism schism 549:a redirect 173:Creativity 44:2009 March 3666:SmokeyJoe 3551:review.-- 3496:WP:RELIST 3116:Fritzpoll 3044:Fritzpoll 2942:Fritzpoll 2583:Fritzpoll 2381:WP:PERNOM 2254:Ekjon Lok 2085:Ekjon Lok 1658:But they 1585:Sjakkalle 1544:MZMcBride 1052:SmokeyJoe 1035:SmokeyJoe 971:SmokeyJoe 764:Acharya S 529:Acharya S 400:Acharya S 347:Acharya S 221:Reinstate 181:LA Weekly 3067:notable. 3009:Overturn 2978:Overturn 2969:contribs 2925:Flatscan 2775:contribs 2269:Overturn 2184:assuming 2026:Bastique 2009:Eusebeus 1973:Overturn 1907:Overturn 1799:Overturn 1764:this DRV 1704:directly 1589:(Check!) 1261:in books 711:contribs 553:Jclemens 495:Commment 311:contribs 20:‎ | 3645:Endorse 3628:Endorse 3609:Endorse 3574:WP:LOTM 3503:MBisanz 3445:restore 3409:history 3303:Endorse 3283:Endorse 3274:Spartaz 3255:Endorse 3216:Endorse 3189:subject 3159:subject 3057:Comment 2955:Endorse 2921:Endorse 2879:Clear?— 2871:Spartaz 2749:WP:AADD 2333:Comment 2286:Endorse 2081:Endorse 2052:Endorse 2035:endorse 2022:Endorse 2005:Endorse 1976:keep. 1866:Ideally 1756:WP:BOLD 1752:Comment 1708:WP:SBST 1620:WP:SBST 1540:Endorse 1530:MBisanz 1524:Endorse 1190:WP:SBST 923:restore 887:history 697:WP:NPOV 669:youtube 567:neutral 455:restore 419:history 265:Restore 201:another 159:restore 129:history 80:Spartaz 3707:Stifle 3632:Sloane 3592:WP:ORG 3289:Enigma 3259:Sloane 3105:Valoem 3073:Valoem 3025:Valoem 2390:Delete 2252:". -- 2202:within 1700:WP:GNG 1624:Stifle 1122:WP:BIO 722:WP:BLP 571:Stifle 515:Stifle 284:Stifle 235:Close? 193:here's 185:here's 183:, and 177:here's 169:Here's 3588:WP:RS 3518:Hobit 3431:watch 3424:links 3175:Hobit 2999:Focus 2820:would 2730:Hobit 2682:Focus 2614:don't 2579:don't 2575:WP:RS 2553:Hobit 2538:Hobit 2495:Hobit 2410:cited 2206:Hobit 2169:Hobit 1870:Hobit 1807:Hobit 1683:Hobit 1660:don't 1642:Hobit 1375:Hobit 1277:Hobit 1176:Hobit 1146:Hobit 1107:Hobit 909:watch 902:links 693:WP:RS 665:blogs 464:WP:RS 441:watch 434:links 151:watch 144:links 52:: --> 16:< 3711:talk 3685:Banj 3670:talk 3653:talk 3636:talk 3619:talk 3600:talk 3590:and 3539:Talk 3522:talk 3478:talk 3474:Deor 3459:talk 3455:Deor 3417:logs 3401:edit 3394:talk 3358:talk 3354:MSGJ 3311:talk 3263:talk 3242:talk 3224:talk 3179:talk 3149:talk 3120:talk 3048:talk 2963:talk 2946:talk 2929:talk 2893:Cont 2859:Cont 2839:does 2805:Cont 2769:talk 2734:talk 2719:Cont 2639:talk 2619:then 2604:talk 2587:talk 2557:talk 2542:talk 2513:have 2499:talk 2477:Cont 2427:Cont 2383:and 2354:Cont 2337:much 2319:Cont 2294:talk 2277:talk 2258:talk 2221:WP:N 2210:talk 2173:talk 2140:talk 2113:talk 2089:talk 2043:talk 2013:talk 1945:talk 1926:talk 1874:talk 1861:That 1834:talk 1811:talk 1687:talk 1646:talk 1628:talk 1605:talk 1563:Banj 1548:talk 1500:Cont 1457:Cont 1412:Cont 1379:talk 1350:Post 1281:talk 1265:just 1249:talk 1217:talk 1180:talk 1150:talk 1111:talk 1096:talk 1084:WP:N 1056:talk 1039:talk 1020:talk 1006:and 975:talk 949:talk 940:talk 934:. -- 895:logs 879:edit 872:talk 837:talk 784:talk 742:talk 705:talk 695:and 679:and 640:talk 615:talk 598:talk 575:talk 557:talk 519:talk 476:WP:N 468:WP:N 427:logs 411:edit 404:talk 368:. – 359:Afd2 305:talk 288:talk 243:talk 209:Mike 199:and 137:logs 121:edit 114:talk 32:< 3683:-- 3614:DGG 3566:bio 3436:XfD 3434:) ( 3040:not 3036:did 2759:or 2518:are 2442:why 2369:any 2057:Hex 1921:DGG 1910:it. 1784:Mgm 1760:has 1741:Mgm 1561:-- 1128:). 914:XfD 912:) ( 774:or 535:. 446:XfD 444:) ( 354:in 269:Mgm 254:日本穣 226:日本穣 22:Log 3713:) 3693:oi 3672:) 3655:) 3638:) 3621:) 3602:) 3576:) 3541:) 3524:) 3480:) 3461:) 3356:· 3313:) 3265:) 3226:) 3181:) 3122:) 3086:. 3050:) 2971:) 2948:) 2931:) 2777:) 2736:) 2589:) 2571:is 2559:) 2544:) 2501:) 2379:, 2375:, 2296:) 2279:) 2260:) 2223:. 2212:) 2175:) 2091:) 2071:❞) 2067:?! 2063:(❝ 2045:) 2039:DS 2015:) 1991:. 1928:) 1876:) 1813:) 1768:is 1710:. 1689:) 1666:. 1648:) 1630:) 1622:. 1571:oi 1550:) 1381:) 1283:) 1229:? 1196:. 1182:) 1152:) 1124:, 1113:) 1058:) 1041:) 977:) 839:) 786:) 744:) 713:) 687:, 675:, 671:, 667:, 663:, 642:) 617:) 600:) 577:) 569:. 559:) 521:) 362:}} 356:{{ 313:) 290:) 245:) 175:, 74:– 42:: 3709:( 3691:b 3687:e 3668:( 3651:( 3634:( 3617:( 3598:( 3572:/ 3568:/ 3564:/ 3562:c 3560:/ 3558:t 3556:( 3537:( 3520:( 3476:( 3457:( 3448:) 3440:| 3427:| 3421:| 3413:| 3405:| 3397:| 3392:( 3360:) 3352:( 3309:( 3261:( 3222:( 3177:( 3118:( 3046:( 2996:m 2993:a 2990:e 2987:r 2984:D 2966:· 2961:( 2944:( 2927:( 2889:/ 2855:/ 2801:/ 2772:· 2767:( 2732:( 2715:/ 2679:m 2676:a 2673:e 2670:r 2667:D 2585:( 2555:( 2540:( 2497:( 2473:/ 2423:/ 2401:. 2392:. 2350:/ 2315:/ 2292:( 2275:( 2256:( 2208:( 2171:( 2087:( 2041:( 2011:( 1924:( 1872:( 1809:( 1786:| 1743:| 1685:( 1644:( 1626:( 1569:b 1565:e 1546:( 1496:/ 1453:/ 1408:/ 1377:( 1279:( 1178:( 1148:( 1120:( 1109:( 1054:( 1037:( 973:( 926:) 918:| 905:| 899:| 891:| 883:| 875:| 870:( 835:( 782:( 740:( 708:· 703:( 638:( 613:( 596:( 573:( 555:( 517:( 458:) 450:| 437:| 431:| 423:| 415:| 407:| 402:( 308:· 303:( 286:( 271:| 241:( 162:) 156:( 154:) 147:| 141:| 133:| 125:| 117:| 112:(

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 10 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index