969:
article previously deleted after an AfD, so gave people some indication of why it was deleted. As for challenging old AfDs, that's what DRV can be used for, no? "Deletion Review may be used: if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;" which is more or less what is claimed here (either that or they challenge the original AfD outcome). A DRV about the original AfD, with the request to be allowed to create a new page (or undelete the old one) would be perfectly acceptable and wuold follow the letter and spirit of the policy. A recreation of the page without such a discussion "because the subject is notable" (which they were at the time of the AfD, no new notability has happened since then) on the other hand goes directly against the conclusion of the previous AfD and against the policy.
404:" I don't blame anyone for recreating the page anyway, as they probably weren't aware of this clause, nor do I blame anyone for complaining about my G4 deletion, which at first sight doesn't apply (but which I used since no numbered speedy reason for BLPDELETE recreations exists, and G6 seemed even less informative). But I don't get why they still complain about the deletion after it has been pointed out to them that the article should not have been recreated in the first place, per BLP policy (which trumps all other policies in this regard). The editors are free to seek consensus that an article on Cole may be created, as explained in the policy: but overturning this deletion because the subject meets the GNG shows a particular misunderstanding of our policies and the priorities amongst them.
1277:. I suppose you'll be telling us next that it was some other Michael Cole who also happened to be a royal reporter? That's yet another fresh source indicating his notability. Then we have the other two sources: the first an entire newspaper article about Cole's experiences during his years at the BBC; the second the BBC's article about Cole's career as he retired from the post of Director of Public Affairs that he had held for 10 years at Harrods. Those really do constitute considerable coverage about Cole and were not present in the former version. It is abundantly clear, no matter how much you want to minimise it, that a substantial number of new sources have been introduced into the article, including two which would guarantee a pass at
2071:
also give similar lectures to a large number of respectable institutions: universities, museums, government bodies, NGOs, longstanding university clubs, academic conferences etc. With only primary sources which say that such a talk took place, it doesn't explain why this talk should stand out. As for other new information, there's only writing a column for a local paper, which also doesn't establish notability. Cole's testimony at the inquest was mentioned indirectly (and the same source used), and so was considered in the previous version deleted after AFD. The initial G4 deletion was valid, but preventing recreation when that deletion proves controversial isn't valid under CSD. ----
438:) – and that's policy. It is quite clear that the article that Fram deleted was not a "re-post" (alias for db-G4) of the 2014 article, and that Cole is notable as attested by substantial coverage in nine sources. Knowledge is not a bureaucracy and the article is neutrally written and on a clearly notable subject, so our fundamental policies of notability and neutral point of view are met. If Fram wants to argue that there is sufficient other policy to override those policies, then they should take it to AfD. It is a misuse of the trust placed in an admin to apply speedy deletion in cases where an article is not an obvious breach of our content policies. --
1415:
discretion of the closing admin to have them result in deleting the article instead of the otherwise default keep; we normally do not consider them otherwise. In this case, where there is no real reason given beyond personal preference, I would see no reason to honor the request even were it a no-consensus. Looking at the various versions, I see nothing that might possibly be libel, though I do see in earlier version some material that should have been, and was removed as trivial. But he simply isn't notable and there shouldn't be an article even if he wanted one.
1210:, we can see that the seven earlier sources were mainly concerned with the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Tiny Rowland's battle with Mohamed Al-Fayed, wherein Cole is not the main focus. The new version contains three of the earlier sources (Cole's homepage, Boggan's report on Cole leaving Harrods, and Pankhurst's report on the Diana inquest), but introduces six new sources relating to Cole's time at the BBC, as a reporter during the Yom Kippur war, his lecture to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and his appearance on
758:. Absolutely not. Therefore what we do as Wikipedians is to have a discussion about a draft. What's happened here is a sysop has summarily deleted the draft and thereby preventing the discussion from happening. The right thing to do is to restore the draft to an unindexed space, so it won't show up on google searches but it'll allow good faith editors the chance to make their case. At that discussion I will !vote "delete", but in the circumstances it's right that the discussion should take place.
1064:: "That Knowledge, through the founding principle of "Ignore All Rules", has traditionally given administrators wide discretion to enforce policies and principles using their own best judgment; and That administrators have been instructed to aggressively enforce the policy on biographies of living people.". BLP is a core principle and policy, CSD is a policy t maintain other policies like BLP (and copyvio, ...). As the BLP policy trumps speedy deletion reasons, I tend to give BLP the priority.
1147:
revisited. There isn't. Although the text and description of the subject has changed the changes are in details of the subject's life rather than anything major. For instance the old article said that he worked as a BBC journalist for a long time and noted one of his assignments. The new version noted that he worked as a BBC journalist, gave his dates of service and noted a different assignment. Yes, the information is different, but it's still the same journalistic career.
817:: This this person clearly meets WP’s standards for notability. There is no question that WP:BLP requires us to “get it right,” and to some extent a person has a certain right to privacy, where they have been a public person who made public statements, WP:GNG applies. The OTRS he sent that was copied at the previous AfD is undated, and I am unclear if it was sent in response to the first-created article or this newer version; I would like that issue clarified, if
1106:
any sources published since 2014. The only new information in the article was that the subject once gave a lecture and wrote a column for a local newspaper, and those would have made no difference whatsoever. There are mechanisms for challenging the results of BLP deletions, recreating the page without improvement just isn't one of them. While it doesn't technically fall under G4 I do nevertheless think that the deletion was common sense.
736:: I support a draft version, otherwise we can't discuss. - Years ago, I wrote (in German) an article about a scientist who then wanted it deleted, and he was told (not by me) that as long as it all was based on solid sources (and it was), his wish didn't matter. More recently, project opera stuggled with a conductor who wanted to shape "his" article according to his wishes, which was also declined. --
1367:, an American reality show from 2006 which indeed features Michael Cole. Our royal reporter masqueraded as a 22-year-old from North Carolina though. This site not only doesn't give any notability, but is an unreliable site which shouldn't be used (similar to IMDb), and which is clearly not to be trusted in this specific case. Please be a lot more careful when analyzing sources.
2025:
of similar lectures that happen every day. Neither the new content or the new sources indicate why the subject is notable. In fact, I think the previous draft does a better job of that. The G4 deletion was correct based on the outcome of the AFD, but given how additional discussion at this DRV is going, recreation should be allowed (and a subsequent AFD if necessary). ----
954:"The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion". The BLP policy is inadequate on this point, BLPDELETE lacks objective criteria. It should be moved to WP:CSD and written objectively. The appeal for privacy is kind of odd, there should be a mechanism for challenging the old AfD. --
1386:
notable, and many editors will support deletion in those circumstances if the subject's importance falls below some threshold which is higher than notability. Source coverage doesn't have that much to do with this judgement. For example an MP would definitely be considered a public figure, even if nobody has heard of them and they don't get that much press coverage.
2159:"Poppycock. New information, pre-dating the previous AfD, has come to light, giving greater evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC) " Presumably the "new information" Patar knight is talking about is the "new information" you claimed had given "greater evidence of notability". So, what
1214:. Most of them are substantial pieces of coverage where Cole is the prime subject (or one of three principals in the Yom Kippur war case). I am really having great difficulty in understanding how you can possibly consider that those six new sources do not dramatically enhance Cole's notability compared to the previous version. --
1289:" applies here. The latest version of the article was never a candidate for deletion as a G4 speedy, and however BLPDELETE may be interpreted, it is not licence for an admin to delete the new article without discussion. This deletion review has no option based in policy and common sense but to overturn the G4 CSD. --
684:. I also did not see indubitable notability in Pigsonthewing's article on Michael Cole. Unlike with McCann, I believe Cole is only borderline notable, and that we should therefore continue to honour his wish, as per BLPDELETE and the former AfD (at which the creator of the earlier article advocated deletion).
1856:- which which allow more informed discussion on the content. My own view is that it should be sent back to AfD for discussion there. Speedy deletion is only appropriate for uncontroversial deletions, which this is clearly not. The correct forum to decide whether this article should exist is AfD. — Martin
492:. It should therefore not have been recreated without consensus. As a technical point, I think it is correct that the CSD cited in the deletion summary (G4) did not apply, but nevertheless the article should remain deleted until such time as a consensus can be shown for its recreation. The whole point of
1924:
was applicable. While the new creation did add more sources and new content, you could argue that it still fails to address the cause of deletion (i.e. it failed to address why BLPDELETEREQUEST should not apply), and so isn't substantially different. Given the additional sources in the draft, the low
1783:
been taken, and we are now no longer at the start of that policy section, but at the final line: after such a deletion, such an article (subject request) should not be recreated without prior consensus. The question is whether a page created (unknowingly) in direct contradiction to the BLP policy can
1388:
Looking at the actual achievements of this person's life described in the recreated article there is very little change from the AfDed version. He had a long career as a journalist for the BBC and covered some high profile events. The sources may go into different levels of detail and cover different
1257:
The "Yom Kippur" article attests to Cole's work as a reporter. That enhances his notability. The first source about the lecture he gave to the
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is a report about the event, definitely not a primary source. In the second source about the event, Cole is given first
903:
I was going to reply "what do you mean, it clearly was in quotation marks!", but checking it again, I see that you quoted my rephrasing of the policy (so that phrase was indeed "according to Fram" and not a quote), and I misspoke in my reply here. having said that, I don't see how it is any different
2040:
Well, since no-one claimed that "A journalist doing journalist things is automatic grounds for notability", your comment appears to be a straw man. I'm amazed to learn that there are "hundreds, if not thousands of lectures every day" hosted by the
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in the Palace
1761:. This is not such a case. In any event, the article clearly failed to meet the G4 criteria, or any other speedy deletion criteria. BLPDELETE, on its own terms, does not authorize speedy deletion without a showing that the article at issue continues material which even arguably fails BLP standards.
1391:
Finally, I should emphasise that the reason the subject wanted the article deleted is that there were serious factual inaccuracies in the available sourcing, including ostensibly reliable sources. That concern is very well founded within the spirit if not the letter of the BLP policy, and could lead
1105:
the article was deleted at AfD because the subject asked for it to be deleted and we decided to honour that request. There was nothing in the recreated article which would justify reopening that discussion - although the text was different it conveyed essentially the same information and didn't cite
2024:
A journalist doing journalist things is admirable, but not automatic grounds for notability. The source for that is literally an article that just says he was there, and the talks for the lecture are all primary sources that don't explain why it should stand out among the hundreds, if not thousands
1876:
Obviously notable going by the sources provided. There's no reason under the sun why WP shouldn't have an article about this individual. It seems the only reason why the subject requested deletion was because the article was riddled with errors which he couldn't be bothered to point out. Otherwise,
1385:
I don't think analysing the depth of coverage in the available sources is the right way to go with situations like this. The major reason the article was deleted is because the subject asked for it. We're allowed to grant those requests as long as the subject isn't a public figure, even if they are
1370:
Finally, you are still basing all of your claims on the mistaken idea that I deleted this because of a lack of notability. I didn't, as has been explained to you many times now. Whether the article should be permitted to be created now or not may be based on issues of notability and subject wishes,
1087:
not a G4 and a discussion needs to be held as it doesn't meet any speedy criteria. Agree that it could have been protected, but it wasn't and you can't go back and delete it without a basis in WP:CSD for doing so. Futher, it's not at all clear that a solid article on this subject can't exist. So
998:
It could indeed do with some clarification, and like I said, I don't blame anyone who has written the article anyway, as people can hardly be expected to know every in and out of these policies, certainly for cases like this which are luckily rare. Perhaps in the future it would be better if people
968:
When policies disagree (which they often do), I always tend to give BLP the priority. I choose G4 as it was the most closely related speedy reason, perhaps I should just have stated "IAR speedy deletion per WP:BLPDELETE" without indicating any CSD criterion, but at least G4 indicated that it was an
2070:
You're the one claiming that adding such content should be enough to invalidate a G4 deletion. Adding content to an article that a journalist engaged in journalism, when the subject is already identified as a journalist, is not a substantial difference that would make a G4 deletion invalid. People
1480:
Westminster Abbey; a panellist on a BBC satirical show; and someone who gave, by invitation, a significant lecture in the Palace of
Westminster. But the contested speedy deletion was not made on the grounds of notability, and that can be determined subsequent to the article's proper reinstatement.
1479:
The claim that "there is no actual notability" is utter bullshit, as the citations listed above show. There are multiple grounds for passing GNG. This is, for example, a journalist who was first a BBC war correspondent and then a BBC royal correspondent, commentating on a royal wedding from inside
1235:
as "a "he was also there". Then there are two primary sources about a speech he gave, a database mention in TV.com which may or may not be about him or about another
Michael Cole, which leaves us with 2, not 6, sources whch can be said to be "substantial coverage". One is from a newspaper where he
513:
while the text and the specific references may be different this time around, the basic substance is generally of a low-profile individual who is unlikely to generate substantial complaint of bias or censorship if he didn't have an article here. Find a more substantial article to edit, and improve
1978:
Yes the article is rewritten, but the content covered is almost entirely the same as the deleted version. The only new content not covered in the previous version is Cole being sent by the BBC to cover the Yom Kippur War and Cole giving a lecture to the
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association's UK
1788:
be deleted in such a case, then the last line of BLPdelete should be removed as it has become meaningless. But in my reading (and that of at least some other editors here), that line does allow or encourage the speedy deletion of the article. TLDR: the "proper context" is not "summary deletion of
642:
Can I just clarify the custom and practice here? Do we always delete people's biographies if they request it via OTRS? Or is there some kind of threshold where people are so significant that we keep the article about them irrespective of their wishes, and if so, what is it? In fact, can anyone
784:
Michael Cole is a household name in the UK, from his long years as a royal correspondent. He is clearly notable. The article freshly deleted was well referenced, and the references demonstrated a GNG pass. Could we now restore the recently deleted article and stop playing silly bugger procedural
1319:
at all. "The first source about the lecture he gave to the
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is a report about the event, definitely not a primary source." The definition is "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are
89:
is for uncontroversial cases. There's more than enough discussion here, with people weighing in on both sides, that it's clear this was not uncontroversial. Hence, the overturn. Of course, it's not always clear at the time whether there will be controversy or not. In this case, the original
1431:
Quibble: I am able to find reliable sources where the subject, as an ex-BBC correspondent, is making public comments on matters of public interest. Definitely "borderline notable" at least, and not "simply isn't notable". NB. There are a number of public "Michael Cole"s, including multiple
1146:
The date of the material cited is relevant because it means he hasn't become any more important since the AfD. If there was substantial source coverage generated since then you could argue that he is now more important than when the decision was made and that therefore the decision should be
1414:
because there is no actual notability. Of course a PR agent will sometimes get their name in the papers when their client does. As for the views of the subject, the accepted rule in
Deletion Policy is that we only take them into account if the decision in no--consensus, where it is at the
1979:
Lunchtime
Lecture Series. The former isn't anything out of the ordinary for a journalist, and the source literally only name drops Cole. The latter is a dime a dozen speech that all kinds of people deliver at similar events, and is only sourced to primary sources that don't indicate why
1339:, a certain indication of notability that was not present in the early version." There are two speakers, and they are given in order of appearance, not in order of notability. You are really grasping at straws here. That source is a reprint of the press release, the flyer linked in it
1548:"Mabbett's unquestioned Floyd expertise… makes for a largely engaging read. Commendably, his passion for the band doesn’t blind him to their less distinguished moments, and his assessment of the makeweight atrocities which blight A Momentary Lapse Of Reason, for example, is spot-on.
884:
I didn't realize it was a quote because it wasn't in quotation marks. At any rate, I acknowledge the distinction between a policy and an essay, and the policy certainly holds sway. Still, I don't know if we can really establish consensus without being able to review the article.
1998:
I'll look forward to you telling a war correspondent to their face that their work "isn't anything out of the ordinary for a journalist", but you contradict yourself by saying "the content covered is almost entirely the same", and then listing some of the several differences.
1952:
There is no reasonable way in which "sufficiently/substantially identical" can apply. The article under discussion has the same subject as the one previously deleted, but has none of the original content, and was written without reference to the earlier article's content.
1919:
This is a hard case, because "sufficiently/substantially identical" could be interpreted in many ways. You could make the argument that G4 does apply because it was previously deleted at AFD after a consensus formed that notability was borderline and thus
627:
The logged reason of G4 was not applicable. To establish consensus for the full reinstatement of the page, it will help to have the new draft visible. This might sensibly be done by putting the page into draft space, say, while a discussion takes place.
2114:
Just look through this thread. You're arguing that the G4 was invalid because the inclusion of this new information meant it wasn't substantially the same. Having new content (text or sources) is the primary reason for declining or overturning a G4. ----
418:
This argument might make sense if there were any venue available to seek a consensus to recreate an article. There isn't. This part of the BLP policy plainly does not match practice, since it is common for articles that have been deleted (often as
839:
It's going to be hard to get such consensus if we cannot see the article in question, but there is a strong indication from several users above that the subject is not an LPI and should not be able to have his article deleted by his own request.
983:
I'm not saying you did bad, but that WP:CSD needs updating. BLPDELETE enjoys consensus, but it could be more objective, and connected to CSD. So BLPDELETEd means no user may unilaterally recreate? Sounds like something that should be written.
1356:. I suppose you'll be telling us next that it was some other Michael Cole who also happened to be a royal reporter? That's yet another fresh source indicating his notability." You "forgot" to mention that that source connects him to
1321:
582:
400:. An article that ha sbeen courtesy deleted at the request of the BLP subject should not be recreated until there is a consensus to do so. "After the deletion, any administrator may choose to protect it against re-creation.
188:
131:. No consensus on that point. There is, however, a pretty good feeling that a better closing statement, with a more detailed justification, would have been useful, even if it wouldn't have changed the ultimate outcome.
706:
Even if an individual with the nine sources I gave above is "borderline-notable", that would in itself disqualify it from speedy deletion, which is reserved for pages "with no practical chance of surviving discussion"
1758:
Summary deletion is appropriate when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to an earlier version of an acceptable
785:
games. Relying on an AfD which appears to have been swayed by the subject's more than ironic reluctance to be the subject of an article, and at which only three or four people chipped in, is plain daft.
1437:
947:
489:
366:
304:
1389:
aspects of that career, but the general idea is the same. What would substantially change the situation here is if the recreation included some new, more important career achievement, but it didn't.
1807:
for example) that don't result in an outcome like this without discussion. If the goal here is to have such a recreation be automatically subject to speedy deletion, I'd suggest proposing that at
583:
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/offices/bicameral/cpa-home/programmes/lectures/the-crown-and-the-commonwealth-an-emblem-of-dominion-or-a-symbol-of-free-and-voluntary-association/
139:
talks about gaining a new consensus to restore a previously deleted article, but gives no advice about where to gain that consensus. Two reasonable places would be bringing the issue here to
1713:
Clearly notable per sources. We should not confuse significance with notability per
Knowledge standards. Further, per DGG, the subject's personal preference is not reason to delete.(
1035:
There's an obvious disparity between your "...I always tend to give BLP the priority" and your earlier assertion on my talk page, that "the BLP policy trumps speedy deletion reasons".
1327:, a grouping of Parliamentarians which is listed as one of the three "offices" at the Parliament website. This is a primary source, and definitely not an independent source, so gives
183:
As in most of these cases, it's hard to tease apart the discussion about the process from the discussion about the merits of the article itself. And, the answer is always the same;
904:
from what the actual quote immediately following it says "it should not be re-created unless a consensus is demonstrated in support of re-creation." so the point remains the same.
1061:
292:
1239:
which deals with the same subject as an article already in the deleted version, him stepping down as spokesperson of
Harrods. So no, these "six new sources" actually do
313:
427:
no.17), and certainly has no special standing requiring that the article should not be recreated until there is a consensus to do so any more than any other article.
1779:
deletion: in such a case like this (subject request), no speedy should be used but a full AfD discussion. This has happened and ended in deletion. So that step has
2289:
per Fram's explanation. We cannot fault admins for enforcing the BLP, and Fram is absolutely right. G4 was probably the best choice, given this gap in policy.
377:" and speedy deletion was not appropriate. In addition, it is abundantly clear from the substantial coverage of Cole in the many sources present that he meets
2312:
restore to draft and have a proper AFD discussion. The BLPDELETE is a poor piece of policy working against the purpose of Knowledge, and it needs rewriting.
1877:
an outspoken individual for whom a request for 'privacy' should not be entertained. There should be a brief article with correct and reliably sourced facts.
333:
removed the speedy template, noting that Cole is "copper bottom notable". It has now been speedied as G4, and the deleting admin has refused to restore it.
1826:
1014:
166:
48:
34:
1983:
speech should stand out from any other. If kept, some of the material from the previous version, which help support notability, should be re-added.----
1236:
writes a column, so not independent coverage either (and is not about him, but about the problems at the BBC). This leaves you with one new article,
1392:
to substantial real world repercussions for the subject or for Knowledge. Anyone trying to recreate the article needs to address it very carefully.
43:
2293:
as well, as this discussion serves well enough as the required discussion per the policy. A proper process needs to be created for this situation.
608:. Your "suddenly somehow becomes sustained front-page news for several months" doesn't form part of any requirement for notability on Knowledge. --
1554:. Oh, and get your facts straight. The work described as "frustratingly inconsistent" was not mine, but that of my publisher; the book's layout.
434:
a speedy deletion criterion, as the the deleting admin admits. Speedy deletion is for pages "with no practical chance of surviving discussion" (
402:
Even if the page is not protected against re-creation, it should not be re-created unless a consensus is demonstrated in support of re-creation.
424:
604:
I'm sorry, but those constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which is what is required for
1853:
175:
1894:
There are now more people saying "overturn" in this discussion than participated - let alone said "delete" - in the original article's AfD.
950:
people chose to honour the subject's request. An invalid G4. WP:BLPDELETE is a very loose bit of policy at odds with the opening line at
262:
2193:
2150:
2105:
2061:
2015:
1969:
1910:
1570:
1524:
1496:
1178:
1137:
1051:
837:
An article that ha sbeen courtesy deleted at the request of the BLP subject should not be recreated until there is a consensus to do so.
545:
468:
349:
999:
who deleted articles at the BLP request (and with consensus, like here) automatically protected the page, to prevent these situations.
2121:
2077:
2031:
1989:
1939:
1878:
1324:
557:
800:
514:
that. Unless this Michael Cole suddenly somehow becomes sustained front-page news for several months, the status quo should remain.
39:
1789:
poor article", but keeping an article deleted after AfD on subject request deleted as prescribed by the end of the policy section.
1531:
and we should create an article on him, particularly citing the reliable source that called his work "frustratingly inconsistent".
562:
369:
in November 2014. The article deleted by Fram was a fresh creation, substantially different from the 2014 version. G4 states that "
111:
cases, we should give strong weight to the subject's request to not have an article about them. Other people feel that as long as
1350:
1271:
2299:
2244:
1612:
1539:
775:
656:
522:
1803:
I don't know that "should not be recreated" is the same as "will be speedy deleted". There are lots of things one _should_ do (
2041:
of Westminster; perhaps someone ought to write a Knowledge article about that phenomenon. Oh, and you're still only discussing
1766:
258:
115:
is met, their request should not be a factor. Some people feel it should only be a factor when trying to resolve a close call.
70:
1628:
1684:, however the deleting admin should have made this clear in the log entry rather than going with the inapplicable CSD G4.
21:
423:) to be re-created some time later. A deletion at the request of the BLP subject is the weakest reason for deletion (see
107:
involvement. There's no clear consensus here as to how much weight those things should carry. Some people feel that in
1364:
1266:, a certain indication of notability that was not present in the early version. The website charting his appearance on
597:
148:
Several people argued that there were sufficient sources in the new version of the article that it would probably pass
1121:
The article did not merely "covey essentially the same information" and the date of the material cited is immaterial.
1363:
Have I got news for you, It shouldn't happen to (which you use as evidence that it must be the same person), and ...
1921:
1762:
1162:
Poppycock. New information, pre-dating the previous AfD, has come to light, giving greater evidence of notability.
2332:
2317:
1718:
633:
242:
17:
1735:. She's right, we don't delete an individual's article just because they ask, especially when they're notable.
82:
There's a lot going on in this discussion. I'll try to cover most of the major points, in no particular order.
1229:
567:
1340:
2189:
2146:
2101:
2057:
2011:
1965:
1906:
1566:
1492:
1174:
1133:
1047:
541:
464:
345:
2272:, now that I could see it, per Locke Cole who supports what I said earlier when I requested for a draft. --
2277:
1925:
number of !voters in the first AFD, and the many voices calling for the article to be kept here, it seems
1882:
1519:
741:
1514:
927:
922:
Indeed, you did quote the policy immediately after the paraphrase. My mistake, I should have seen that.
890:
845:
796:
689:
2321:
2304:
2281:
2264:
2247:
2197:
2172:
2154:
2125:
2109:
2081:
2065:
2035:
2019:
1993:
1973:
1943:
1914:
1886:
1868:
1838:
1820:
1798:
1770:
1748:
1722:
1703:
1688:
1654:
1640:
1614:
1574:
1541:
1500:
1449:
1426:
1402:
1380:
1298:
1252:
1223:
1197:
1182:
1157:
1141:
1116:
1097:
1073:
1055:
1026:
1008:
993:
978:
963:
931:
913:
894:
871:
849:
827:
804:
779:
745:
720:
711:). There are no policy grounds to endorse a speedy deletion on the claim of "borderline notability". --
693:
660:
637:
617:
549:
524:
505:
472:
447:
413:
390:
353:
321:
This was nommed for speedy, which I (as the author) objected to on its talk page, on the basis that G4
231:
208:
2313:
2240:
2236:
1736:
1732:
1714:
1610:
1537:
788:
771:
652:
629:
587:
520:
1315:(outdent)You have an extremely low bar for "enhances his notability", one which is not in line with
1756:. The cited language from BLPDELETE must be read in its proper context, following the key language
1681:
1445:
1022:
989:
959:
855:
558:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/conspiracies-abound-as-cole-quits-toughest-job-in-pr-1145917.html
501:
493:
485:
397:
365:
The page was speedy deleted as G4 by Fram. An earlier version of the article was deleted following
162:
136:
100:
2180:
2137:
2092:
2048:
2002:
1956:
1897:
1557:
1483:
1165:
1124:
1038:
750:
Thank you to Yngvadottir for that response which has thoroughly clarified this for me. There is
532:
488:. Following a request from the article subject through OTRS, the article was deleted pursuant to
455:
360:
336:
228:
221:
205:
1763:
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.
643:
cite an example of an article where the subject has requested deletion and Knowledge's refused?—
563:
http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/uk_suffolk_journalist_reveals_life_at_the_bbc_in_savile_era_1_1684020
2087:"You're the one claiming that adding such content should be enough to invalidate a G4 deletion"
2273:
2116:
2072:
2026:
1984:
1934:
737:
420:
1827:
Knowledge talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Speedy deletion per BLPDELETE needs documentation
1345:
You are particularly uncritical when you use TV.com. "The website charting his appearance on
1015:
Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Speedy_deletion_per_BLPDELETE_needs_documentation
167:
Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Speedy_deletion_per_BLPDELETE_needs_documentation
1804:
1510:
923:
886:
841:
792:
685:
330:
1527:, including being a key player in constructing the council's website) ... I think he meets
2294:
2260:
1816:
1650:
1636:
1627:
If you want to start writing Andy's biography, I'll help out. I have a good photo of Andy
1622:
1605:
1601:
1532:
1332:
1294:
1259:
1219:
1093:
763:
716:
667:
644:
613:
515:
443:
386:
1371:
but the deletion was based on the combination of the previous deletion and WP:BLPDELETE.
529:
FFS. Since when did "sustained front-page news for several months" become a requirement?
2168:
1933:
with a nomination statement noting the BLPDELETEREQUEST situation would be best. ----
1863:
1834:
1794:
1699:
1685:
1441:
1376:
1248:
1069:
1018:
1004:
985:
974:
955:
909:
867:
822:
498:
409:
104:
1331:
notability. "In the second source about the event, Cole is given first billing before
2228:
1808:
1528:
1422:
1278:
951:
859:
755:
708:
677:
605:
435:
378:
225:
218:
202:
184:
158:
149:
140:
128:
124:
112:
108:
91:
86:
1645:
OK folks, would you all please self-revert the above as a personal attack? Thanks.
1062:
Knowledge:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_6#Motion_regarding_BLP_deletions
598:
http://www.tv.com/shows/have-i-got-news-for-you/gyles-brandreth-michael-cole-143453/
1600:
I wouldn't take a source out of context and use it to defame somebody, it would be
1395:
1190:
1150:
1109:
120:
1775:
I think you are misinterpreting the policy here. The "key language" is about the
1281:
in virtually any other article. This proves my contention that the G4 criterion "
854:
That's not really "according to Fram", that's a direct quote from the BLP policy
1316:
1237:
217:
Thank you to all the people who contributed their time to this discussion. --
2256:
1812:
1646:
1632:
1506:
1290:
1215:
1089:
712:
609:
452:...doubly so to then refuse to undo that speedy deletion when it is disputed.
439:
382:
2164:
1859:
1830:
1790:
1695:
1372:
1336:
1263:
1244:
1065:
1000:
970:
905:
863:
818:
577:
568:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/aboutbbcnews/hi/news_update/newsid_3853000/3853345.stm
405:
123:
probably didn't apply by strict reading, but there's also some feeling that
1361:
174:
The deleted article has already been restored to draft space and is now at
1505:
And here we have a semi-notable author, widely recognised as an expert on
572:
187:
is a better forum to discuss the merits of the article. So, I'm going to
1948:
clarified position on the original G4 deletion.00:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
1546:
Don't forget to quote the same reviewer, Record Collector's Marco Rossi:
1417:
396:
As I in vain made clear to both editors, this deletion was done under
1323:, i.e. the Parliament website reporting on a speech delivered to the
1829:(started after my speedy here, but before your recommendation :-) )
946:
A notable person, outspoken, not a private individual. However, at
2227:, clearly notable, well sourced and not a violation of any rule at
1342:, so again not an independent source and not giving any notability
588:
http://www.cja-uk.org/2012/04/crown-and-the-commonwealth-18-april/
99:
Some of the factors that went into the original CSD decision were
1552:"…of five talking heads ... Andy Mabbett the most knowledgeable"
2089:- Please provide a quote or diff for where you think I do that.
948:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Michael Cole (public relations)
490:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Michael Cole (public relations)
367:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Michael Cole (public relations)
592:
199:
Note: the automated script actually listed it at MfD, not AfD
1784:
be (should be) immediately deleted again or not. If it may
143:, or starting a new draft and using the draft's talk page.
327:"are not substantially identical to the deleted version"
1525:
one of the most influential Twitter users in Birmingham
1207:
1203:
299:
285:
277:
269:
425:
Knowledge:Criteria for speedy deletion #Non-criteria
127:
and/or admin's discretion could have also justified
2231:. Deleting BLPs at the request of the subject is a
1517:his 2010 work didn't reach the dizzy heights of
1325:Commonwealth Parliamentary Association UK Branch
1440:, and there is no strong case to change it. --
1287:substantially identical to the deleted version
375:substantially identical to the deleted version
157:There is some support for the suggestion that
1243:to "dramatically enhance Cole's notability".
1231:is definitely not about him, he is mentioned
8:
496:is to prevent recreation without consensus.
1320:directly involved." The source involved is
241:The following is an archived debate of the
1852:I have moved the article to draft space -
1602:disrupting Knowledge to illustrate a point
1465:The following discussion has been closed.
1456:
1436:because the decision was properly make at
1353:It Shouldn't Happen to A... Royal Reporter
1274:It Shouldn't Happen to A... Royal Reporter
821:or an OTRS person could verify that info.
786:
63:
578:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7181933.stm
2255:– agree with Locke Cole's views, above.
2134:do you mean by "this new information"?
573:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/58615.stm
94:decision was probably not unreasonable.
2086:
1551:
1547:
1282:
1187:Really? I'm not seeing it personally.
836:
381:and the article should be restored. --
370:
326:
1854:Draft:Michael Cole (public relations)
176:Draft:Michael Cole (public relations)
7:
2335:of the page listed in the heading.
2163:did you mean by "new information"?
152:. No real consensus on that point.
862:, on the other hand, is an essay.
28:
1208:the re-created version from today
672:The other person featured in the
1523:) and who has been described as
224:14:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC) – --
2331:The above is an archive of the
1931:restoring and sending it to AFD
430:More importantly, BLPDELETE is
259:Michael Cole (public relations)
71:Michael Cole (public relations)
2177:I'll wait for Patar's answer.
1:
1596:(umm, see that "FBDB" ... of
1204:2014 version that was deleted
1365:The One: Making a Music Star
161:may need updating to handle
1283:It excludes pages that are
1060:I don't see the disparity?
754:this person qualifies as a
371:It excludes pages that are
2358:
2322:00:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
2305:17:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
2282:20:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
2265:19:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
2248:17:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
2198:16:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
2173:15:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
2155:14:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
2126:00:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
2110:20:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
2082:15:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
2066:12:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
2036:21:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
2020:20:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
1994:20:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
1974:15:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
1944:14:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
1915:17:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
1887:15:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
1869:09:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
1839:07:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
1821:02:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
1799:15:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
1771:15:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
1749:13:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
1723:04:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
1704:07:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
1689:23:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
1655:15:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
1641:13:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
1615:13:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
1575:13:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
1542:10:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
1501:23:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
1450:23:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
1427:23:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
1403:20:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
1381:15:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
1299:15:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
1253:13:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
1224:12:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
1198:21:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
1183:10:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
1158:07:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
1142:23:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
1117:21:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
1098:16:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
1074:13:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
1056:13:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
1027:23:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
1009:13:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
994:13:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
979:13:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
964:12:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
932:13:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
914:14:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
895:14:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
872:07:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
850:00:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
828:20:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
805:20:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
780:18:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
746:18:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
721:18:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
694:18:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
661:18:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
638:18:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
618:18:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
593:http://www.michaelcole.tv/
550:17:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
525:17:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
506:17:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
473:17:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
448:17:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
414:16:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
391:15:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
354:15:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
232:14:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
209:00:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
2235:, for numerous reasons. —
1550:Or their Michael Heatle:
169:for a discussion on that.
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
2338:Please do not modify it.
2130:That's very vague. What
2045:of the new information.
1468:Please do not modify it.
762:to enable this outcome.—
248:Please do not modify it.
76:Overturn G4, list at Afd
40:Deletion review archives
1347:Have I got News for You
1268:Have I got News for You
1228:The "Yom Kippur" source
1212:Have I Got News for You
325:excludes articles that
1927:endorsing the deletion
1520:Revolution in the Head
189:list the draft at AfD
1460:Nothing to see here
1088:we should discuss.
1922:WP:BLPDELETEREQUEST
1629:when he was younger
835:According to Fram,
245:of the page above.
165:cases better. See
2291:Endorse recreation
1351:his appearance on
1349:also links him to
1272:his appearance on
1270:also links him to
504:
2345:
2344:
2270:Overturn and Keep
2253:Overturn and Keep
2225:Overturn and Keep
1949:
1867:
1674:
1673:
1617:
807:
791:comment added by
778:
659:
554:The sources are:
497:
364:
2349:
2340:
2287:Endorse deletion
2196:
2187:
2183:
2153:
2144:
2140:
2108:
2099:
2095:
2064:
2055:
2051:
2018:
2009:
2005:
1972:
1963:
1959:
1947:
1913:
1904:
1900:
1857:
1746:
1741:
1626:
1604:! Chill out....
1595:
1573:
1564:
1560:
1511:Record Collector
1499:
1490:
1486:
1470:
1457:
1432:journalists. I
1398:
1193:
1181:
1172:
1168:
1153:
1140:
1131:
1127:
1112:
1054:
1045:
1041:
825:
770:
768:
671:
651:
649:
548:
539:
535:
471:
462:
458:
358:
352:
343:
339:
331:User:Tagishsimon
316:
311:
302:
288:
280:
272:
250:
64:
53:
33:
2357:
2356:
2352:
2351:
2350:
2348:
2347:
2346:
2336:
2333:deletion review
2314:Graeme Bartlett
2302:
2185:
2179:
2178:
2142:
2136:
2135:
2124:
2097:
2091:
2090:
2080:
2053:
2047:
2046:
2034:
2007:
2001:
2000:
1992:
1961:
1955:
1954:
1942:
1902:
1896:
1895:
1742:
1737:
1733:Littleolive_oil
1715:Littleolive oil
1620:
1562:
1556:
1555:
1488:
1482:
1481:
1466:
1396:
1333:Vernon Bogdanor
1260:Vernon Bogdanor
1258:billing before
1191:
1170:
1164:
1163:
1151:
1129:
1123:
1122:
1110:
1043:
1037:
1036:
823:
764:
665:
645:
537:
531:
530:
460:
454:
453:
341:
335:
334:
312:
310:
307:
298:
297:
291:
284:
283:
276:
275:
268:
267:
246:
243:deletion review
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
2355:
2353:
2343:
2342:
2327:
2326:
2325:
2324:
2307:
2298:
2284:
2267:
2250:
2222:
2221:
2220:
2219:
2218:
2217:
2216:
2215:
2214:
2213:
2212:
2211:
2210:
2209:
2208:
2207:
2206:
2205:
2204:
2203:
2202:
2201:
2200:
2120:
2076:
2030:
1988:
1938:
1917:
1889:
1871:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1844:
1843:
1842:
1841:
1751:
1726:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1672:
1671:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1472:
1471:
1462:
1461:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1390:
1387:
1368:
1343:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1241:nothing at all
1202:Comparing the
1100:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
917:
916:
898:
897:
877:
876:
875:
874:
830:
808:
782:
748:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
699:
698:
697:
696:
640:
622:
621:
620:
602:
601:
600:
595:
590:
585:
580:
575:
570:
565:
560:
552:
508:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
428:
319:
318:
308:
295:
289:
281:
273:
265:
253:
252:
237:
236:
235:
234:
214:
213:
212:
211:
193:
192:
180:
179:
171:
170:
154:
153:
145:
144:
133:
132:
117:
116:
96:
95:
80:
79:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2354:
2341:
2339:
2334:
2329:
2328:
2323:
2319:
2315:
2311:
2308:
2306:
2301:
2296:
2292:
2288:
2285:
2283:
2279:
2275:
2271:
2268:
2266:
2262:
2258:
2254:
2251:
2249:
2246:
2242:
2238:
2234:
2233:very bad idea
2230:
2226:
2223:
2199:
2195:
2191:
2186:Pigsonthewing
2182:
2176:
2175:
2174:
2170:
2166:
2162:
2158:
2157:
2156:
2152:
2148:
2143:Pigsonthewing
2139:
2133:
2129:
2128:
2127:
2123:
2122:contributions
2118:
2113:
2112:
2111:
2107:
2103:
2098:Pigsonthewing
2094:
2088:
2085:
2084:
2083:
2079:
2078:contributions
2074:
2069:
2068:
2067:
2063:
2059:
2054:Pigsonthewing
2050:
2044:
2039:
2038:
2037:
2033:
2032:contributions
2028:
2023:
2022:
2021:
2017:
2013:
2008:Pigsonthewing
2004:
1997:
1996:
1995:
1991:
1990:contributions
1986:
1982:
1977:
1976:
1975:
1971:
1967:
1962:Pigsonthewing
1958:
1951:
1950:
1945:
1941:
1940:contributions
1936:
1932:
1928:
1923:
1918:
1916:
1912:
1908:
1903:Pigsonthewing
1899:
1893:
1890:
1888:
1884:
1880:
1875:
1872:
1870:
1865:
1861:
1855:
1851:
1848:
1840:
1836:
1832:
1828:
1824:
1823:
1822:
1818:
1814:
1810:
1806:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1796:
1792:
1787:
1782:
1778:
1774:
1773:
1772:
1768:
1764:
1760:
1755:
1752:
1750:
1747:
1745:
1740:
1734:
1730:
1727:
1724:
1720:
1716:
1712:
1709:
1705:
1701:
1697:
1693:
1692:
1690:
1687:
1683:
1679:
1676:
1675:
1656:
1652:
1648:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1624:
1619:
1618:
1616:
1613:
1611:
1609:
1608:
1603:
1599:
1594:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1586:
1585:
1576:
1572:
1568:
1563:Pigsonthewing
1559:
1553:
1549:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1540:
1538:
1536:
1535:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1521:
1516:
1512:
1508:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1489:Pigsonthewing
1485:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1469:
1464:
1463:
1459:
1458:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1419:
1413:
1410:
1404:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1378:
1374:
1369:
1366:
1362:
1359:
1355:
1354:
1348:
1344:
1341:
1338:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1314:
1300:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1286:
1280:
1276:
1275:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1171:Pigsonthewing
1167:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1130:Pigsonthewing
1126:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1104:
1101:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1086:
1083:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1044:Pigsonthewing
1040:
1034:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1006:
1002:
997:
996:
995:
991:
987:
982:
981:
980:
976:
972:
967:
966:
965:
961:
957:
953:
949:
945:
944:
933:
929:
925:
921:
920:
919:
918:
915:
911:
907:
902:
901:
900:
899:
896:
892:
888:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
873:
869:
865:
861:
857:
853:
852:
851:
847:
843:
838:
834:
831:
829:
826:
820:
816:
812:
809:
806:
802:
798:
794:
790:
783:
781:
777:
773:
769:
767:
761:
757:
753:
749:
747:
743:
739:
735:
734:
730:
729:
722:
718:
714:
710:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
695:
691:
687:
683:
679:
678:Graham McCann
675:
669:
664:
663:
662:
658:
654:
650:
648:
641:
639:
635:
631:
626:
623:
619:
615:
611:
607:
603:
599:
596:
594:
591:
589:
586:
584:
581:
579:
576:
574:
571:
569:
566:
564:
561:
559:
556:
555:
553:
551:
547:
543:
538:Pigsonthewing
534:
528:
527:
526:
523:
521:
519:
518:
512:
509:
507:
503:
500:
495:
491:
487:
483:
480:
474:
470:
466:
461:Pigsonthewing
457:
451:
450:
449:
445:
441:
437:
433:
429:
426:
422:
417:
416:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
395:
394:
393:
392:
388:
384:
380:
376:
374:
368:
362:
361:edit conflict
356:
355:
351:
347:
342:Pigsonthewing
338:
332:
328:
324:
315:
306:
301:
294:
287:
279:
271:
264:
260:
257:
256:
255:
254:
251:
249:
244:
239:
238:
233:
230:
227:
223:
220:
216:
215:
210:
207:
204:
200:
197:
196:
195:
194:
190:
186:
182:
181:
177:
173:
172:
168:
164:
160:
156:
155:
151:
147:
146:
142:
138:
135:
134:
130:
126:
122:
119:
118:
114:
110:
106:
102:
98:
97:
93:
88:
85:
84:
83:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
59:14 March 2017
57:
50:
49:2017 March 15
45:
41:
36:
35:2017 March 13
23:
19:
2337:
2330:
2309:
2290:
2286:
2274:Gerda Arendt
2269:
2252:
2232:
2224:
2194:Andy's edits
2190:Talk to Andy
2181:Andy Mabbett
2160:
2151:Andy's edits
2147:Talk to Andy
2138:Andy Mabbett
2131:
2117:Patar knight
2106:Andy's edits
2102:Talk to Andy
2093:Andy Mabbett
2073:Patar knight
2062:Andy's edits
2058:Talk to Andy
2049:Andy Mabbett
2042:
2027:Patar knight
2016:Andy's edits
2012:Talk to Andy
2003:Andy Mabbett
1985:Patar knight
1980:
1970:Andy's edits
1966:Talk to Andy
1957:Andy Mabbett
1935:Patar knight
1930:
1926:
1911:Andy's edits
1907:Talk to Andy
1898:Andy Mabbett
1891:
1879:103.6.159.91
1873:
1849:
1785:
1780:
1776:
1757:
1753:
1743:
1738:
1728:
1710:
1682:WP:BLPDELETE
1677:
1606:
1597:
1571:Andy's edits
1567:Talk to Andy
1558:Andy Mabbett
1533:
1518:
1497:Andy's edits
1493:Talk to Andy
1484:Andy Mabbett
1467:
1433:
1416:
1411:
1394:
1393:
1357:
1352:
1346:
1328:
1284:
1273:
1267:
1240:
1232:
1211:
1189:
1188:
1179:Andy's edits
1175:Talk to Andy
1166:Andy Mabbett
1149:
1148:
1138:Andy's edits
1134:Talk to Andy
1125:Andy Mabbett
1108:
1107:
1102:
1084:
1052:Andy's edits
1048:Talk to Andy
1039:Andy Mabbett
856:WP:BLPDELETE
832:
814:
810:
787:— Preceding
765:
759:
751:
738:Gerda Arendt
732:
731:
681:
673:
646:
624:
546:Andy's edits
542:Talk to Andy
533:Andy Mabbett
516:
510:
494:WP:BLPDELETE
486:WP:BLPDELETE
481:
469:Andy's edits
465:Talk to Andy
456:Andy Mabbett
431:
401:
398:WP:BLPDELETE
372:
357:
350:Andy's edits
346:Talk to Andy
337:Andy Mabbett
322:
320:
247:
240:
198:
163:WP:BLPDELETE
137:WP:BLPDELETE
101:WP:BLPDELETE
81:
75:
69:
58:
1515:crestfallen
924:Lepricavark
887:Lepricavark
842:Lepricavark
793:Tagishsimon
686:Yngvadottir
2295:Ivanvector
2237:Locke Cole
1623:Ritchie333
1607:Ritchie333
1534:Ritchie333
1507:Pink Floyd
766:S Marshall
674:Daily Mail
668:S Marshall
647:S Marshall
606:notability
517:Ritchie333
421:WP:TOOSOON
323:explicitly
103:, and the
44:2017 March
1805:WP:BEFORE
1729:Overturn'
1711:Overturn.
1686:Lankiveil
1442:SmokeyJoe
1337:Bill Cash
1264:Bill Cash
1019:SmokeyJoe
986:SmokeyJoe
956:SmokeyJoe
824:Montanabw
676:article,
630:Andrew D.
499:WJBscribe
2310:overturn
1874:Overturn
1759:standard
1754:Overturn
1509:(though
1085:overturn
801:contribs
789:unsigned
625:Overturn
226:RoySmith
219:RoySmith
203:RoySmith
20: |
2161:exactly
2132:exactly
1781:already
1777:initial
1678:Endorse
1434:endorse
1412:Endorse
1397:Hut 8.5
1360:roles:
1192:Hut 8.5
1152:Hut 8.5
1111:Hut 8.5
1103:Endorse
833:Restore
811:Restore
760:Restore
682:Endorse
511:Endorse
482:Endorse
314:restore
278:history
105:WP:OTRS
2229:WP:BLP
1809:WP:CSD
1694:True.
1598:course
1529:WP:GNG
1279:WP:GNG
952:WP:CSD
860:WP:LPI
756:WP:LPI
752:no way
709:WP:CSD
502:(talk)
436:WP:CSD
379:WP:GNG
229:(talk)
222:(talk)
206:(talk)
185:WP:AfD
159:WP:CSD
150:WP:GNG
141:WP:DRV
129:WP:CSD
125:WP:IAR
113:WP:CSD
109:WP:BLP
92:WP:CSD
87:WP:CSD
2300:Edits
2257:Oculi
1892:Note:
1850:Note:
1813:Hobit
1647:Hobit
1633:RexxS
1513:were
1423:talk
1358:three
1291:RexxS
1216:RexxS
1206:with
1090:Hobit
1017:. --
815:draft
733:Draft
713:RexxS
610:RexxS
440:RexxS
383:RexxS
300:watch
293:links
121:WP:G4
52:: -->
16:<
2318:talk
2278:talk
2261:talk
2169:talk
2165:Fram
2043:some
1981:that
1929:but
1883:talk
1864:talk
1860:MSGJ
1835:talk
1831:Fram
1825:See
1817:talk
1795:talk
1791:Fram
1767:talk
1744:Ƽ Ħ
1739:К Ф
1731:per
1719:talk
1700:talk
1696:Fram
1680:per
1651:talk
1637:talk
1631:. --
1446:talk
1377:talk
1373:Fram
1335:and
1329:zero
1317:WP:N
1295:talk
1262:and
1249:talk
1245:Fram
1233:once
1220:talk
1094:talk
1070:talk
1066:Fram
1023:talk
1013:See
1005:talk
1001:Fram
990:talk
975:talk
971:Fram
960:talk
928:talk
910:talk
906:Fram
891:talk
868:talk
864:Fram
846:talk
819:Fram
797:talk
742:talk
717:talk
690:talk
634:talk
614:talk
484:per
444:talk
410:talk
406:Fram
387:talk
286:logs
270:edit
263:talk
32:<
2188:);
2145:);
2119:- /
2100:);
2075:- /
2056:);
2029:- /
2010:);
1987:- /
1964:);
1937:- /
1905:);
1786:not
1565:);
1491:);
1438:AfD
1418:DGG
1285:not
1173:);
1132:);
1046:);
813:or
540:);
463:);
432:not
373:not
344:);
305:XfD
303:) (
201:--
22:Log
2320:)
2303:)
2297:(/
2280:)
2263:)
2243:•
2239:•
2192:;
2171:)
2149:;
2104:;
2060:;
2014:;
1968:;
1909:;
1885:)
1862:·
1837:)
1819:)
1811:.
1797:)
1769:)
1721:)
1702:)
1691:.
1653:)
1639:)
1569:;
1495:;
1448:)
1425:)
1379:)
1297:)
1251:)
1222:)
1177:;
1136:;
1096:)
1072:)
1050:;
1025:)
1007:)
992:)
984:--
977:)
962:)
930:)
912:)
893:)
870:)
858:.
848:)
803:)
799:•
744:)
719:)
692:)
680:.
636:)
616:)
544:;
467:;
446:)
412:)
389:)
348:;
329:.
74:–
42::
2316:(
2276:(
2259:(
2245:c
2241:t
2184:(
2167:(
2141:(
2096:(
2052:(
2006:(
1960:(
1946:(
1901:(
1881:(
1866:)
1858:(
1833:(
1815:(
1793:(
1765:(
1725:)
1717:(
1698:(
1649:(
1635:(
1625::
1621:@
1561:(
1487:(
1444:(
1421:(
1375:(
1293:(
1247:(
1218:(
1169:(
1128:(
1092:(
1068:(
1042:(
1021:(
1003:(
988:(
973:(
958:(
926:(
908:(
889:(
866:(
844:(
795:(
776:C
774:/
772:T
740:(
715:(
707:(
688:(
670::
666:@
657:C
655:/
653:T
632:(
612:(
536:(
459:(
442:(
408:(
385:(
363:)
359:(
340:(
317:)
309:|
296:|
290:|
282:|
274:|
266:|
261:(
191:.
178:.
78:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.