78:. The matter comes down to the differences when closing a debate on whether to delete or to redirect. We assume when an article is deleted that the physical action of deletion occurs. When we vote to redirect, no deletion happens and the article is redirected. The question in this debate is whether deletion is necessarily required. Does a redirect achieve the same result to our readers while leaving advantages to our users? The arguments for each side are either that it would set precedent where redirects are systematically not deleted or that redirects do not necessarily require systematic deletion. Neither argument is well supported nor opposed explicitly in policy and so this comes down to a matter of consensus. Unfortunately, no consensus has prevailed and the status quo remains. However, I will contact the deleting admin and try to negotiata a drama-reducing solution to this problem.--v/r -
572:
good reason to delete the history? Unless the article was inappropriately promotional -- I can't tell -- there is no good reason. Let's put it another way: what was the substance of the consensus? Was there a consensus to delete the article's history? Or was the consensus that the subject of the article does not merit a
Knowledge (XXG) page? Surely it was the latter. That's why a redirect was the correct outcome, but the deletion of the page's history was not. --
1626:– The deletion is endorsed and the requester has been blocked as a sockpuppet. There is disagreement about whether the new-found sources justify a recreation of the article. Most participants seem to think that there is a basis for an established editor who is clearly not associated with any banned editors or groups to recreate the article, but any recreation may be then resubmitted for a deletion discussion by any other editor. –
2580:
post credible articles. We posted their response on the deletion page for all to see. That was the only correspondence with them and at the time we did not know they were banned. They did not edit the page or have anything to do with the page. We certainly would not knowingly communicate with anyone banned from the site. Fortunately they had nothing to do with the content on the site. Thank you.
2736:(Jonas Brothers co-wrote a song), just toured the U.S. with platinum top 40 artist "Rixton" as their concert opener, and will be touring as opener for Demi Lovato later this month. I appreciate whatever you can communicate at Knowledge (XXG) so that the Michael and Marisa page stays active as it has been since 2009. It definitely needs updating and I will make sure that happens. Many thanks!
404:. It states, "Such arguments make no use of policy or guidelines whatsoever. They are merely a campaign on the part of the commentator to alter others' points-of-view. They are of no help in reaching a consensus, and anyone responding to such pleas is not helping either." Are you still sure that this "appeared to be a final plea for
2212:
The following link has triggered a protection filter: google.com/url?sa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%26esrc%3Ds%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D18%26ved%3D0CEwQFjAHOAo%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Ftabs.ultimate-guitar.com%252Fm%252Fmichael_and_marisa%252Fbeautiful_comeback_crd.htm%26ei%3DL_keVNSANtSnyASThYH4DQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNG6Z7Ntqm7gskbiDdnjr_tKbLs9VQ
455:) that primary, non-disambiguated articles should refer to the most notable interpretation. I'm not volunteering to write it (it's the beginning of a quarter and I have classes to teach!) but it appears to me that there is a notable Videopad topic, just not this one. But as I also said during the AfD, this may simply be a case of
843:
article, then this applies to its history as well. As has been said above, the argument to restore the history would apply to almost every article deleted on notability grounds, and would contravene settled community consensus to reject any form of "soft" deletion where deleted content routinely remains user-accessible.
1569:
continues to wane. On the one hand, it shouldn't be necessary for those advocating deletion to isolate and destroy every single argument in favour of keeping it; but on the other hand, it shouldn't be possible to defeat a well-reasoned argument by sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending you didn't hear it.
1434:, as argued in the AfD (and I note that even the person intitiating this appeal explicitly states above that he is not contesting the lack of notability). TOOSOON was not given as an argument for deletion, nor did I use it in the close. Citing TOOSOON in situations like this usually is mostly done to
571:
unless the history is inappropriately promotional. The closing admin said 'I am not swayed by your arguments in favor of keeping the edit history'. I'm aware this is going to look like undue micromanagement of the closing admin's task, but the question should be asked the other way around: is there a
553:
A decision to delete an article on notability grounds is a decision that a topic should not be included as a stand-alone article. It is not a decision that a topic should not be covered at all. It may be entirely appropriate for the topic to be covered elsewhere and it is absurd to place obstacles in
2719:
Thank you for considering WikiExperts! In order to determine if you qualify for a
Knowledge (XXG) profile, can you please send us 7-10 examples of substantial press coverage you have received over your career (not including press releases), which have not already appeared on the page? These kinds of
2558:
obviously disagrees, I am very willing to evaluate any borderline situation an article written by a paid editor as meriting deletion. In this case, if the article was written by
Wikiexperts, they're a banned editor as of Oct 17, 2013, and that is sufficient reason for deletion. I do not think we
2480:
These discussions are usually open for seven days, at which point a call will be made by a neutral administrator to either undelete or keep it deleted. I could restore the page for you, but that would open us up for further chicanery and pointless bureaucracy. I think just waiting for this process
1568:
I've begun to write things about this on several occasions but them changed my mind. I find the matter rather difficult because it turns on how much weight to give to an argument that was made and not refuted, but simply ignored. I suspect we'll see more and more such cases as participation at AfD
1321:
states, "On
Knowledge (XXG), notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." So if your close was based on the article rather than the topic, IMO that provides the basis for an out-of-process deletion. The improvability of the topic is not a point of
450:
He wasn't offering new arguments in favor of a redirect, he was offering the same arguments as had already been rejected, merely hoping for a different outcome. We do not decide notability of a topic based on whether sources have been cited but whether they exist. By extension, it seems reasonable
2756:
The email was sent after the AfD started, indicating that WikiExperts had no involvement in the article between the article's creation and 10 September 2014. The article was deleted 23 September 2014. If there are any WikiExperts edits to the article between 10 September 2014 and 23 September 2014,
2579:
Need to reiterate one more time that No Paid Editor Was Ever Used To Write
Anything on the Michael and Marisa page. When the article was nominated for deletion we googled what to do and the Wikiexperts came up. We emailed one time asking how to handle the situation and they emailed back saying to
1571:
The business about meeting the GNG is a red herring. Whether or not something meets the GNG has no bearing on whether there should be a redirect. It also has no bearing on whether to delete the history under the redirect. On balance I think that there's a rough consensus that the redirect should
996:
WP:Notability is not a content policy/guideline, and hasn't been since early 2008. So when an article is deleted for wp:notability, there is no content in the article that needs fixing. Even now you have not explained (unless I missed it) your close as to whether it was for wp:notability or for a
263:
There is no consensus for automatic deletion of page history when an outcome is "redirect" (though there's also no consensus against that deletion when appropriate), and several contributors felt that a number of well-argued !votes in favor of "merge" and "redirect" should lead to a closure of "no
238:
Using the deleted content for a merge is not the only benefit. Another example is that in the future if sources surface that demonstrate notability, the deleted content can be easily reviewed. Without needing to ask an admin, a non-admin could determine whether the deleted content could be used as
2460:
The plan is to update the page immediately. It would save a tremendous amount of time if you would put the page back up so that edits can be made from it rather than have to start from scratch again. Please empathize with those of us who are not as
Knowledge (XXG) savvy. Perhaps you can give a
1075:
The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or
324:
like attribution requirements of the contents licensing terms of
Knowledge (XXG). In this case however, those "several reliable sources and content that could be useful" are already present in the AfD discussion. I stress that WP:DELREV and WP:REFUND are not avenues of defeating the purpose of an
2881:
Requestor is indefinitely blocked, so there is no further need to consider this appeal. The norm for speedy closes is no prejudice against a speedy renomination; however, I support letting this issue sit idle for a while so that the disruption from this request can subside and not affect future
2735:
Many thanks for your response. Here are the articles you requested about
Michael and Marisa. After all the on line links there is a link to newspaper press. Please let me know what other information you need so that the page is not deleted. The duo has an album they wrote about to be released
1932:
Mattel Toys has a line of dolls called: “I Can Be….”. The dolls have different occupations such as doctor, pilot, veterinarian etc. Marisa was asked by Mattel to represent the line as the “I Can Be….a
Drummer.” Here is the link to the video that Mattel made and put on their web site. There was a
1376:
The closer and
Msnicki cited WP:TOOSOON. However, WP:TOOSOON is not a argument for deletion where there is a merge and redirect target. The clear implication of TOOSOON is that the topic may possibly be suitable for coverage, it is not (yet) suitable for a standalone article. Giving a topic a
639:
My close was based on my reading of the consensus ("delete"). Given that redirects are cheap (and, if a better target comes up, can easily be changed), I saw no harm in leaving a redirect. I'm not impressed by arguments to leave the history: those apply to all articles that we delete for reasons
1728:
Wrongly deleted. Closer of deletion discussion said that he could not find sufficient notable articles about the subject. There is a very long list of notable activity and articles about the subject. Currently requesting to have notable activity and articles about the subject reviewed and to
2838:
The question is whether the subject of this article is notable enough to maintain an article. The answer is yes. The other concerns regarding T536 are best dealt with using blocks/bans, not by restricting article content. WP:IAR was not, in my opinion, ever intended to be used as a way to keep
2232:
my own close (no other choice, really), but equally obviously no objection to the article existing if it is genuinely notable and there are sources out there that were not brought up at the AfD. Would probably be best to move it to Draft space if so? (btw, I have added the delrev template).
842:
on grounds of procedure. The "delete" closure appears uncontested. As such, there is no particular reason to restore the history, which would change the outcome from "delete" to "redirect" contrary to the consensus correctly established as a result of the discussion. If we decide to delete an
535:
The key here is whether the closer deleted for wp:notability or for content. Neither the close nor the admin's talk page discussion states the reason for deletion. The vast majority of the discussion was in regard to wp:notability, although one of the five commentators states, "Looks like
2245:- I suggest userfication. I honestly think this is a GNG pass, wrongly decided. There's obviously (fan) energy for a page, it's more or less a matter of sifting sources and getting this this launched again. Wrongly decided in the debate, no objection to the close per se.
1395:
Rhododendrites makes a detailed argument for why the topic doesn't meet the GNG. However, the GNG specifically limits standalone articles, and does not speak to content contained within an article, and therefore his !vote does not imply a requirement to delete the
973:
closed as "redirect". It was closed as "delete". After deletion, a redirect was, put in place at your suggestion, as they are cheap and can easily be re-targeted if a better target becomes available later. All the other policies about fixing problems and such apply
536:
advertising to me." As stated, this !vote is a personal opinion that does not cite a policy. Based on the preponderance of evidence, this deletion was for wp:notability, which means there is no policy basis to keep the edit history deleted under the redirect.
1025:#8: "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)". So I fail to see the relevance of your remark about "WP:Notability is not a content policy/guideline" (which is partially incorrect, it
1480:, because that's what the consensus in the afd plainly was. (The editorially-created redirect is acceptable.) Filibustering the same points over and over when they've already failed to convince anyone creates no onus to repeat the rebuttals already given. —
554:
the way of achieving this. If the content of the deleted article is abusive then history deletion will be justified. If an editor were to become disruptive in using material in the history then deletion or other remedial actions might become necessary.
1572:
continue to exist; and therefore, this being a wiki, there's a presumption that the history should be visible. If there's a particular revision that's problematic for some reason, it can be revdelled, but to remove the entire history is uncalled-for.—
1160:
has received enough attention from the world at large to merit a standalone article rather than a lesser role within a larger topic, and requires no sourcing in an article. Nor is WP:N a deletion policy, although a special case exists within
866:
As noted above by Unscintillating, Thincat, and Mkativerata, the substance of the AfD's consensus was that the subject does not merit a Knowledge (XXG) page. That conclusion does not foreclose the possibility of retaining the redirect's
231:
The only benefit of keeping the edit history deleted that I can see would be to prevent users from undoing the redirect and restoring the deleted content. But this is easily remedied by reverting the restoration and fully protecting the
1298:
I'm sorry, but I don't think I understand where you are going. My close was based on the whole article not meeting any notability guideline and no convincing arguments that improvement would be possible. To me, that means "delete".
1974:
Patch Game company made over 70,000 games with three different Michael and Marisa song titles. Patch enclosed in the games a CD with the Michael and Marisa song matching the title of the game or a download card with their song.
1729:
overturn the decision to delete this page. There was not enough discussion on the proposal for deletion page to make a consensus. Discussion was mainly attributed to the closer. Here are the notable activities and articles:
1326:
states, "improvement...is preferable to deletion", and the topic has been improved. Is there another policy that supports keeping the edit history deleted? How does keeping the edit history deleted improve the encyclopedia?
682:
says, "Michael Muchmore is PC Magazine's lead analyst for software and Web applications. A native New Yorker, he has at various times headed up PC Magazine’s coverage of Web development, enterprise software, and display
2263:
In response to Black Kite and Carrite: I support a direct restoration to mainspace. The sources I provided in citation templates above can be copied by anyone to the references section of the article. That would make
2199:
1711:
1133:
640:
other than promotion or BLP concerns. Having said that, I have no strong feelings about this either way. Funny, this is the first time that a close of mine managed to draw flak from both sides of the debate :-) --
2659:
To qualify, the edit must be a violation of the user's block or ban. For example, pages created by a topic-banned user may be deleted if they come under that particular topic, but not if they are in some other
2417:. 10 Editors edited the AFD page and with detailed discussion on both sides and it is not valid reason to say to few participants for Deletion review after being open for 15 days.I stand by my comments above.
2319:
2:when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your
2303:
was discussed in the AFD which was open for 15 days and do not see any significant new information.Further here Closer's judgement here is not in question neither has it been discussed with the Closing admin
1209:
Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page):
1230:
In the case of wp:notability, the "offending section" is the data structure in which the topic is posted as a standalone article. Policy here is that "improvement...is preferable to deletion".
2503:
Yes, of course....happy to wait for the process to finish naturally and definitely not looking for shortcuts. I didn't realize that the discussion is open for seven days. Thank you very much.
2618:
1414:
Why not just expand the coverage at the target without relying on the deleted content? Because that is content forking and dangerous with regards to Knowledge (XXG) copyright compliance. --
2779:, it appears that contact was made with WikiExperts in an effort to save the article, but no edits from WikiExperts or other paid editors were made. Therefore, none of the content violates
2080:. However, taking the opposite view—that the sources are insufficient to establish notability—is also a reasonable position and the one that prevailed in the AfD, so I endorse the close.
223:. A redirect would be better than a red link because this is a plausible search term. Preserving the history under the redirect would be better than deleting the history. As I wrote at
948:
Because VideoPad's non-policy-violating history can be used in a selective merge or in a draft if new sources are found, keeping it deleted would be a net negative to the encyclopedia.
2612:
2624:
2331:
320:, has no business coming back stealthily, in the form of revisions histories of a redirect. Restoring an article's history is a discretionary action, performed when there are
1531:
1377:
standalone article is a higher test than allowing coverage. Msnicki made no argument that the content was unsuitable for any article and that history deletion was required.
2363:
Points made previously were not intended to be repeated here, but instead were one by one substantiated with a link to a wikipedia page containing a necessary definition.
2033:
magazine should be more than sufficient to get these tween popsters over the GNG hump, particularly given our loose community standards for notability of musical groups.
257:
48:
34:
505:
205:(the revision that was deleted), the article contains several reliable sources and content that could be useful to a future non-admin editor that found more sources.
2415:
by 50.176.152.255 that disclosed that Wikiexperts was editing this page that others editors noted it and note the same ip posted to FreeRangeFrog mentioned above‎
938:
803:
712:
43:
2652:, and which have no substantial edits by others. G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates or to categories that may be useful or suitable for merging.
932:
224:
1952:
Michael and Marisa mentioned on sites in other countries: Their reach is worldwide including Australia, Middle East, Europe, South America, Far East: French:
2559:
need in all cases to remove good work by editors banned for some other reason than their article editing, but if G5 applies anywhere, it should apply here.
945:
Thincat put it well: "It may be entirely appropriate for the topic to be covered elsewhere and it is absurd to place obstacles in the way of achieving this."
913:
When an AfD results in a "redirect", the article's history should not be deleted unless it is irredeemably unusable (example: violating a core policy like
208:
181:
98:
199:
I find the other editors' arguments weak but can understand how a closing admin can come to the conclusion that the consensus is VideoPad is not notable.
914:
268:
242:
In sum, the benefits of restoring the deleted content outweigh the negligible negatives, so the article's history should be restored under the redirect.
2526:
There was no other way to actually read the discussion at that AFD than as "delete." However, had the initial nominator followed the steps outlined in
2758:
2630:
1699:
2822:, but is almost certainly a puppet as well, or at the very least not being forthcoming about his or her history. Tuesday's only contributions are
2378:
Further discussion would be appreciated including a specific description of what is lacking so that any shortfall may be addressed if there is one.
1109:
907:
2656:
To qualify, the edit must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block does not qualify.
1113:
1085:
1456:
Not meeting the GNG is not per se a reason for deletion if there is a redirect target. Thinking it is a common misconception about WP:N. --
740:
612:
I reviewed the article before it was deleted, and it was not inappropriately promotional. The article it redirects to is not promotional. It
371:, I think the correct call should have been a simple delete. There was only one !vote to redirect, and that appeared to be a final plea for
1322:
contention, since you improved the topic to correct the problem of non-notability. So WP:Notability is not a current point of contention.
2745:
2680:
I agree with Lithistman that the article should be speedily restored because of the newly found sources that were not discussed at the AfD.
1317:
A baseline issue is what do our policies and guidelines say, which may or may not be that with which editors agree. The first sentence of
2172:). I therefore support restoring the article because the topic has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
375:
after it had become clear the the consensus was otherwise unanimous to delete. I also don't believe the redirect is consistent with the
39:
1720:
2530:, the nomination never would have been made, given that they would've found the sources listed in this deletion review. Given that, I
2067:
2018:
1895:
2638:
918:
272:
768:
997:
content policy. It is the current consensus that you deleted in this case for wp:notability. Do you want to amend your closing?
922:
864:
I contest the "delete and redirect" result. The result should have been "redirect (with the history preserved under the redirect)".
235:
A benefit of restoring the article's history would be to allow non-admins to see what the encyclopedia once said about the subject.
686:
The article says, "Product not yet reviewed by PCMag Editors", though I'm still inclined to consider this a reliable source since
2772:
2422:
2397:
2347:
1585:
782:
2481:
to finish naturally rather than attempting shortcuts will result in the least hassle for everyone involved, yourself included.
1906:
1732:
Each source on this list includes a link to a wikipedia article to confirm that the source is viable, credible and reputable.
21:
325:
AfD, circumventing consensus or requesting souvenirs for the nostalgic who fondly reminisce the days when the article was live.
2041:
at AfD sometimes; this should be a clear GNG keep. (PS The comments of the two IPs above me aren't helping — just back off.)
2017:
This strikes me as an anti-paid-editing action, I am sorry to say. Although the morass of sources above is difficult to parse
896:
2295:
Consensus in the AFD was clear and no way one can question the closure.The issue about sources where it meet or did not meet
169:
2826:. Good faith and avoiding COI are fundamental concepts on which Knowledge (XXG) depends. I'm not seeing either here. --
2274:
no longer applicable. I cannot do that since the article is deleted, but would the DRV closer consider doing that? Thanks,
267:
I believe the deletion here is inappropriate because the deleted content is useful and does not violate a core policy like
2010:
1541:
1267:
1212:
1167:
1090:
754:
726:
1511:
1500:
1250:
1205:
1152:
1071:
2902:
2858:
WP:IAR is used to improve the encyclopedia, and protecting the project from disruption is within the scope of WP:IAR.
2648:
2309:
1649:
1601:
1523:
Consensus is formed through the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of each side's arguments, and
1438:
a current lack of significant coverage, not excluding that perhaps such coverage may become available in the future. --
1323:
1231:
1186:
1162:
1015:
119:
17:
2418:
2343:
2644:
2335:
2206:
1259:
870:
2150:
2124:
2098:
1821:
2625:
Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Archive254#Community ban proposal for paid editing firm wikiexperts.us
2057:
1911:
2887:
2863:
1555:
1332:
1289:
1121:
1002:
734:
541:
431:
413:
351:
321:
190:
459:. If this product becomes notable as new sources appear, I see no reason why this article can't be recreated.
2749:
2316:
1:because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment;
1809:
2038:
2360:
Although the discussion was open for 15 days, there were too few participants to carry out a full discussion.
1669:
2891:
2867:
2845:
2833:
2799:
2691:
2589:
2570:
2544:
2512:
2485:
2470:
2450:
2426:
2401:
2351:
2283:
2254:
2237:
2224:
2182:
1989:
1638:
1589:
1559:
1484:
1465:
1447:
1423:
1336:
1308:
1293:
1125:
1038:
1006:
987:
959:
855:
834:
815:
794:
699:
649:
625:
603:
599:
581:
563:
545:
517:
468:
435:
417:
388:
355:
341:
337:
296:
108:
85:
2741:
2713:
To: Sent: Wed, Sep 10, 2014 9:47 am Subject: Response to your inquiry about visibility in Knowledge (XXG)
2385:
2077:
2053:
2119:
1961:
906:
That alone is a sufficient reason for restoration to allow selective merging to comply with the guideline
1535:
1518:
889:
313:
2675:
2413:
Thank you for your response above and please sign your posts.Actually it was only after this edit that
1665:
1622:
762:
577:
2366:
Contact was made twice with someone with Frog or Froggy in their name who was thought to be the closer.
2082:
But I have found other sources that conclusively demonstrate that the topic is notable. Here are three:
1957:
1844:
885:
2883:
2859:
2815:
2766:
2762:
2678:
existed in 2009, WikiExperts didn't exist until 2010, and the ban was not enacted until October 2013.
2585:
2581:
2508:
2504:
2466:
2462:
2393:
2389:
2234:
1985:
1981:
1581:
1551:
1443:
1328:
1304:
1285:
1117:
1034:
998:
983:
776:
730:
645:
537:
427:
426:, how is the current redirect not "consistent" with a topic that does not exist on Knowledge (XXG)?
423:
409:
347:
1871:
594:
inappropriately promotional. The article to which it is redirect is also promotional. Best regards,
456:
1896:
http://www.boston.com/ae/music/articles/2009/08/14/teen_duo_michael__marisa_are_not_kidding_around/
1461:
1419:
1405:
Nobody argues to delete and redirect. Cunard argued against deleting the history when redirecting.
264:
consensus" rather than "keep", since the latter close suggests that the content was accepted as-is.
2527:
2300:
309:
2830:
2791:
2783:
2683:
2668:
2603:
2275:
2268:
2216:
2174:
2026:
1860:
1495:
951:
831:
807:
786:
691:
617:
595:
509:
506:
Knowledge (XXG):Naming conventions (capitalization)#Page names that only differ by capitalization
333:
288:
246:
405:
397:
372:
2461:
time frame by which updates and improvements need to be made? Thanks for your consideration.
2250:
2145:
2046:
2004:
1481:
748:
720:
559:
464:
384:
1907:
https://www.nassp.org/KnowledgeCenter/TopicsofInterest/BullyingPrevention/MediaResources.aspx
2795:
2687:
2279:
2220:
2178:
2072:
955:
811:
790:
758:
695:
621:
573:
513:
379:
that I turned up suggesting there probably is a notable Videopad topic, just not this one.
292:
250:
105:
82:
2819:
2811:
2296:
1918:
1888:
1431:
1081:
1022:
452:
401:
317:
2841:
2621:
notes that WikiExperts was founded in 2010 ("since launching www.WikiExperts.us in 2010").
2540:
2538:, and perhaps that an admonishment regarding WP:BEFORE be given to the initial nominator.
2369:
No WikiExpert was ever hired and no WikiExpert has ever participated in editing this page.
2342:
may be applicable.Hence the closure needs to be endorsed and this Deletion review closed.
2305:
1883:
1573:
1439:
1367:
Cunard's !vote was not opposed or referred to, but just ignored. Including by the closer.
1300:
1030:
979:
772:
641:
504:. One product has a lowercase "p"; the other has an uppercase "P". This is acceptable per
2339:
878:
202:
2823:
939:
Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2014 August 28#Match World Cup annual event articles
884:
Merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a
239:
the basis of a newly recreated article with the new sources. Deletion would hinder this.
2482:
2447:
2034:
1629:
1457:
1415:
846:
1318:
1052:
1048:
666:
2827:
2759:
Knowledge (XXG):Criteria for speedy deletion#G5. Creations by banned or blocked users
2631:
Knowledge (XXG):Criteria for speedy deletion#G5. Creations by banned or blocked users
2566:
2093:
828:
139:
2674:
because the policy says, "A page created before the ban or block does not qualify."
1264:
If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.
908:
Knowledge (XXG):Copying within Knowledge (XXG)#Attribution is required for copyright
2555:
2443:
2438:
closure as accurately reflecting consensus in the discussion, but at the same time
2246:
2042:
2000:
1998:
I endorse the closure because "delete" is a reasonable assessment of the consensus.
1849:
900:
744:
716:
708:
679:
555:
460:
380:
218:
1953:
1822:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/vazquez-sounds-8-teen-sib_n_1121394.html
785:), please participate in the AfD if you're so inclined. If not, then no worries.
2727:
2710:
2327:
806:
was closed as "withdrawn" after three participants voted to retain the article.
661:
102:
79:
2195:{{Delrevxfd|date=2014 September 28|page=Michael and Marisa}}</noinclude: -->
1080:
enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of
494:
376:
312:. However, what violates Knowledge (XXG)'s fundamental policies (in this case,
2375:
All efforts have been made toward substantiating the viability of the subject.
1934:
1798:
201:
However, I disagree with the deletion of the redirect's history. As shown in
2062:
1947:
1810:
http://michaelandmarisa.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/were-in-billboard-magazine/
1944:
The chords to a Michael and Marisa song are listed on Ultimate-guitar.com:
1912:
http://en.wikipedia.org/National_Association_of_Secondary_School_Principals
897:
http://web.archive.org/web/20131021185643/http://en.wikipedia.org/VideoPad
258:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect
2879:
Speedy close as disruption, and also salt the topic for six months WP:IAR
2561:
2200:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Michael and Marisa (2nd nomination)
1833:
1386:
The_Banner's issue is a fixable issue, especially when content is merged.
1358:
Overturn (from "Delete, then redirect" to "Redirect with history intact")
1156:
WP:Notability is not a content policy, it is a guideline as to whether a
501:
490:
275:. The encyclopedia does not benefit from its deletion. The closing admin
135:
70:
2372:
All efforts have been made to respect and follow the rules of wikipedia.
1814:
2169:
2140:
2114:
2088:
1827:
656:
2037:
from Popstar.online should count towards GNG. There is a whole lot of
1962:
http://karolayneminhamoda.blogspot.com/2011/04/michael-and-marisa.html
1865:
933:
Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2014 July 19#Westshore Town Centre
225:
Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2014 July 19#Westshore Town Centre
2165:
1958:
http://www.amalgama-lab.com/songs/m/michael_and_marisa/the_same.html
1845:
http://www.j-14.com/posts/exclusive-q-a-with-michael-and-marisa-2435
1053:
WP:N#Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article
2205:
Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to
1900:
2720:
references are required for any new entry to stay up on the site.
2619:
Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost/2013-10-09/News and notes
1854:
1762:
1753:
827:
Reading the AfD, this seems like a clear consensus to delete. --
1872:
http://pbskids.org/itsmylife/blog/2010/07/michael-and-marisa.html
1978:
1804:
SOME NOTABLE SOURCES WHO HAVE WRITTEN ABOUT MICHAEL AND MARISA:
1789:
197:
I am not disputing the assessment that VideoPad is not notable.
1780:
1741:
2323:
5:to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion.
1861:
http://www.parents.com/blogs/goodyblog/tag/michael-and-marisa/
1750:
1508:
1247:
1202:
1149:
1068:
2532:
endorse the closure as reflecting consensus at the discussion
1923:
1905:
National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP
1771:
1134:
WP:Articles for deletion/Quarterly Review of Film and Video
2839:
notable topics from having an article on Knowledge (XXG).
1969:
1889:
http://en.wikipedia.org/National_Bullying_Prevention_Month
1824:(Michael and Marisa are second. Click arrow to the right)
928:
Recent DRV precedent has supported this commonsense view:
2613:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Michael and Marisa
1876:
1738:
Rixton (Top 40 Artist, opening for Ariana Grande 2015)
2776:
2700:
2554:
but permit recreation using no previous material. Tho
2414:
2089:"Young blood: Michael and Marisa crash the tween scene"
2078:
Knowledge (XXG):Notability#General notability guideline
2054:
Knowledge (XXG):Notability#General notability guideline
1919:
http://gloria.tv/?media=132412&language=YiwzPCkSG6u
1884:
http://www.pacer.org/bullying/video/player.asp?video=46
1706:
1692:
1684:
1676:
1525:
should not be calculated solely by the balance of votes
613:
368:
276:
176:
162:
154:
146:
2141:"Groveland children rock to live music at summer camp"
1939:
1430:
I closed as "delete" because the article did not meet
1051:
is neither a content policy nor a content guideline.
877:
Moving the information to another existing article or
346:
Note that the above contribution is by the AfD nom.
2358:
A respectful response to the comment directly above:
2308:
first.Hence this Deletion review needs to be closed.
2115:"Preteen duo hit Nashua for Telegraph's Kids Fair"
1838:
1786:Greyson Chance (Signed to Ellen Degeneres label)
1735:MICHAEL AND MARISA HAVE BEEN CONCERT OPENERS FOR:
871:Knowledge (XXG):Editing policy#Try to fix problems
804:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/NCH Software
713:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/NCH Software
1966:Marisa is endorsed by Vic Firth (drum stick co.)
1768:Drake Bell (Nickelodeon star of Drake and Josh)
969:I disagree with your interpretation. The AfD was
2207:a site registered on Knowledge (XXG)'s blacklist
1850:http://www.j-14.com/tags/michael-and-marisa-2826
1799:http://en.wikipedia.org/Bamboozle_Road_Show_2010
680:http://www.pcmag.com/author-bio/michael-muchmore
283:restore the article's history under the redirect
2704:
2635:
2627:was closed as enact the ban on 17 October 2013.
2076:provide the "significant coverage" required by
1948:http://en.wikipedia.org/Ultimate_Guitar_Archive
1777:Mitchel Musso (Disney star of Hannah Montana)
873:says that "instead of removing text", consider
221:(with the history preserved under the redirect)
2615:, which was closed as "keep" on 12 March 2009.
1954:http://www.vagalume.com.br/michael-and-marisa/
935:– endorse and undelete history behind redirect
616:, which occupies much of the article's prose.
209:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/VideoPad
915:Knowledge (XXG):Biographies of living persons
875:
269:Knowledge (XXG):Biographies of living persons
8:
1815:http://en.wikipedia.org/Billboard_(magazine)
1165:for when there is no suitable larger topic.
2664:The article cannot be speedily deleted per
1828:http://en.wikipedia.org/The_Huffington_Post
1759:David Archuleta (American Idol 2nd place)
1648:The following is an archived debate of the
1232:WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion
1185:The section #8 you have quoted from within
1110:Category:Knowledge (XXG) content guidelines
118:The following is an archived debate of the
1935:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrvaIpKUsSc
1866:http://en.wikipedia.org/Parents_(magazine)
1615:
215:My second preference (after "keep") is to
63:
1114:Category:Knowledge (XXG) content policies
2814:if you must, but it is clear to me that
2757:those edits can be reverted pursuant to
1901:http://en.wikipedia.org/The_Boston_Globe
1933:video for each occupation on the site.
1855:http://en.wikipedia.org/J-14_(magazine)
1763:http://en.wikipedia.org/David_Archuleta
1754:http://en.wikipedia.org/Waiting_4U_Tour
1534:reached in the deletion discussion and
1187:WP:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion
840:Decline request to restore the history,
2882:decisions. There is no WP:DEADLINE.
2534:, but recommend that this article be
2202:? When I tried, I received the error:
1979:http://en.wikipedia.org/Patch_Products
1834:http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-500234
1790:http://en.wikipedia.org/Greyson_Chance
614:contains a lengthy "Criticism" section
1781:http://en.wikipedia.org/Mitchel_Musso
1742:http://en.wikipedia.org/Rixton_(band)
1132:Randykitty, you are a participant at
919:Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view
273:Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view
93:Nom and closing sysop have agreed to
7:
2729:(917) 725-2030 Skype: jc.wikiexpert
2310:Deletion Review should not be used :
1751:http://en.wikipedia.org/Cody_Simpson
1536:community consensus on a wider scale
923:Knowledge (XXG):No original research
895:VideoPad's content, as preserved at
2905:of the page listed in the heading.
2611:– the article existed in 2009; see
1747:Cody Simpson (Top 40 Music Artist)
1604:of the page listed in the heading.
899:, could be merged selectively into
377:Highbeam source in the Boston Globe
365:Endorse deletion, not the redirect.
2726:James Cummins COO, WikiExperts.us
1970:https://en.wikipedia.org/Vic_Firth
1924:http://en.wikipedia.org/CatholicTV
1772:http://en.wikipedia.org/Drake_Bell
1021:a policy and specificly states at
28:
2808:Endorse deletion, do not recreate
2338:Hence even speedy deletion under
2166:http://michaelandmarisa.com/press
2052:I agree that with these sources,
1076:list (i.e., whether something is
422:If there is no article for, say,
279:to restore the article's history.
2752:) 00:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
2113:Collins, Michelle (2008-10-23).
2049:) 17:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
1877:http://en.wikipedia.org/PBS_Kids
881:the information to a new article
655:Muchmore, Michael (2012-03-30).
253:) 11:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
2901:The above is an archive of the
2087:Brotherton, Bill (2008-07-03).
2056:is met, though barely. I think
1600:The above is an archive of the
1189:is prefaced with the statement,
1016:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion policy
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
2545:12:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
2513:23:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
2486:12:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
2471:12:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
2451:10:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
2442:based on the sources found by
2427:02:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
2402:20:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
2352:08:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
2334:and have editing this page in
2284:08:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
2255:22:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
2238:18:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
2225:18:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
2183:18:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
1990:14:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
1940:http://en.wikipedia.org/Mattel
1503:states (emphasis in original),
1260:Knowledge (XXG):Editing policy
901:NCH Software#Software products
795:08:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
700:08:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
650:08:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
626:08:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
604:02:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
582:07:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
564:07:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
546:22:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
518:08:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
469:22:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
436:22:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
418:22:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
389:21:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
356:21:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
342:21:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
316:) or fails to demonstrate its
297:17:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
1:
1254:===Editing and discussion===
1590:11:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
1560:00:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
1530:Outcomes should reflect the
1485:05:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
1466:05:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
1448:15:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
1424:23:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
1337:00:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
1309:18:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
1294:18:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
1126:18:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
1039:15:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
1007:00:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
988:08:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
960:00:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
856:07:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
816:00:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
451:(and generally supported by
109:21:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
86:21:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
2892:21:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
2868:21:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
2846:20:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
2834:12:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
2800:10:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
2706:-----Original Message-----
2692:09:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
2590:03:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
2571:23:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
2164:There are other sources at
2139:Codair, Sara (2008-06-27).
1839:http://en.wikipedia.org/CNN
1639:21:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
835:13:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
2928:
2699:Furthermore, see the post
1516:
1257:
978:an article goes to AfD. --
308:deletion. This belongs to
1519:Knowledge (XXG):Consensus
322:extenuating circumstances
2908:Please do not modify it.
2709:From: James Cummins <
2617:The comments section of
1655:Please do not modify it.
1607:Please do not modify it.
508:. There is no conflict.
125:Please do not modify it.
76:No consensus to overturn
40:Deletion review archives
2336:violation of there ban.
2332:banned by the Community
657:"VideoPad Video Editor"
495:Highbeam source in the
2755:
2663:
2643:in violation of their
2419:Pharaoh of the Wizards
2344:Pharaoh of the Wizards
2214:
2197:
2051:
941:– restore and redirect
893:
489:This article is about
266:
255:
244:
2818:not only has a major
2203:
2192:
2015:
261:
229:
213:
1996:Endorse but restore.
1808:Billboard Magazine:
533:Restore edit history
369:argued to the closer
2191:Would an admin add
1859:Parent's Magazine:
1652:of the page above.
1501:WP:Deletion process
715:. DRV participants
122:of the page above.
2676:Michael and Marisa
2194:<noinclude: -->
1894:The Boston Globe:
1666:Michael and Marisa
1623:Michael and Marisa
1324:WP:Deletion policy
1163:WP:Deletion policy
890:performing a merge
2915:
2914:
2744:comment added by
2641:or blocked users
2637:Pages created by
2536:speedily restored
2440:Permit Recreation
2405:
2388:comment added by
2235:Black Kite (talk)
2230:Obviously endorse
2146:The Eagle-Tribune
1820:Huffington Post:
1637:
1614:
1613:
1588:
1546:
1545:
1499:
1272:
1271:
1234:similarly states,
1217:
1216:
1172:
1171:
1136:, where I stated,
1095:
1094:
854:
400:is an entry into
59:28 September 2014
49:2014 September 29
35:2014 September 27
2919:
2910:
2788:
2782:
2753:
2673:
2667:
2608:
2602:
2404:
2382:
2273:
2267:
2161:
2159:
2158:
2149:. Archived from
2135:
2133:
2132:
2123:. Archived from
2109:
2107:
2106:
2097:. Archived from
2073:The Boston Globe
1723:
1718:
1709:
1695:
1687:
1679:
1657:
1636:
1634:
1627:
1616:
1609:
1580:
1578:
1515:===Consensus===
1509:
1493:
1248:
1203:
1150:
1086:content policies
1069:
1029:a guideline). --
888:as described at
853:
851:
844:
677:
675:
674:
665:. Archived from
193:
188:
179:
165:
157:
149:
127:
64:
53:
33:
2927:
2926:
2922:
2921:
2920:
2918:
2917:
2916:
2906:
2903:deletion review
2884:Unscintillating
2860:Unscintillating
2786:
2780:
2739:
2671:
2665:
2609:does not apply.
2606:
2600:
2383:
2271:
2265:
2156:
2154:
2138:
2130:
2128:
2112:
2104:
2102:
2086:
1795:Bamboozle Tour
1719:
1717:
1714:
1705:
1704:
1698:
1691:
1690:
1683:
1682:
1675:
1674:
1653:
1650:deletion review
1630:
1628:
1605:
1602:deletion review
1574:
1552:Unscintillating
1532:rough consensus
1521:
1329:Unscintillating
1286:Unscintillating
1262:
1118:Unscintillating
999:Unscintillating
847:
845:
731:Unscintillating
672:
670:
654:
569:Restore history
551:Restore history
538:Unscintillating
428:Unscintillating
424:Videopad (1993)
410:Unscintillating
348:Unscintillating
189:
187:
184:
175:
174:
168:
161:
160:
153:
152:
145:
144:
123:
120:deletion review
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
2925:
2923:
2913:
2912:
2897:
2896:
2895:
2894:
2875:
2874:
2873:
2872:
2871:
2870:
2851:
2850:
2849:
2848:
2804:
2803:
2746:50.176.152.255
2723:Best regards,
2696:
2695:
2662:
2661:
2657:
2596:
2595:
2594:
2593:
2574:
2573:
2548:
2547:
2523:
2522:
2521:
2520:
2519:
2518:
2517:
2516:
2494:
2493:
2492:
2491:
2490:
2489:
2475:
2474:
2455:
2454:
2432:
2431:
2430:
2429:
2408:
2407:
2355:
2354:
2324:
2321:
2317:
2313:
2312:
2289:
2288:
2287:
2286:
2258:
2257:
2240:
2227:
2186:
2163:
2162:
2136:
2110:
2039:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
1928:
1916:
1893:
1881:
1843:J14 Magazine:
1819:
1807:
1803:
1794:
1785:
1776:
1767:
1758:
1746:
1726:
1725:
1715:
1702:
1696:
1688:
1680:
1672:
1660:
1659:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1641:
1612:
1611:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1544:
1543:
1540:
1513:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1488:
1487:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1451:
1450:
1427:
1426:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1362:
1361:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1312:
1311:
1270:
1269:
1266:
1252:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1215:
1214:
1211:
1207:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1170:
1169:
1166:
1154:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1129:
1128:
1093:
1092:
1089:
1073:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1042:
1041:
1010:
1009:
991:
990:
964:
963:
943:
942:
936:
859:
858:
837:
821:
820:
819:
818:
798:
797:
703:
690:published it.
683:technologies."
652:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
607:
606:
585:
584:
566:
548:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
441:
440:
439:
438:
420:
392:
391:
361:
360:
359:
358:
331:
327:
326:
301:
256:The closer at
196:
195:
185:
172:
166:
158:
150:
142:
130:
129:
114:
113:
112:
111:
88:
61:
56:
47:
44:2014 September
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2924:
2911:
2909:
2904:
2899:
2898:
2893:
2889:
2885:
2880:
2877:
2876:
2869:
2865:
2861:
2857:
2856:
2855:
2854:
2853:
2852:
2847:
2844:
2843:
2837:
2836:
2835:
2832:
2829:
2825:
2821:
2817:
2813:
2810:. Call this
2809:
2806:
2805:
2802:
2801:
2797:
2793:
2785:
2778:
2774:
2771:
2768:
2764:
2760:
2754:
2751:
2747:
2743:
2737:
2733:
2730:
2728:
2724:
2721:
2717:
2714:
2711:
2707:
2702:
2698:
2697:
2694:
2693:
2689:
2685:
2681:
2677:
2670:
2658:
2655:
2654:
2653:
2651:
2650:
2646:
2640:
2634:
2632:
2628:
2626:
2622:
2620:
2614:
2610:
2605:
2598:
2597:
2591:
2587:
2583:
2578:
2577:
2576:
2575:
2572:
2568:
2564:
2563:
2557:
2553:
2550:
2549:
2546:
2543:
2542:
2537:
2533:
2529:
2525:
2524:
2514:
2510:
2506:
2502:
2501:
2500:
2499:
2498:
2497:
2496:
2495:
2487:
2484:
2479:
2478:
2477:
2476:
2472:
2468:
2464:
2459:
2458:
2457:
2456:
2452:
2449:
2445:
2441:
2437:
2434:
2433:
2428:
2424:
2420:
2416:
2412:
2411:
2410:
2409:
2406:
2403:
2399:
2395:
2391:
2387:
2379:
2376:
2373:
2370:
2367:
2364:
2361:
2357:
2356:
2353:
2349:
2345:
2341:
2337:
2333:
2329:
2325:
2322:
2318:
2315:
2314:
2311:
2307:
2302:
2298:
2294:
2291:
2290:
2285:
2281:
2277:
2270:
2262:
2261:
2260:
2259:
2256:
2252:
2248:
2244:
2241:
2239:
2236:
2231:
2228:
2226:
2222:
2218:
2213:
2210:
2208:
2201:
2196:
2190:
2187:
2185:
2184:
2180:
2176:
2171:
2167:
2153:on 2014-09-28
2152:
2148:
2147:
2142:
2137:
2127:on 2014-09-28
2126:
2122:
2121:
2120:The Telegraph
2116:
2111:
2101:on 2014-09-28
2100:
2096:
2095:
2094:Boston Herald
2090:
2085:
2084:
2083:
2079:
2075:
2074:
2069:
2065:
2064:
2059:
2055:
2050:
2048:
2044:
2040:
2036:
2032:
2028:
2024:
2020:
2014:
2012:
2009:
2006:
2002:
1997:
1994:
1993:
1992:
1991:
1987:
1983:
1980:
1976:
1972:
1971:
1967:
1964:
1963:
1959:
1955:
1950:
1949:
1945:
1942:
1941:
1937:
1936:
1930:
1929:MATTEL TOYS:
1926:
1925:
1921:
1920:
1917:Catholic TV:
1914:
1913:
1909:
1908:
1903:
1902:
1898:
1897:
1891:
1890:
1886:
1885:
1879:
1878:
1874:
1873:
1868:
1867:
1863:
1862:
1857:
1856:
1852:
1851:
1847:
1846:
1841:
1840:
1836:
1835:
1830:
1829:
1825:
1823:
1817:
1816:
1812:
1811:
1805:
1801:
1800:
1796:
1792:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1782:
1778:
1774:
1773:
1769:
1765:
1764:
1760:
1756:
1755:
1752:
1748:
1744:
1743:
1739:
1736:
1733:
1730:
1722:
1713:
1708:
1701:
1694:
1686:
1678:
1671:
1667:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1658:
1656:
1651:
1646:
1645:
1640:
1635:
1633:
1625:
1624:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1610:
1608:
1603:
1598:
1597:
1592:
1591:
1587:
1583:
1579:
1577:
1567:
1566:
1561:
1557:
1553:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1539:
1537:
1533:
1528:
1526:
1520:
1514:
1510:
1502:
1497:
1496:edit conflict
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1486:
1483:
1479:
1475:
1474:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1449:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1428:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1359:
1356:
1355:
1338:
1334:
1330:
1325:
1320:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1265:
1261:
1256:
1253:
1249:
1233:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1208:
1204:
1188:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1164:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1135:
1131:
1130:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1074:
1070:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1023:WP:DEL#REASON
1020:
1017:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1008:
1004:
1000:
995:
994:
993:
992:
989:
985:
981:
977:
972:
968:
967:
966:
965:
962:
961:
957:
953:
949:
946:
940:
937:
934:
931:
930:
929:
926:
924:
920:
916:
911:
909:
904:
902:
898:
892:
891:
887:
882:
880:
874:
872:
868:
863:
862:
861:
860:
857:
852:
850:
841:
838:
836:
833:
830:
826:
823:
822:
817:
813:
809:
805:
802:
801:
800:
799:
796:
792:
788:
784:
781:
778:
774:
770:
767:
764:
760:
756:
753:
750:
746:
742:
739:
736:
732:
728:
725:
722:
718:
714:
710:
707:
704:
702:
701:
697:
693:
689:
684:
681:
669:on 2014-09-30
668:
664:
663:
658:
653:
651:
647:
643:
638:
635:
634:
627:
623:
619:
615:
611:
610:
609:
608:
605:
601:
597:
596:Codename Lisa
593:
589:
588:
587:
586:
583:
579:
575:
570:
567:
565:
561:
557:
552:
549:
547:
543:
539:
534:
531:
530:
519:
515:
511:
507:
503:
499:
498:
492:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
470:
466:
462:
458:
454:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
437:
433:
429:
425:
421:
419:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
396:
395:
394:
393:
390:
386:
382:
378:
374:
370:
366:
363:
362:
357:
353:
349:
345:
344:
343:
339:
335:
334:Codename Lisa
332:
330:Best regards,
329:
328:
323:
319:
315:
311:
307:
304:
303:
302:
299:
298:
294:
290:
286:
284:
278:
274:
270:
265:
259:
254:
252:
248:
243:
240:
236:
233:
228:
226:
222:
220:
212:
210:
204:
203:this revision
200:
192:
183:
178:
171:
164:
156:
148:
141:
137:
134:
133:
132:
131:
128:
126:
121:
116:
115:
110:
107:
104:
100:
96:
92:
89:
87:
84:
81:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
2907:
2900:
2878:
2840:
2807:
2790:
2769:
2740:— Preceding
2738:
2734:
2732:Dear James,
2731:
2725:
2722:
2718:
2715:
2708:
2705:
2682:
2679:
2642:
2636:
2629:
2623:
2616:
2599:
2560:
2551:
2539:
2535:
2531:
2444:User:Carrite
2439:
2435:
2384:— Preceding
2380:
2377:
2374:
2371:
2368:
2365:
2362:
2359:
2292:
2242:
2229:
2211:
2204:
2193:
2188:
2173:
2155:. Retrieved
2151:the original
2144:
2129:. Retrieved
2125:the original
2118:
2103:. Retrieved
2099:the original
2092:
2081:
2071:
2068:this article
2061:
2058:this article
2030:
2023:Boston Globe
2022:
2016:
2007:
1999:
1995:
1977:
1973:
1968:
1965:
1951:
1946:
1943:
1938:
1931:
1927:
1922:
1915:
1910:
1904:
1899:
1892:
1887:
1880:
1875:
1869:
1864:
1858:
1853:
1848:
1842:
1837:
1831:
1826:
1818:
1813:
1806:
1802:
1797:
1793:
1788:
1784:
1779:
1775:
1770:
1766:
1761:
1757:
1749:
1745:
1740:
1737:
1734:
1731:
1727:
1654:
1647:
1631:
1621:
1606:
1599:
1575:
1570:
1529:
1524:
1522:
1477:
1476:Overturn to
1435:
1357:
1263:
1255:
1157:
1077:
1026:
1018:
975:
970:
950:
947:
944:
927:
912:
905:
894:
883:
876:
869:
865:
848:
839:
824:
779:
765:
751:
737:
723:
709:NCH Software
705:
687:
685:
678:
671:. Retrieved
667:the original
660:
636:
591:
568:
550:
532:
497:Boston Globe
496:
364:
314:WP:NOTADVERT
305:
300:
287:
282:
280:
262:
245:
241:
237:
234:
230:
219:NCH Software
217:redirect to
216:
214:
206:
198:
124:
117:
94:
90:
75:
69:
58:
2824:to this DRV
2761:. Based on
2381:Thank you.
2328:WikiExperts
2320:nomination;
1517:Main page:
1258:Main page:
759:Mkativerata
688:PC Magazine
662:PC Magazine
574:Mkativerata
207:I wrote at
2816:Tuesday536
2777:above post
2763:Tuesday536
2592:Tuesday536
2582:Tuesday536
2515:Tuesday536
2505:Tuesday536
2473:Tuesday536
2463:Tuesday536
2390:Tuesday536
2306:Black Kite
2299:or failed
2170:archiveurl
2157:2014-09-28
2131:2014-09-28
2105:2014-09-28
1982:Tuesday536
1632:Sandstein
1576:S Marshall
1440:Randykitty
1301:Randykitty
1108:See also,
1084:and other
1082:due weight
1078:noteworthy
1031:Randykitty
980:Randykitty
849:Sandstein
773:Randykitty
711:is now at
673:2014-09-30
642:Randykitty
590:Erm... it
500:discusses
457:WP:TOOSOON
318:notability
2784:db-banned
2669:db-banned
2604:db-banned
2528:WP:BEFORE
2483:Lankiveil
2448:Lankiveil
2301:WP:SIGCOV
2269:db-repost
2063:Billboard
2021:from the
2013:) wrote:
1960:Spanish:
1956:Russian:
1458:SmokeyJoe
1436:emphasize
1416:SmokeyJoe
879:splitting
310:WP:REFUND
232:redirect.
101:.--v/r -
91:Addendum:
2828:RoySmith
2773:contribs
2742:unsigned
2398:contribs
2386:unsigned
2326:Further
2215:Thanks,
2189:Request:
2011:contribs
1870:PBSKids
1396:history.
886:redirect
867:history.
829:RoySmith
783:contribs
769:contribs
755:contribs
741:contribs
727:contribs
706:Comment:
502:Videopad
491:VideoPad
406:WP:MERCY
398:WP:MERCY
373:WP:MERCY
277:declined
136:VideoPad
97:this at
71:VideoPad
20: |
2556:Carrite
2552:Sustain
2436:Endorse
2293:Endorse
2247:Carrite
2243:Comment
2043:Carrite
2031:Parents
2001:Carrite
1882:PACER:
1721:restore
1685:history
1482:Cryptic
1055:states,
825:Endorse
771:), and
745:Thincat
717:Msnicki
637:Neutral
556:Thincat
461:Msnicki
381:Msnicki
306:Endorse
281:Please
260:wrote:
191:restore
155:history
2831:(talk)
2820:WP:COI
2812:WP:IAR
2792:Cunard
2684:Cunard
2660:topic.
2639:banned
2633:says:
2297:WP:GNG
2276:Cunard
2217:Cunard
2175:Cunard
1478:delete
1432:WP:GNG
976:before
952:Cunard
832:(talk)
808:Cunard
787:Cunard
692:Cunard
618:Cunard
510:Cunard
493:; the
453:WP:DAB
402:WP:ATA
289:Cunard
247:Cunard
95:relist
2716:Dear
2712:: -->
2649:block
2567:talk
2340:WP:G5
2070:from
2060:from
2029:from
1832:CNN:
1707:watch
1700:links
1158:topic
921:, or
367:As I
177:watch
170:links
52:: -->
16:<
2888:talk
2864:talk
2796:talk
2775:)'s
2767:talk
2750:talk
2701:here
2688:talk
2586:talk
2509:talk
2467:talk
2423:talk
2394:talk
2348:talk
2330:are
2280:talk
2251:talk
2221:talk
2179:talk
2066:and
2047:talk
2035:THIS
2027:THIS
2025:and
2019:THIS
2005:talk
1986:talk
1693:logs
1677:edit
1670:talk
1556:talk
1462:talk
1444:talk
1420:talk
1333:talk
1319:WP:N
1305:talk
1290:talk
1122:talk
1112:and
1049:WP:N
1047:No,
1035:talk
1003:talk
984:talk
956:talk
812:talk
791:talk
777:talk
763:talk
749:talk
735:talk
721:talk
696:talk
646:talk
622:talk
600:talk
578:talk
560:talk
542:talk
514:talk
465:talk
432:talk
414:talk
408:"?
385:talk
352:talk
338:talk
293:talk
251:talk
163:logs
147:edit
140:talk
32:<
2842:LHM
2647:or
2645:ban
2562:DGG
2541:LHM
2446:.
2198:to
1712:XfD
1710:) (
1116:.
971:not
757:),
743:),
729:),
271:or
182:XfD
180:) (
99:AFD
22:Log
2890:)
2866:)
2798:)
2787:}}
2781:{{
2703::
2690:)
2672:}}
2666:{{
2607:}}
2601:{{
2588:)
2569:)
2511:)
2469:)
2425:)
2400:)
2396:•
2350:)
2282:)
2272:}}
2266:{{
2253:)
2223:)
2181:)
2143:.
2117:.
2091:.
1988:)
1558:)
1542:”
1538:.
1527:.
1512:“
1464:)
1446:)
1422:)
1335:)
1307:)
1299:--
1292:)
1268:”
1251:“
1213:”
1206:“
1168:”
1153:“
1124:)
1091:”
1088:.
1072:“
1037:)
1027:is
1019:is
1005:)
986:)
958:)
925:).
917:,
814:)
793:)
698:)
659:.
648:)
624:)
602:)
592:is
580:)
562:)
544:)
516:)
467:)
434:)
416:)
387:)
354:)
340:)
295:)
227::
211::
74:–
42::
2886:(
2862:(
2794:(
2789:.
2770:·
2765:(
2748:(
2686:(
2584:(
2565:(
2507:(
2488:.
2465:(
2453:.
2421:(
2392:(
2346:(
2278:(
2249:(
2219:(
2209:.
2177:(
2168:(
2160:.
2134:.
2108:.
2045:(
2008:·
2003:(
1984:(
1724:)
1716:|
1703:|
1697:|
1689:|
1681:|
1673:|
1668:(
1586:C
1584:/
1582:T
1554:(
1498:)
1494:(
1460:(
1442:(
1418:(
1360:.
1331:(
1303:(
1288:(
1120:(
1033:(
1001:(
982:(
954:(
910:.
903:.
810:(
789:(
780:·
775:(
766:·
761:(
752:·
747:(
738:·
733:(
724:·
719:(
694:(
676:.
644:(
620:(
598:(
576:(
558:(
540:(
512:(
463:(
430:(
412:(
383:(
350:(
336:(
291:(
285:.
249:(
194:)
186:|
173:|
167:|
159:|
151:|
143:|
138:(
106:P
103:T
83:P
80:T
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.