276:. It may not happen or be successful - but I am seriously considering it. If not rescue'd it will likely be redirect to the place already indicated but I'd like some sort of reference there if the redirect occurs. A appreciate the negotiation with the closer and his cordiality however to a degree I've been at AfD and DRV a lot recently and the pain/gain of me opening this to DRV when I am not reasonably confident of an overturn and even if overturn'd not sufficiently confident of a
753:. There's no need to go through DRV if the situation has changed since the AfD. This is particularly true if the AfD was two years ago, and even more so given how sparsely attended it was. However, I (strongly) suggest that the new article be started in draft space; this will give time for it to be developed without risk of being re-deleted, and the review of the new drafts will be useful.
207:- As RoySmith says, the Keep arguments are not persuasive, but the Delete arguments are not so persuasive as to justify a supervote by the closer. A No Consensus call would have been in order after two or more weeks of listing. A doubtful case should not end in deletion. Relist. I have no idea how I would have !voted, because I haven't read the delete article.
546:, it's just a magazine, not a refereed publication), and non-reliable sources should be ignored when closing discussions. And finally, the second voter also provided a scholarly publication (DOI 10.1117/12.790006), but it provides no significant information; it just makes a few passing references on the eighth page (PDF page 9) without covering kst significantly.
803:- I declined this draft because there had been a deletion discussion that redirected the article to the band. There has been enough change so that the draft should be reviewed without the Redirect being a negative factor. This isn't an overturn in the usual sense, because there was no error by the closer, but a case of time having passed.
1589:"We prefer a redirect to delete": I agree for titles that are not confusing and not ambiguous. But the AfD discussion shows clearly that the title may have several interpretations. So, whichever a reader is searching, there is a good probability that the redirect leads it to the wrong article, and, in this case a redirect must be avoided.
735:: Lee was notable for winning the third place in a major music competition. Since then his band Wanna One has disbanded, and Lee has had significant careers in television and songwriting, and launched a second band. I believe the article should be restored (either from article history or the new draft article). -
1269:
I don't think there is any need for restoration to preserve edit history. Despite the edit summary the edit cited above does not appear to have actually copied any material from the deleted article. Instead it's a different treatment of the some of the same subject matter, with rewritten text. If you
1056:
I added mathematical content to the page in question and made relevant comments on its talk page iirc. Deletion has removed all record of this good faith activity which was in no way controversial or otherwise requiring suppression. There's more to be done with this topic but deletion like this is
1508:
I am trying to say those actions leave you vunerable to an accusation of bad faith ... not that I am accusing you of bad faith. But as my wife often says to me it is not what you say but how you say it ... or something like that. I am fundamentally suggesting contest including previous references
517:
be argued as delete IF the closer made any argument. They didn't, so it is reasonable to call it a bad close and overturn and see if another week or so changes anything. As the closer has not commented here yet, despite 24h or so elapsing, I'd also respectfully suggest that the closer may need more
385:
Unlinking backlinks - For AfD and FfD discussions, there is an option to unlink backlinks (including file usage). For links within list items, it is sometimes more appropriate to remove the list item rather than unlinking it β in such cases, the script will ask whether to keep the unlinked item or
1450:
at the AfD but did not explicitly mention they were the person who performed that merge not provide an explicit diff pointer to the merge. While none of this wrong it leaves D.Lazard slightly open the concern the purpose may have been to concern his purpose may have been remove others content in
415:
I'll admit, the removal of back-links is the part of closing an AfD that I probably do the poorest at. I'll spend a lot of time dissecting the arguments to reach a keep/delete/whatever decision, but once I've gotten to delete, I tend to just accept all the unlink and remove-from-list suggestions
341:
on the list it was removed from, however I feel removal from the list on a minor edit was certainly wrong in my opinion; deletion of the content on non-minor edit or if the list requirement was strict notability would also be OK, as would be simply removal of the wikilink. I hope this is within
392:
meaning retention on the list would be the more normal course). From this I can only assume the Closer opted to remove the item from the list rather than unlinking it. I therefore respectfully suggest given the above the decision of the closer to remove from this particular list in this
1549:
argues that we should. Unclear why this is such a point of contention; it seems like a no-brainer to me. I don't see that the nom had contacted the deleting admin before opening this DRV. My guess is if they had, this could have all been settled a lot faster and with less drama. --
1218:- Having not read the deleted article, I don't know what article the redirect should be to. As noted in the AFD, the title suggests roots on the complex plane. That's intermediate algebra. I have forgotten all of the math that I learned in college, but that is high school math.
192:. I'm not particularly impressed by the strength of the keep arguments, but it's really hard to see how this could be called a consensus to delete. Relisting it for another week seems like the obvious call. I'd back out the close and relist the existing debate. --
416:
without much thought. I'm not saying that's best practice, but it's what I tend to do. Perhaps I should just leave the redlinks behind? At least that way, it's obvious that something's broken and the people who watch those articles will come along and fix it? --
176:
I believe consensus was interpreted incorrectly. With only four participants and (if we include the nominator) a split decision and otherwise a leaning in favour of keep, if I had been attending this, I would have relisted. Closer was contacted but not receptive to
284:
and placed the redirect without consulting the closer I could of been open to circumventing the result of the AfD. Given concerns expressed above about the nature of the close I respectfully suggest without prejudice it is not returned to closers discretion.
1545:, etc). That no actual text was copied (I haven't examined this myself; I'm going on the analysis of others, above) just means we're not obligated to redirect to comply with licensing requirements. It doesn't mean we're obligated not to redirect, and
1485:
This accusation of bad faith is a personal attack. Also this editor accuses me of pushing "my own content" against other's content. Moreover, These accusations are based on a blatant deformation of what I have written. I have clearly established that
1379:
1232:
The deleted article suggested roots on the complex plane, but the title does not suggest anything about the complex plane. The polynomials can have any number of variables (just one polynomial in two variables would give an
1383:
1011:
708:
I believe Lee Dae-hwi is now independently notable to get his own article in
Knowledge (XXG). He is now independently active as a songwriter, emcee and entertainer. Please kindly re-review my article. Thank you.
466:
me and possibly did the dePRODer in this instance. I appreciate it can be a difficult if people dePROD without explanation or significant article improvement but it would be better if improvements were made to
393:
circumstance rather than unlinking was inappropriate and within the process of deletion and I therefore challenge it (NB: I have already manually re-entered the item on the list ... but this happened because I
245:. I don't see any need to reopen this, but my understanding is the closer is fine with a redirect negotiated by the weak keep !voter, and that seems like an outcome consistent with the arguments here.
999:
1020:
1459:
the unattributed discard of work has implications and issues. Surprising evidence for proof for copy violations can reside in the audit trail of old revisions. So I am with both
471:
so PRODers feel comfortable using the standard templates and dePRODers are guided appropriately ... actually I've just think I've noticed the PROD template does not lead people to
839:
which I think means dropping the stick as to whether he was notable in 2017 or not - it might be helpful to temp-undelete the article that was deleted to make sure this isn't in
1455:
this is not the case and no attempt have been made to do that covertly; I would have preferred that information explicitly mentioned on the AfD. Unless this was a clear later
492:- I believe in rescuing articles with potential. I will add that after reviewing the xfd, I agree that it doesn't quite meet GNG. Perhaps the rescue effort will be convincing.
1494:
does no apply, and this has been confirmed by the closing administrator. Also, the end of the post contains an accusation of possible copyvio. This is simply not acceptable.
1035:). The closing admin should have denied the consensus and redirected the page, merged the page, or listed every contributor of the merged content by a dummy edit. See also:
1576:
PS, There's several plausible redirect targets mentioned above. I have no opinion about which is the best. Pick one. It can always be changed later, by anybody. --
1438:: apply merged templates; possibly redirect as above or elsewhere (e.g. Polynomial). D.Lazard indicated on summary on 14 February he had indicated a merge process from
159:
337:. The closer implied this was done as part of automated process and I am wondering if so if the process should be challenged as incorrect. There is some question of
1245:. Indeed, if we consider complex roots then it is classical algebraic geometry (covered in the algebraic geometry article). If we consider only real roots then it is
843:
space, but if he's notable now, we should be able to accept the article. (I have absolutely no idea if he is considering the sources are almost exclusively Korean.)
1296:
attribution is a legal requirement if the content is used, so nominators and deleters are contributing to copyright infringement if the writer's names are removed.
728:
691:
48:
34:
1249:. Since only the field of polynomial coefficients is specified in the title (and not the field of definition of the roots), the redirect should point to just
1411:
An accurate reading of consensus, and no merge attribution needed per the final comment in the discussion by D.Lazard. Cheers to DGG for the temp undelete.
43:
460:
If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..."
1061:, "When in doubt, don't delete". And it appears that the closer made the deletion decision based upon their own opinion of the matter -- a blatant
1446:
and if that procedure was performed we would not be here. I also observe D.Lazard who was also the AfD nom. mentioned the merge and used the word
1386:(although the old article title was mentioned). That part of the history is not terribly relevant now though, as no content was preserved from the
1537:
is that we prefer a redirect to delete if there's a reasonable redirect target and there's no good reason to hide the history (i.e. problems with
1036:
679:
458:
and at a minimum identified and summarized as options and Kst could have followed the same pathway
Perhaps its me, cos I know I'm weird, but the
376:
1278:
covers some of the subject matter of the deleted page the scope of the title of the deleted page is all polynomials rather than just quadratics.
1095:
This doesn't detract from your argument at all, but I don't see any edits from you on this article. I can't see the talk page history though. β
1654:, the consensus seems to be clear for deletion. I agree with others above who have concluded that no actual merge occurred, so there is no
147:
39:
1425:
1375:
857:
259:
342:
scope of the deletion review to consider this ... it is a separate procedural matter than the result of the deletion review. Thankyou.
700:
1619:
If there is no reasonable redirect available where substantial page history can be retained I believe restoring the page history of
1057:
disruptive because it discourages good faith activity and forces editors to rely upon their memory. Such disruption is contrary to
379:. Not having used the script (I have an associate helper installed but not used it, certanly not in delete close mode), I observe
1509:
and sources that can possibly be re-used elsewhere may be lost. Please accept by apologies for any offence etc. etc. Thankyou.
969:
21:
168:
1238:
1162:
1620:
1439:
1190:
965:
915:
358:
1678:
949:
894:
629:
581:
97:
17:
397:
it as the page was already on my watchlist and I was specifically looking to organise citing of the item). Thankyou.
1189:
this is overturned in some way and there is a redirect to preserve edit history, then the target of the redirect at
468:
1378:) anyways. Otherwise it's a rewrite of the same mathematical content.It is interesting to see now that there was
1301:
1223:
1122:
1070:
808:
212:
338:
383:: (1) the script is interactive; (2) the user is responsible for any actions; (3) To quote the documentation:
1607:, especially item 2 ("The redirect might cause confusion"), I've come to agree. I've struck my comment. --
1632:
1514:
1472:
1417:
1369:
1246:
880:
849:
649:
502:
480:
402:
290:
251:
870:- I looked at the draft before coming here but wasn't convinced he's notable on his own - perhaps in time.
772:
513:
The main fault is with the closer lack or rationale. Two delete, one countered keep, and a week keep - it
1491:
1443:
1062:
472:
1467:. There is little issue in overturning and ensuring best practice, there can be dangers in endorsement.
1043:
380:
350:
1667:
1636:
1614:
1598:
1583:
1557:
1518:
1503:
1476:
1430:
1401:
1349:
1324:
1305:
1288:
1262:
1227:
1210:
1167:
1126:
1104:
1083:
1074:
1047:
938:
883:
862:
831:
812:
791:
779:
762:
744:
732:
718:
618:
568:
555:
530:
505:
484:
423:
406:
368:
294:
264:
233:
216:
199:
183:
86:
606:β The consensus is "allow review", whatever that means - I guess it means that recreation is allowed.
1464:
1460:
1297:
1219:
1118:
1090:
1066:
804:
714:
710:
447:
208:
1542:
451:
1110:
934:
820:
not my field, but 1/consensus can change and 2/musicians frequently become more notable with time.
280:
without full commitment to do it meant negotiating a redirect was a pragmatic decision. If I went
229:
117:
1335:
The history of the article has been temporarily undeleted for the purpose of this deletion review.
920:
455:
277:
273:
1628:
1624:
1611:
1594:
1580:
1554:
1510:
1499:
1468:
1412:
1365:
1361:
1275:
1271:
1250:
1242:
1198:
1194:
1159:
1029:
927:
844:
788:
759:
476:
420:
398:
365:
286:
246:
196:
1627:
keeps is an alternative way retaining the page history I believe. That might satisfy everybody.
1546:
1456:
334:
322:
224:. Woefully inadequate closing explanation for a close that does not reflect the discussion. β
1397:
1258:
1206:
1100:
645:
602:
551:
524:
242:
1058:
463:
281:
1117:, I added a long list of relevant sources and such material would helpful for further work.
1039:
1538:
1534:
1452:
1234:
874:
740:
496:
1147:
I'd just like to point out the irony of Andrew opposing copyright infringement when it's
840:
771:
in draft space. Hence the "Draft:" in the section title here. I'm betting that it was
930:
731:
in 2017 had only three participants, who erred in failing to recognize criterion #9 of
609:
542:
with no further evidence. The other provided an article in a non-reliable serial (per
225:
113:
77:
70:
1604:
1608:
1590:
1577:
1551:
1495:
1345:
1154:
827:
785:
756:
417:
362:
193:
446:. We also perhaps should not have been at AfD or here at all. The redirect used on
1393:
1317:
1281:
1254:
1202:
1096:
1080:
776:
565:
547:
520:
180:
357:, which it marks as minor edits. The place to suggest changing that would be on
333:... which is more than a wikilink and does not qualify to be marked as minor per
1659:
871:
736:
543:
493:
784:
Duh. How did I not notice that? Insufficient caffeine titer, perhaps? --
1241:). "The geometry of roots of polynomials" is pretty much the definition of
353:. That script performs multiple edits on the closer's behalf, such as the
1364:, except perhaps the example in the image that is currently attributed to
1340:
822:
1028:
The article was deleted but the nominator said content was merged into
316:. Not directly related to the AfD, but as part of the closure process,
349:
Most XfDs these days (including the one in question) are closed using
1237:) and there could be more than one polynomial equation (i.e. a
1197:
or something similar. The content of the article was that of
564:
hits, so most of those should be peer-reviewed publications.
538:. Closer rightfully ignored both the keep votes. One said
475:
and in fact may lead them from searching for it. Thankyou.
560:
Just one minor correction - the reference was to Google
1388:
1356:
1152:
1114:
1033:
1006:
992:
984:
976:
924:
686:
672:
664:
656:
354:
318:
178:
154:
140:
132:
124:
1360:
that none of the material was really copied over to
1079:
Whatever leads you to believe Xymmax was in doubt? β
375:Thanks for the guidance, I've raised points on the
1603:OK, that's a reasonable argument, and re-reading
1392:so none of that history needs to be preserved. β
1382:for the article that was never mentioned in the
450:should have indicated that was a possibility at
305:Side discussion about XFDcloser and minor edits
1037:Knowledge (XXG):Copying within Knowledge (XXG)
8:
1533:. I haven't examined the AfD in full, but
948:The following is an archived debate of the
628:The following is an archived debate of the
239:Overturn to redirect at closer's discretion
96:The following is an archived debate of the
908:
595:
518:practice before closing future debates. --
300:
63:
331:Kst - a plotting and data viewing program
1201:, but the title did not reflect that. β
925:no copyrightable content was copied into
1109:That was many years ago, when I used a
1270:do want to redirect it somewhere then
1621:Geometry of roots of real polynomials
1440:Geometry of roots of real polynomials
1362:Quadratic equation#Graphical solution
1354:It seems pretty clear looking at the
1314:The content hasn't been used though.
1199:Quadratic equation#Graphical solution
1191:Geometry of roots of real polynomials
1030:Quadratic equation#Graphical solution
966:Geometry of roots of real polynomials
928:Quadratic equation#Graphical solution
916:Geometry of roots of real polynomials
521:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
7:
1451:preference to own content. We must
511:Overturn and relist (AfD nominator).
1681:of the page listed in the heading.
897:of the page listed in the heading.
584:of the page listed in the heading.
28:
1274:is probably best, since although
329:which removed the complete line:
381:from the XDFcloser documentation
1677:The above is an archive of the
1442:. The established practice is
1151:copyright being infringed upon.
893:The above is an archive of the
751:Allow recreation, suggest draft
580:The above is an archive of the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
1490:, and thus that the procedure
1239:system of polynomial equations
540:lots of ghits, so it's notable
1:
919:β No restoration required to
321:with this summary, marked as
1531:Redirect and restore history
1704:
1637:23:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
1615:14:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
1599:09:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
1584:15:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
1558:15:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
1519:23:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
1504:09:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
1477:19:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
1431:04:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
1402:04:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
1350:03:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
1325:22:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
1306:22:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
1289:18:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
1263:19:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
1228:18:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
1211:17:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
1168:23:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
1127:15:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
1105:04:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
1084:15:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
1075:10:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
1048:09:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
884:15:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
863:04:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
832:22:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
818:Allow Review, AFD optional
813:18:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
792:15:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
780:14:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
763:14:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
745:05:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
719:05:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
619:12:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
569:13:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
556:23:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
531:04:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
506:16:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
485:10:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
469:Template:Proposed deletion
424:15:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
407:08:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
369:14:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
295:10:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
265:04:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
234:22:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
217:21:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
200:20:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
184:19:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
87:12:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
1658:to retain the history. --
243:on the closer's talk page
1684:Please do not modify it.
955:Please do not modify it.
921:preserve article history
900:Please do not modify it.
775:that prompted the DRV. β
635:Please do not modify it.
587:Please do not modify it.
103:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
1668:18:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
1488:no text has been merged
1247:real algebraic geometry
939:22:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
767:Psst. The new article
272:. I am considering a
1111:different account name
327:Removing link(s): ....
1235:plane algebraic curve
241:per the conversation
190:Void close and relist
1623:to the talk page of
1357:article pre-deletion
448:Talk:KImageMapEditor
355:removal of backlinks
1113:. For example, in
952:of the page above.
729:AFD for Lee Dae-hwi
632:of the page above.
490:Overturn and relist
377:XDFcloser talk page
270:Overturn and relist
222:Overturn and relist
205:Overturn and Relist
100:of the page above.
1625:Quadratic equation
1276:Quadratic equation
1272:Algebraic geometry
1251:algebraic geometry
1243:algebraic geometry
1195:algebraic geometry
1691:
1690:
1165:
907:
906:
877:
646:Draft:Lee Dae-hwi
617:
603:Draft:Lee Dae-hwi
594:
593:
499:
439:
438:
359:the XFD talk page
85:
1695:
1686:
1665:
1535:the general rule
1428:
1420:
1391:
1359:
1320:
1284:
1158:
1094:
1023:
1018:
1009:
995:
987:
979:
957:
909:
902:
875:
860:
852:
703:
698:
689:
675:
667:
659:
637:
616:
614:
607:
596:
589:
527:
497:
320:
301:
262:
254:
171:
166:
157:
143:
135:
127:
105:
84:
82:
75:
64:
53:
33:
1703:
1702:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1682:
1679:deletion review
1660:
1465:Graeme Bartlett
1461:Andrew Davidson
1424:
1416:
1387:
1384:most recent one
1355:
1318:
1298:Graeme Bartlett
1282:
1220:Robert McClenon
1091:Andrew Davidson
1088:
1032:(see merge here
1019:
1017:
1014:
1005:
1004:
998:
991:
990:
983:
982:
975:
974:
953:
950:deletion review
898:
895:deletion review
879:
856:
848:
805:Robert McClenon
699:
697:
694:
685:
684:
678:
671:
670:
663:
662:
655:
654:
633:
630:deletion review
610:
608:
585:
582:deletion review
529:
525:
501:
440:
339:WP:LISTCRITERIA
317:
306:
258:
250:
209:Robert McClenon
167:
165:
162:
153:
152:
146:
139:
138:
131:
130:
123:
122:
101:
98:deletion review
78:
76:
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1701:
1699:
1689:
1688:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1670:
1648:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1562:
1561:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1480:
1479:
1433:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1309:
1308:
1291:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1213:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1026:
1025:
1015:
1002:
996:
988:
980:
972:
960:
959:
944:
943:
942:
941:
905:
904:
889:
888:
887:
886:
873:
865:
834:
815:
798:
797:
796:
795:
794:
747:
706:
705:
695:
682:
676:
668:
660:
652:
640:
639:
624:
623:
622:
621:
592:
591:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
533:
519:
508:
495:
487:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
410:
409:
388:(and I regard
344:
343:
308:
307:
304:
299:
298:
297:
267:
236:
219:
202:
174:
173:
163:
150:
144:
136:
128:
120:
114:Kst (software)
108:
107:
92:
91:
90:
89:
71:Kst (software)
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1700:
1687:
1685:
1680:
1675:
1674:
1669:
1666:
1663:
1657:
1653:
1650:
1649:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1629:Djm-leighpark
1626:
1622:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1613:
1610:
1606:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1596:
1592:
1588:
1587:
1586:
1585:
1582:
1579:
1574:
1573:
1571:
1570:
1568:
1567:
1565:
1564:
1560:
1559:
1556:
1553:
1548:
1544:
1540:
1536:
1532:
1528:
1527:
1520:
1516:
1512:
1511:Djm-leighpark
1507:
1506:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1493:
1489:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1478:
1474:
1470:
1469:Djm-leighpark
1466:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1449:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1434:
1432:
1429:
1427:
1421:
1419:
1414:
1413:SportingFlyer
1410:
1407:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1390:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1374:
1371:
1367:
1366:MichaelΒ Hardy
1363:
1358:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1342:
1337:
1336:
1332:
1331:
1326:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1292:
1290:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1277:
1273:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1214:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1181:
1180:
1169:
1164:
1161:
1156:
1153:
1150:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1092:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1082:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1055:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1038:
1034:
1031:
1022:
1013:
1008:
1001:
994:
986:
978:
971:
967:
964:
963:
962:
961:
958:
956:
951:
946:
945:
940:
936:
932:
929:
926:
922:
918:
917:
913:
912:
911:
910:
903:
901:
896:
891:
890:
885:
882:
878:
872:
869:
866:
864:
861:
859:
853:
851:
846:
845:SportingFlyer
842:
838:
835:
833:
829:
825:
824:
819:
816:
814:
810:
806:
802:
799:
793:
790:
787:
783:
782:
781:
778:
774:
770:
766:
765:
764:
761:
758:
754:
752:
748:
746:
742:
738:
734:
730:
726:
723:
722:
721:
720:
716:
712:
702:
693:
688:
681:
674:
666:
658:
651:
647:
644:
643:
642:
641:
638:
636:
631:
626:
625:
620:
615:
613:
605:
604:
600:
599:
598:
597:
590:
588:
583:
578:
577:
570:
567:
563:
559:
558:
557:
553:
549:
545:
541:
537:
534:
532:
528:
522:
516:
512:
509:
507:
504:
500:
494:
491:
488:
486:
482:
478:
477:Djm-leighpark
474:
470:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
442:
441:
425:
422:
419:
414:
413:
412:
411:
408:
404:
400:
399:Djm-leighpark
396:
391:
387:
382:
378:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
367:
364:
360:
356:
352:
348:
347:
346:
345:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
319:
315:
312:
311:
310:
309:
303:
302:
296:
292:
288:
287:Djm-leighpark
283:
279:
275:
271:
268:
266:
263:
261:
255:
253:
248:
247:SportingFlyer
244:
240:
237:
235:
231:
227:
223:
220:
218:
214:
210:
206:
203:
201:
198:
195:
191:
188:
187:
186:
185:
182:
179:
170:
161:
156:
149:
142:
134:
126:
119:
115:
112:
111:
110:
109:
106:
104:
99:
94:
93:
88:
83:
81:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
59:14 April 2019
57:
50:
49:2019 April 15
45:
41:
36:
35:2019 April 13
23:
19:
1683:
1676:
1661:
1655:
1651:
1575:
1572:
1569:
1566:
1563:
1530:
1529:
1492:WP:MERGETEXT
1487:
1447:
1444:WP:MERGETEXT
1435:
1423:
1415:
1408:
1389:article then
1380:previous AfD
1372:
1339:
1334:
1333:
1316:
1315:
1293:
1280:
1279:
1215:
1186:
1182:
1148:
1053:
1027:
954:
947:
914:
899:
892:
868:Allow review
867:
855:
847:
837:Allow review
836:
821:
817:
801:Allow Review
800:
768:
750:
749:
724:
707:
634:
627:
611:
601:
586:
579:
561:
539:
535:
514:
510:
489:
473:WP:CONTESTED
459:
443:
394:
389:
384:
330:
326:
313:
269:
257:
249:
238:
221:
204:
189:
175:
102:
95:
79:
74:β Relisted.
69:
58:
1605:WP:R#DELETE
1040:Christian75
733:WP:MUSICBIO
1543:WP:COPYVIO
1193:should be
711:Otterlyhwi
612:Sandstein
544:Ulrichsweb
526:reply here
452:WP:PRODNOM
386:remove it:
177:criticism.
80:Sandstein
44:2019 April
1155:Hijiri 88
1119:Andrew D.
1115:this edit
1067:Andrew D.
1063:supervote
931:Abecedare
773:this edit
456:WP:BEFORE
390:sometimes
351:XFDcloser
285:Thankyou.
278:WP:RESCUE
274:WP:RESCUE
226:SmokeyJoe
1609:RoySmith
1591:D.Lazard
1578:RoySmith
1552:RoySmith
1547:WP:CHEAP
1496:D.Lazard
1457:WP:CFORK
1436:Overturn
1376:contribs
1294:Overturn
1216:Redirect
1054:Overturn
786:RoySmith
757:RoySmith
725:Overturn
464:WP:BAITs
418:RoySmith
363:RoySmith
335:WP:MINOR
323:WP:MINOR
194:RoySmith
20: |
1652:Endorse
1409:Endorse
1394:MarkH21
1319:Hut 8.5
1283:Hut 8.5
1255:MarkH21
1203:MarkH21
1183:Comment
1097:MarkH21
1081:Cryptic
1059:WP:DGFA
1021:restore
985:history
777:Cryptic
701:restore
665:history
566:Samsara
562:Scholar
548:Nyttend
536:Endorse
462:simply
444:Comment
395:spotted
314:Comment
282:WP:BOLD
181:Samsara
169:restore
133:history
1612:(talk)
1581:(talk)
1555:(talk)
1539:WP:BLP
1453:WP:AGF
923:since
789:(talk)
760:(talk)
727:- the
421:(talk)
366:(talk)
361:. --
197:(talk)
1448:merge
1346:talk
1007:watch
1000:links
841:WP:G4
828:talk
737:Zanhe
687:watch
680:links
515:could
155:watch
148:links
52:: -->
16:<
1664:avix
1656:need
1633:talk
1595:talk
1515:talk
1500:talk
1473:talk
1463:and
1398:talk
1370:talk
1302:talk
1259:talk
1253:. β
1224:talk
1207:talk
1123:talk
1101:talk
1071:talk
1044:talk
993:logs
977:edit
970:talk
935:talk
876:Talk
809:talk
741:talk
715:talk
673:logs
657:edit
650:talk
552:talk
498:Talk
481:talk
454:and
403:talk
291:talk
230:talk
213:talk
141:logs
125:edit
118:talk
32:<
1341:DGG
1149:his
1012:XfD
1010:) (
823:DGG
769:was
755:--
692:XfD
690:) (
160:XfD
158:) (
22:Log
1635:)
1597:)
1541:,
1517:)
1502:)
1475:)
1400:)
1348:)
1338:.
1304:)
1261:)
1226:)
1209:)
1187:If
1185::
1166:)
1163:γγ
1125:)
1103:)
1073:)
1065:.
1046:)
937:)
881:π§
830:)
811:)
743:)
717:)
554:)
503:π§
483:)
405:)
325:,
293:)
232:)
215:)
42::
1662:T
1631:(
1593:(
1513:(
1498:(
1471:(
1426:C
1422:Β·
1418:T
1396:(
1373:Β·
1368:(
1344:(
1300:(
1257:(
1222:(
1205:(
1160:θ
1157:(
1121:(
1099:(
1093::
1089:@
1069:(
1042:(
1024:)
1016:|
1003:|
997:|
989:|
981:|
973:|
968:(
933:(
858:C
854:Β·
850:T
826:(
807:(
739:(
713:(
704:)
696:|
683:|
677:|
669:|
661:|
653:|
648:(
550:(
523:|
479:(
401:(
289:(
260:C
256:Β·
252:T
228:(
211:(
172:)
164:|
151:|
145:|
137:|
129:|
121:|
116:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.