481:
Wikipediocracy has become sufficiently notable to warrant an article here based on some of the sources that have been cited in the AFD. At this point, the site is at least as notable as its now-moribund predecessor
Knowledge Review, which has enjoyed (?) an article for several years. And although we don't rely on future events as the basis for notability, the notability of Wikipediocracy is almost sure to continue to increase: Knowledge and Wikimedia, for all of their positive attributes that keep us contributing, will continue to have faults and foibles that Wikipediocracy will seek to expose and publicize, sometimes fairly and sometimes otherwise. If we delete this now, we'll be having an agonizing debate again about whether enough has changed to warrant inclusion some three or six months from now; let's not do that to ourselves. For what it's worth, I do not believe this article should be mainpaged—in general, including articles that the general public would perceive as navel-gazing on the main page should be avoided—but that is a different question from whether the article should exist at all. Finally, I hope that the community will devote only a reasonably proportionate amount of time to this entire discussion, recognizing that while this AFD/DRV may matter very much to our "inside baseball" crowd, the short-term fate of this article is of limited importance in the grander scheme of wikithings. In the past few days, a lot of Wikipedians (myself included) have looked back at the damage done by Qworty and asked "why wasn't this problem identified much sooner?" Part of the answer is that sometimes we collectively focus too much of the community's most precious resource, which is our contributors' time and attention, not on improving our articles and making sure that we treat our fellow editors and our article subjects fairly, but on digressions like this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
74:– Oh dear! What a mess. The point that everyone seems to have missed is that the original SNOW close was an NAC and therefore, almost by definition against process as SNOW is almost always inappropriate for an NAC - especially for an article as controversial as this. Further, the snow close truncated debate on the sourcing that one of the participants subsequently analysed in more detail and felt lacking. This is part of the reason why a SNOW close of anything the slightest bit controversial is an incredibly foolish idea (and yes I have done my own share of foolish SNOW closes). As such, those arguing for a relist are the ones putting forward a view that is supported by both policy and long standing practice at DRV. The sourcing is in-play, requires discussion, and DRV is not the forum to consider it. To move things forward, I'm truncating the DRV and immediately relisting AFD 2 as this is for sure how I would have been closing this DRV in however many days hence of pointless argument I will be saving by closing it now. For future, SS should have DRVed the original SNOW and I or another regular DRV admin would have reopened the discussion per
650:, but Wikipediocracy has not yet itself been the subject of such coverage. There is an evident desire to argue notability on the basis of numerous trivial mentions, but that is not supported by the notability guidelines. Moreover, accepting this argument basically renders any politician/candidate or athlete notable if they are given several trivial mentions in articles about elections or games. This is the extent to which GNG is being misapplied. And while that is more of an AFD argument than a DRV one, the simplest course of action would be to simply let the second AFD run its course. Becuase of the nature of Wikipediocracy and several of its users, this article had no hope but to become a drama magnet. The best way to deal with it is to just let the AfD run its course then allow an admin knowledgeable about policy to judge consensus. These silly venue shifting games don't help.
934:(predecessor website) either coming out of the AfD process or established by editorial decision shortly thereafter. That will cause the other piece to grow an unseemly appendage for a time, before another hard source or two inevitably appears and the Wikipediocracy piece splits off again. I think there is a case to be made that it is a more rational way to build an encyclopedia to not attempt to bury a borderline piece at this juncture; we know with mathematical certainty that it will expand over time. I think the snow keep last time was reasonable. I'm a regular poster on the WPO message board so I will just leave this as a comment rather than as a bolded opinion, but hopefully the closing administrator will see the logic of my perspective.
642:. The first AFD was done over a weekend when many editors would not have been aware, and was quickly propped up by Wikipediocrats defending their turf. That said, there were also several keep !votes from editors uninvolved with the site and on that basis, I cannot fault JayJay's decision to close the first one. However, the second AFD is based on a legitimate concern that was glossed over in the first AFD: the article subject simply has not been the subject of significant coverage from independent reliable sources. It does not pass
1219:
almost immediately after the first one closes as keep is never a good idea; it's virtually always forum shopping, and the exceptions (like this one) are those that bring up things that belong somewhere other than AFD. I didn't pay attention to SNOW here because it was completely irrelevant; your statement could with equal validity say that I didn't read or I prefer a selective and expansive interpretation of WP:PROFESSOR, because both are 100% unrelated.
409:. Without puffery, the article reduces to four sentences which are mostly about the recent Qworty issue which, other than the linked Salon story, seems to have failed to arouse any significant commentary that I've seen in reliable sources. As others have said, it's hard to argue for significant notability based on one single news article. In the most recent AfD, some editors have argued that a single news article
1261:
follow the letter of it--those two arguments are incompatible. I personally would not have SNOWed this, because what was really inevitable is that it would come here. The rules do in fact get suspended when there is something we don't like, that directly affects us. We do what most PR firms try to do for their clients, pretend what we do not like isn't really there, or isn't really important.
298:. Now you can read it yourself and it certainly has a lot of references to Wikipediocracy and the information the writer was given by members there. However, it also says pretty much nothing about the site itself. Really, other than the mentions of their involvement in giving this Knowledge information to the author, the article has nothing to say about the Wikipediocracy site itself.
1234:
We pay you to think a little bit about these things, not just respond mechanistically. We could write a bot to automatically close AfDs that are opened N days after a Keep close, even if the close reason was "Non-admin close as Keep after one day, because I happen to like the article" (which this close was pretty close to) or whatever. I'd rather not operate like that.
239:", with that being a link to a tweet by the Wikipediocracy Twitter that itself just links to two diff changes in a Knowledge article. H/T generally means "Heard through" on Twitter, but that is certainly not enough information to back up the sentence currently in the Wikipediocracy article that it is attached to. This isn't even a real mention of the site at all.
489:
how they generally have a sentence or less (a few not even that) about
Wikipediocracy? How exactly does this work with our notability policies? Because if something this thin can be considered notable, then there are a huge number of other articles that have no reason to be deleted, even if they have thin references like this does.
1385:
As per DGG - WP is not a bureaucracy. The SNOW keep was obvious at the first AFD. Next step would be DRV. The second (aborted) out of process AFD was also well on the way to 'Keep'. At this point per 'not a bureaucracy' how about we put this waste of time of everyone's time to bed for a while. (Maybe
880:
It's against all reason and logic to endorse a "procedural close" of this kind. There is nothing procedural about closing discussions early. Any kind of snow close is an IAR close, and it's inherently bold, and can be reverted per BRD. People snow close discussions like this in an attempt to bring
807:
I can't see anything procedurally wrong with the way that either AFD nomination was closed, the request to overturn seems to amount to "I disagree with the way people voted" rather than "I think the nomination was closed against procedure". DRV is not itself "AFD Part II" (or in this case Part III),
1218:
Yes, I learned that it's definitely important to discuss things at the right place and to help people follow process (especially when discussing and helping are agreed at an outside forum, which my decision was), because disrupting things needless does result in permanent harm. Opening a second AFD
1233:
I see where you're coming from. If I understand correctly, you're saying the 2nd nominator should have gone to DRV instead of a 2nd AfD. Yes I guess so, but he didn't, and I think you should have noted the closing reason and been a little flexible. There's no need to be pedantic about these things.
981:
but understand the concerns of NYB. It's already larger than the articles on entities that establish its notability. This article has thevery possibility of simply being a collection of past drama. and a
Coatrack for any perceived slight or wrongdoing. The article needs serious trimming to limit
877:
This is going to be an "endorse" by sheer weight of numbers, even if we disregard all the AfD round 2 comments above, but it shouldn't be. We should let SilverSeren have his 7 days at AfD, after which the material will of course be kept, but we're not here to decide that. DRV's function is to see
549:
They knew, quite obviously, that creating the article was likely to cause controversy. Submitting it to DYK - a project they hold in contempt, by the way - was an even more drama-laden act. Everything about the way this was done suggests to me that they wanted to make the biggest splash they could.
488:
I haven't looked at
Knowledge Review's sources, so I can't comment on whether they are adequate. However, comparing this article to another one seems nonsensical when we're talking about completely different sources. Can you please directly address the issues with the sources that I pointed out and
1323:
wrote, I get it. The user should have gone to DRV instead of opening a 2nd AfD. If I'm reading him right, this would be required even if the close had been "Non-admin close as Keep after one day, because I happen to like the article" (or even "Non-admin close as Keep after one day, because
Martian
1277:
I agree that if a result is inevitable SNOW is fine. But "inevitable" should be defined narrowly, else we end up here, with MORE extra work to do. The original SNOW closer made an understandable mistake. We know that now, cos we're here. And I don't think my points are incompatible -- it's just an
666:
Determining whether coverage is "trivial" is not about counting how many times something is mentioned or seeing if it is discussed in its own right, but whether the context of the mention indicates it is an important subject. As far as your comparison to articles about politicians in elections and
532:
I think that is unfair, Prioryman. There does seem a legitimate belief among
Wikipediocrats that several trivial mentions = significant coverage, but that is also a misunderstanding that other editors hold as well. I think the desire to create the article was legitimate and honest. It is, in my
290:
Now i'll go back to the source that I skipped and saved for last here, because it is the one we have to focus on, that offers slightly more to the subject. However, it is about the recent Qworty incident and is the only source of any real length on
Wikipediocracy, so we also have to bring up the
1260:
that WP is not a bureaucracy, and if a result is inevitable, there's no point delaying getting to it. SNOW is an explanation of one frequently occurring instance. Herostratus, I think you are simultaneous arguing that SNOW is just an essay and of no binding force & that the closer did not
195:
I completely realize that this article was recently taken to AfD. Heck, I realize that I voted Keep in that AfD. However, after comments by others about the sources, i've taken a closer look at them, which I didn't really do previously. And what I have found does seem to indicate a violation of
435:
If we decide to relist, could we unclose the second nomination instead of unclosing the first one? If we say that the first one was wrongly closed but that it needs more input, it would seem to me to be better to throw everything out and allow the start-from-the-ground-up that the second one
305:
And as is often noted in AfD discussions, a bunch of trivial mentions don't add up to much. Trivial mentions are still trivial. And, in most cases, these are even worse than trivial. Usually what we call "trivial mentions" have at least two sentences or something on a subject, but these are,
301:
And that's it, in a fair bit of length. If there was a single source that discussed the site in any length, even a paragraph, then this might be a different discussion. If there was anything about the site's foundings, its origins, even more about its members. But there's nothing. There are
748:
once said, "it's all over but the crying". 1 snow keep + 1 bad-faith quick renomination that we all know would've wound up a keep as well == an article that is going to stick around. All we're here to do at DRV is evaluate the closing admin's actions. No fault can be found here at all.
480:
first AfD result). First of all, I question the value of renominating this or any article for deletion just four days after a prior AFD closed as Keep, in the absence of a supervening BLP issue or the like. (The DRV, while perhaps procedurally better, is its own timesink.) In any event,
200:
here, where the source coverage is extremely trivial. While this was occasionally mentioned in the previous AfD, it does not appear to have been properly represented and that is why I am opening this new discussion. I will now go through the sources in the article to show what I mean.
696:
I would say it is. The articles are about
Knowledge and percieved or real abuses within. Wikipediocracy gets a momentary mention in some cases, simply as a hat tip, but it is undeniably not the subject of any of the sources any more than the examples I gave above.
1437:(ie, this will be notable soon, so we should keep it) or made comments that deleting it appears like censorship (which is utterly irrelevant). Beyond that, WP:SNOW is for uncontroversial things. How on earth was this ever going to be a non-controversial close?
1282:
going to invoke it, at least stick to the spirit of what it says it's for. I urge all and sundry to define SNOW narrowly for purely practical reasons, and to treat SNOW much like PROD in that any reasonable objection overrules it, for organizational health
1342:
If I were rule-bound, I would have closed it without doing anything, rather than sending it over to here where it belongs and giving it a proper discussion. I did this to help, not to attract attacks from you for doing what was in line with consensus.
413:
convey significant notability but that simply isn't compliant with policy. Others have argued in this and the previous AfD that the article should be kept because the subject might be more notable in future, but again that's not compliant with policy
78:
at the time and saved this whole stupid mess. Having opened AFD 2 the optimal outcome would have been to leave it be but I wouldn't blame
Nyttend as they are not a regular here and wouldn't have known how this would have been bound to play out. –
277:, but I have no need to. Because this article makes absolutely no mention of Wikipediocracy at all (other than in a screenshot of a Knowledge conversation). Honestly, I have no idea why this source is in the article, other than for POV pushing.
351:
Could you please describe this conflict of interest ? Is it not the case that every editor has an inherent conflict of interest in a topic like
Wikipediocracy, given its symbiotic relationship with Wikimedia/Wikipedia.
513:
one different is that it's backed by a community who know how to troll and disrupt Knowledge to get their own way. I can't help feeling that the article was created specifically to set editors at each others' throats.
1053:
It should be nice to use this discussion in future AfDs though, to show that linking to a website and one sentence mentions establish notability. I'm pretty sure I can get almost everything to be kept by using that.
1292:
Look at the comment directly below. It's not logical. But we're getting that a lot: "It was closed as a SNOW, end of story". That's not was SNOW is supposed to be about, at all. A lot of slopes aren't slippery, but
787:
The first AfD was closed after 24 hours or so, the second lasted less than that. The first was closed with SNOW, but the second isn't snowing, so why not continue it so we have an actual full length AfD?
611:
174:
287:, which doesn't really seem necessary, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. This source, like the previous, confers no notability to Wikipediocracy, not even through a trivial mention.
930:- I think there is a rational IAR basis for keeping a piece of borderline notability here. As I commented at the first AfD if this closes a Delete, chances are there will be a redirect to
568:
I do not intend to offer an opinion as to the DRV itself, but your personal attacks here, Prioryman, are quite out of line, especially considering your own considerable COI in the matter.
878:
that the process is correctly followed, and the process is that discussions are left open for 7 days. There's no urgent or pressing reason to come to a decision earlier, is there?
881:
the drama to an end, but of course it doesn't bring the drama to an end. It just brings it here. The correct decision here is to let editors have their say in the normal way.
634:
816:(say 6 months or so) to test the waters to see if consensus has changed, but as a matter of this AFD, I don't see where there's any evidence this needs to be overturned. --
1433:
otherwise. WP:SNOW is irrelevant when 90-95% of Keep voters didn't make any policy-based argument whatsoever - and the majority of that figure made arguments that violated
1033:
Sorry but your comment does not seem to have any relevance to the discussion. Are you alleging that Silver Seren is somehow forum shopping because he started a second AfD?
687:
247:
Wales was responding from comments by Andreas Kolbe, a moderator at Wikipediocracy, an external forum whose members are often harshly critical of Wikimedia's management.
223:
The Qworty fiasco came to Leonard’s attention, he writes, when members of Wikipediocracy, a site that details instances of Wikipedian fakery and bias, contacted him.
156:
681:
628:
249:" This is, again, a trivial mention, and really, from what the rest of the article says, is a better reference to be used on Andreas than Wikipediocracy.
48:
34:
1144:
in this particular instance. The community was given about one day to work through this, which is not enough time to see how things might develop.
1126:"If an issue is 'snowballed', and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause."
614:
was heading to the exact same result in spite of Seren's arguments. Time to stop the procedural nonsense and face facts: the article is staying.--
812:
rather than the merits of the deletion argument itself. I don't see where the process was flawed in any way. This does not preclude a new AFD
1187:
is intended to make things go faster and avoid wasted effort. Just the opposite effect was achieved here. Looking on the bright side, at least
393:. I'm not sure about the wisdom of not letting the new AfD play out, but here we are, anyway. Silver seren is right to point out the degree of
43:
667:
athletes in games, that kind of coverage would be excluded by WP:ROUTINE. None of the mentions of WO that we are talking about are routine.--
144:
724:
FWIW, as a participant on Wikipediocracy, my preference would be delete (as well as maybe have this debate on one page rather than 3). --
704:
213:
Users of the Wikipediocracy forum have pinned down a likely suspect, however, a Wikipedian who went by the handle "A-b-a-a-a-a-a-a-b-a."
263:" Again, this article has a fair amount to say on Andreas, but only half a sentence on Wikipediocracy. Even more trivial than trivial.
39:
177:, rather than by coming here. I've closed the AFD procedurally in favor of coming here. The nominator's rationale is as follows.
898:
918:
676:
623:
165:
1167:
773:
1305:, quick, before the other side has a chance to mobilize". It's a very dangerous essay and should be used with much caution.
283:, likewise, has no mention of Wikipediocracy and is merely being used to source the statement "co-founder of Knowledge" for
21:
1195:
have learned a valuable lesson which'll help them be better editors in future. No hard feelings guys, no permanent harm.
374:
337:
668:
615:
1200:
N.B: the person closing the re-opened 2nd nomination should take into account comments from the first one, though.
1018:
914:
245:
is about somewhat recent discussions with Jimbo about Kazakh Knowledge. Its comments on Wikipediocracy amount to, "
1465:
1373:
769:
598:
94:
17:
718:
I'll leave the notability issue for others to debate... it's probably not notable enough for an encyclopedia in
1105:...Allow the Afd to run the full week. This will allow the proper vetting of the sources and full discussion.--
295:
1165:
is just an essay anyway, and if proposed as a guideline I wouldn't vote for it nor would many others -- I'm a
225:" Also a trivial mention, not even counting that it is referencing information from a different news article.
1391:
370:
333:
1082:
AfD, because the normal rules are apparently suspended where Wikipediocracy and its members are concerned.
1060:
846:
647:
495:
315:
722:
view of what notable would mean, but where I think the bar should be is much higher than it actually is.
329:
Due to the potential for !voters with a conflict of interest, the AfD should have been left open longer.
204:
1449:
1333:
1310:
1239:
1205:
1011:
252:
228:
280:
242:
173:
After this AFD resulted in a decision of "keep", someone decided to challenge the decision by opening
1369:
894:
594:
418:
etc). Silver and Steve's analysis is compelling and suggests that the first AfD was wrongly decided.
1454:
1417:
1395:
1377:
1352:
1337:
1314:
1272:
1243:
1228:
1209:
1109:
1091:
1065:
1042:
1025:
999:
967:
943:
922:
902:
870:
851:
831:
797:
777:
758:
733:
657:
602:
577:
559:
540:
523:
500:
463:
445:
427:
381:
361:
344:
320:
266:
189:
83:
1438:
1413:
1087:
1038:
793:
725:
555:
519:
459:
423:
114:
1387:
995:
824:
701:
654:
537:
394:
218:
1434:
1386:
a bit longer than 4 days this time.) Situations like this are why 'not a bureaucracy' exists.
1348:
1224:
1132:
didn't read that, or doesn't agree and prefers a selective (and expansive) interpretation of
1055:
939:
841:
490:
441:
415:
310:
208:
185:
397:
and puffery in this article. Virtually everything in it depends on trivial passing mentions.
215:" That is the entirety of the mention of Wikipediocracy within the article, clearly trivial.
1329:
1306:
1235:
1201:
964:
931:
573:
197:
886:
309:
I see no real argument for notability here, once you actually take a look at the sources.
274:
1409:
1405:
1302:
1298:
1294:
1184:
1180:
1172:
1162:
1153:
1133:
1120:
1083:
1034:
789:
754:
745:
551:
515:
455:
419:
357:
256:
110:
70:
840:
If no new sources of sufficient coverage exist by then, that is probably a good idea.
1268:
991:
954:
867:
817:
698:
651:
643:
534:
366:
Giving the AfD more time gives all points of view a greater opportunity to weigh in.
75:
646:. The site has earned a few mentions as part of articles dedicated to the topic of
1344:
1320:
1220:
1192:
1141:
1129:
935:
437:
284:
232:
181:
80:
1328:, period. That does seem pretty pedantic to me, speaking of not being rule-bound.
1125:
1188:
1149:
1145:
1140:
is not a "reasonable objection". Any of these are Very Bad Mojo and no props to
959:
569:
1156:". Sometimes things take a little time to work out. We're not on deadline here.
1106:
398:
261:
Kolbe wrote on Wikipediocracy, a site often critical of Wikimedia’s top brass.
1183:
is fine in certain narrow non-controversial situations. Let's keep it there.
221:
is a recent source about the Qworty incident. on Wikipediocracy, it states, "
750:
407:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Steve/Sandbox&oldid=556316884
353:
1152:
that Roosevelt's speech on December 8 1941 did not read "We surrender per
472:(copied from the second AFD, which was closed just as I was posting this)
235:
being used in the Wikipediocracy article. At the bottom of it, it states "
1263:
864:
401:
has done a useful exercise to strip out anything from the article that
1368:
WP:SNOW may be listed as an essay but it is buttressed with policy.
391:
Overturn and delete (first preference) or relist (second preference)
1008:. The next appropriate forum at which to shop would be St. Jude's.
1324:
insects are trying to sell my washing machine", I guess) because
1297:
is one that is. It's always threatening to slide from "Close as
1404:
And yet the second AfD happened and it wasn't snowing. How is
768:
first AfD result per (wikipediocracy member) NewYorkBrad.—
291:
question on whether this single event adds much by itself.
1301:, because only one outcome is now possible" to "Close as
1148:
SNOWing this was also not a good close. I might remind
1137:
406:
151:
137:
129:
121:
211:
hoax material, of which on Wikipediocracy it states, "
863:first AfD result per my comments at the 2nd AfD. -
269:I could go on about its reliability, with it being
180:I have no opinion on the matter, so I'm neutral.
744:- Sorry ladies & gents & others, but as
306:apparently, the most trivial among the trivial.
1179:is depressingly mediocre thinking in my view.
808:rather we're supposed to look at the deletion
550:In that, sadly, they seem to have succeeded.
8:
93:The following is an archived debate of the
63:
302:references to the site and that's all.
294:The article that I am referring to is
1119:. The close on the first AfD was per
7:
259:. About Wikipediocracy, it states, "
1468:of the page listed in the heading.
1171:guy, and pretending that the essay
1078:I think you'll find that this is a
913:per my comments at the second afd.
28:
982:the scope to what Wikipediocracy
533:obvious opinion, also premature.
610:first AfD result. Honestly, the
454:That seems very sensible to me.
405:a trivial passing mention - see
1464:The above is an archive of the
1168:Knowledge:Process is important
231:could actually be an issue of
1:
1388:Only in death does duty end
593:first AfD result. Per NYB.
1491:
1256:The basis for SNOW is the
885:for the whole seven days.—
207:is used to reference the
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
1471:Please do not modify it.
1455:11:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
1418:11:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
1396:09:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
1378:21:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
1353:06:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
1338:05:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
1319:Hunh. After seeing what
1315:21:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
1273:18:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
1244:05:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
1229:18:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
1210:17:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
1110:17:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
1092:17:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
1066:16:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
1043:10:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
1026:09:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
1000:08:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
968:01:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
944:01:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
923:00:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
903:00:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
871:23:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
852:05:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
832:23:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
798:23:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
778:23:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
759:22:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
734:22:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
705:23:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
688:23:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
658:22:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
635:22:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
603:22:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
578:00:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
560:23:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
541:22:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
524:22:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
501:22:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
464:22:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
446:22:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
428:22:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
382:23:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
362:22:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
345:22:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
321:04:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
190:22:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
100:Please do not modify it.
84:14:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
40:Deletion review archives
1431:Overturn and reopen AfD
648:criticism of Knowledge
273:and about its author,
1136:, or thinks that the
1117:Re-open second debate
915:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
814:after sufficient time
640:Re-open second debate
1451:(tell Luke off here)
1161:For goodness sakes,
986:rather than what it
770:alf laylah wa laylah
671:The Devil's Advocate
618:The Devil's Advocate
1427:Overturn and Delete
509:Perhaps what makes
327:Overturn and relist
97:of the page above.
1408:still applicable?
1123:. Read that page:
371:AutomaticStrikeout
334:AutomaticStrikeout
237:H/T Wikipediocracy
1478:
1477:
1138:second nomination
1024:
901:
785:Reopen second AfD
380:
343:
233:original research
209:Bicholim conflict
1482:
1473:
1447:
1444:
1441:
1127:
1063:
1058:
1023:
1021:
1016:
1009:
966:
962:
932:Knowledge Review
893:
891:
849:
844:
827:
820:
730:
684:
679:
673:
631:
626:
620:
498:
493:
379:
377:
367:
342:
340:
330:
318:
313:
168:
163:
154:
140:
132:
124:
102:
64:
53:
33:
1490:
1489:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1469:
1466:deletion review
1445:
1442:
1439:
1370:Unscintillating
1326:that's the rule
1061:
1056:
1019:
1012:
1010:
960:
958:
887:
847:
842:
825:
818:
726:
686:
682:
677:
669:
633:
629:
624:
616:
595:Darkness Shines
496:
491:
375:
368:
338:
331:
316:
311:
275:Andrew Orlowski
164:
162:
159:
150:
149:
143:
136:
135:
128:
127:
120:
119:
98:
95:deletion review
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1488:
1486:
1476:
1475:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1429:, preferably,
1423:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1399:
1398:
1380:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1213:
1212:
1197:
1196:
1158:
1157:
1113:
1112:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1003:
1002:
971:
970:
947:
946:
925:
907:
906:
874:
873:
857:
856:
855:
854:
835:
834:
801:
800:
781:
780:
762:
761:
738:
737:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
691:
690:
675:
661:
660:
637:
622:
605:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
565:
564:
563:
562:
544:
543:
527:
526:
504:
503:
483:
482:
469:
468:
467:
466:
449:
448:
430:
395:WP:COATRACKing
387:
386:
385:
384:
348:
347:
257:Gibraltarpedia
193:
171:
170:
160:
147:
141:
133:
125:
117:
111:Wikipediocracy
105:
104:
89:
88:
87:
86:
71:Wikipediocracy
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1487:
1474:
1472:
1467:
1462:
1461:
1456:
1453:
1452:
1448:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1425:
1424:
1419:
1415:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1384:
1381:
1379:
1375:
1371:
1367:
1364:
1363:
1354:
1350:
1346:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1335:
1331:
1327:
1322:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1281:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1265:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1169:
1164:
1160:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1128:
1122:
1118:
1115:
1114:
1111:
1108:
1104:
1101:
1100:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1067:
1064:
1059:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1022:
1017:
1015:
1007:
1001:
997:
993:
989:
985:
980:
976:
973:
972:
969:
965:
963:
956:
955:User:Jayron32
952:
949:
948:
945:
941:
937:
933:
929:
926:
924:
920:
916:
912:
909:
908:
905:
904:
900:
896:
892:
890:
884:
876:
875:
872:
869:
866:
862:
859:
858:
853:
850:
845:
839:
838:
837:
836:
833:
830:
829:
828:
821:
815:
811:
806:
803:
802:
799:
795:
791:
786:
783:
782:
779:
775:
771:
767:
764:
763:
760:
756:
752:
747:
746:my dream girl
743:
740:
739:
736:
735:
731:
729:
721:
717:
714:
713:
706:
703:
700:
695:
694:
693:
692:
689:
685:
680:
674:
672:
665:
664:
663:
662:
659:
656:
653:
649:
645:
641:
638:
636:
632:
627:
621:
619:
613:
609:
606:
604:
600:
596:
592:
589:
588:
579:
575:
571:
567:
566:
561:
557:
553:
548:
547:
546:
545:
542:
539:
536:
531:
530:
529:
528:
525:
521:
517:
512:
508:
507:
506:
505:
502:
499:
494:
487:
486:
485:
484:
479:
475:
471:
470:
465:
461:
457:
453:
452:
451:
450:
447:
443:
439:
434:
431:
429:
425:
421:
417:
412:
408:
404:
400:
396:
392:
389:
388:
383:
378:
373:
372:
365:
364:
363:
359:
355:
350:
349:
346:
341:
336:
335:
328:
325:
324:
323:
322:
319:
314:
307:
303:
299:
297:
292:
288:
286:
282:
278:
276:
272:
268:
264:
262:
258:
254:
250:
248:
244:
240:
238:
234:
230:
226:
224:
220:
216:
214:
210:
206:
202:
199:
192:
191:
187:
183:
178:
176:
167:
158:
153:
146:
139:
131:
123:
116:
112:
109:
108:
107:
106:
103:
101:
96:
91:
90:
85:
82:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
1470:
1463:
1450:
1430:
1426:
1382:
1365:
1325:
1279:
1262:
1257:
1253:
1193:User:Nyttend
1176:
1166:
1142:User:Nyttend
1130:User:Nyttend
1124:
1116:
1102:
1079:
1013:
1005:
1004:
987:
983:
978:
974:
950:
927:
910:
888:
882:
879:
860:
823:
822:
813:
809:
804:
784:
765:
741:
727:
723:
719:
715:
670:
639:
617:
607:
590:
510:
477:
473:
432:
410:
402:
390:
369:
332:
326:
308:
304:
300:
293:
289:
285:Larry Sanger
279:
271:The Register
270:
265:
260:
251:
246:
243:This article
241:
236:
229:This article
227:
222:
217:
212:
203:
194:
179:
172:
99:
92:
69:
58:
1330:Herostratus
1307:Herostratus
1278:essay, but
1236:Herostratus
1202:Herostratus
1189:User:JayJay
1175:supercedes
1150:User:JayJay
1146:User:JayJay
1080:sui generis
977:I'd prefer
436:provides.
281:This source
267:This source
253:This source
205:This source
59:24 May 2013
49:2013 May 25
35:2013 May 23
1435:WP:CRYSTAL
1020:.Wolfowitz
889:S Marshall
612:second AfD
416:WP:CRYSTAL
399:User:Steve
1410:IRWolfie-
1280:if one is
1084:Prioryman
1035:IRWolfie-
790:IRWolfie-
728:SB_Johnny
552:Prioryman
516:Prioryman
456:Prioryman
420:Prioryman
255:is about
198:WP:SIGCOV
175:a new AFD
1283:reasons.
1254:Comment'
1177:policies
1103:Overturn
992:DHeyward
988:contains
296:this one
44:2013 May
20: |
1406:WP:SNOW
1383:Endorse
1366:Endorse
1345:Nyttend
1321:Nyttend
1303:WP:SNOW
1299:WP:SNOW
1295:WP:SNOW
1221:Nyttend
1185:WP:SNOW
1181:WP:SNOW
1173:WP:SNOW
1163:WP:SNOW
1154:WP:SNOW
1134:WP:SNOW
1121:WP:SNOW
1006:Endorse
975:Comment
951:Endorse
936:Carrite
928:Comment
911:Endorse
861:Endorse
810:process
805:Endorse
766:Endorse
742:Endorse
716:Comment
608:Endorse
591:Endorse
478:Endorse
476:(i.e.,
438:Nyttend
433:Comment
182:Nyttend
166:restore
130:history
81:Spartaz
1258:policy
1057:Silver
1014:Kiefer
979:delete
961:Begoon
883:Relist
843:Silver
819:Jayron
683:cntrb.
644:WP:GNG
630:cntrb.
570:Mangoe
492:Silver
312:Silver
76:WP:NAC
1269:talk
1107:MONGO
1062:seren
990:. --
848:seren
497:seren
403:isn't
317:seren
152:watch
145:links
52:: -->
16:<
1440:Luke
1414:talk
1392:talk
1374:talk
1349:talk
1334:talk
1311:talk
1240:talk
1225:talk
1206:talk
1191:and
1088:talk
1039:talk
996:talk
953:per
940:talk
919:talk
794:talk
774:talk
755:talk
751:Tarc
732:| ✌
702:lute
699:Reso
678:tlk.
655:lute
652:Reso
625:tlk.
599:talk
574:talk
556:talk
538:lute
535:Reso
520:talk
511:this
474:Keep
460:talk
442:talk
424:talk
358:talk
354:Nick
219:This
186:talk
138:logs
122:edit
115:talk
32:<
1264:DGG
411:can
157:XfD
155:) (
22:Log
1446:94
1443:no
1416:)
1394:)
1376:)
1351:)
1336:)
1313:)
1271:)
1242:)
1227:)
1208:)
1090:)
1041:)
998:)
984:is
957:.
942:)
921:)
865:Mr
826:32
796:)
776:)
757:)
720:my
601:)
576:)
558:)
522:)
462:)
444:)
426:)
376:?
360:)
339:?
188:)
42::
1412:(
1390:(
1372:(
1347:(
1332:(
1309:(
1267:(
1252:'
1238:(
1223:(
1204:(
1086:(
1037:(
994:(
938:(
917:(
899:C
897:/
895:T
868:X
792:(
772:(
753:(
597:(
572:(
554:(
518:(
458:(
440:(
422:(
414:(
356:(
184:(
169:)
161:|
148:|
142:|
134:|
126:|
118:|
113:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.