744:"substantial" is somewhat subjective, a speedily deleting admin should be very conservative, in a discussion that's not as required (analogous to A7 vs. WP:N). If we decided the deletion was based on a pseudo-G5 reasoning, then any interested editor could re-create the article and G4 wouldn't apply, so whether or not it's a valid thing to do is a pseudo-academic question. We have a discussion where literally zero people make any kind of substantial argument for keep ... there's no way to close it but delete. All we can do is provide clarity going forward (or, if we can't, then re-open the discussion).
796:. Why would you want to overturn the deletion of those articles admittedly created by a now-blocked editor (who seems to have been socking at the time) with no significant contributions by anyone else? I am not fond og G5 myself, but it is current policy, and has consensus. Note that any other editor in good standing is free to create a new article on those topics, subject to our various inclusion policies, of course. I would be willing, on request, to send a list of any sources cited in the deleted version to any editor planning on creating such a new article, so no nothing much should be lost.
1702:, as there are tens of thousands of media companies in the world with hundreds of thousands of owners. Being someone's son or brother is also not a CCSI. The '9970 version, I think, gets past A7, but not the '4399 (and I'm not sure about '6089, either). So, endorse that deletion but allow recreation of a policy-compliant article. By the way, we often call repeated recreation of an article "disruptive", but sometimes it's a sign that AfD !voters got it wrong, or just that no one has created the right version of the article yet, and I think this is one such example.
650:
blocked anyway? I still don't know who he is. I have contributed to the battle of Aden, it is significantly covered in the media just Google it and you will find a lot of sources. The battle was between the government and those who want to separate South Yemen from North Yemen and they were supported by the UAE. Recently an investigation by the US is initiated by the pentagon to investigate whether US weapons were used by those separatists in the battle
653:. Many people killed in this battle. I really don't think this is NOTNEWS and all votes for the NOTNEWS should have been dismissed. The closer shouldn't just count votes, instead he should have checked how solid are these arguments calling for the deletion, that's IMHO, especially that there are lots of articles tagged. Again if the deletion was about G5 then could I recreate these articles? I have made contributions there. Thanks in advance.--
1436:. I question: what was the criterion for speedy deletion? It should have required at least a cursory discussion to have the pretense of caring about less active editors' work. These kind of deletions have the chilling effect of suppression of information about media-politician nexus. If Nixon's grandson owned Washington Post and MSNBC, would there be no Knowledge article about him?
1495:- yeah, perhaps sketchy as a A7, but would've been a valid G4, and the deleted draft had a snowball in a gasoline suit's chance in hell of surviving AfD like that. So, if someone wants to work on a draft, great. Otherwise - I'm not totally sold that it's A7-able, but there's no cause for undeletion. Oh, and since it's asked: the usual criterion for inclusion in Knowledge is
117:
of the confusion stems from the AFD itself where not all articles were bundled in right away. It's a bit of a mess, really. At least one of the argument endorses a relist without any bundling - effectively new AFD(s) for (each) article(s) - citing the confusion about what argument applies to which article, in both AFD and DRV, and another editor below seconds this concern.
1002:. Consensus to delete that article is unclear. I am not commenting on the other articles as we've not been asked to look at them, and it would be better if someone did want us to look at them to list them, separately from this one. I think we can get lost if we try to tangle together different arguments and rationales, especially when we haven't been asked to.
905:. However, I have considerable sympathy with the editors above whose contributions have been summarily erased through no fault of their own; in a collaborative project where all people get for their edits is a writer's credit, erasing their contributions is distinctly suboptimal. And I think we should have an article with this title.
305:, that's a perfectly good rationale which nobody tried to rebut. The accusations of censorship and pro-Israel bias are completely unsubstantiated. I should point out that the claim by FOARP in the AfD that the article was written before the creator was blocked is incorrect, the article was created by a block-evading sockpuppet.
607:, only 1 did, while 1 opposed. This article was contributed by several other users, who did not get to vote, it is a very significant event. Absolute censorship to delete this based on the creator being blocked. Do you endorse this ones deletion along side others, if so can you state why you support the deletion of
852:, the nom above only made a case for overturning the deletion of the one article. I, and I think most of the others who commented in favor of an overturn, similarly were only talking about the one article "2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq". Do ytou have a policy-based reason to overturn the othe deletions as well?
1217:
this article. It's notable & would have been soon been created even if the blocked user hasn't done so. When I edited it, I wasn't aware that the creator had been blocked; all or most of the rest of the article's editors were probably likewise unaware. I don't know anything about the blocked user
1037:
The original nom seemed to think that there were enough other contributions than none of them were speediable. I've no clue who is right (different people may have different definitions of "significant" in this context) as I can't see them. I'd rather they be undeleted and we reach consensus on the
699:
As far as the discussion goes, one editor invoked NOTNEWS, and the only response was non-committal about whether it applied. Created in violation of ban/block was more heavily invoked (but was at least someone rejected it; though, I'm not able to easily parse how accurate that is, and the discussion
223:
This article was deleted because the creator had been blocked. Despite being heavily contributed by other users and being a very major event. It did not have full consensus for deletion at the AfD and I doubt the admin paid attention whether others had contributed to this page or not. The deletion of
116:
Whether there is a consensus solely about the Israel article or also about the other topics bundled in is not really clear from the discussion - the header is only about the Israel article but a lot of opinions are prefixed with "overturn all" and most don't specify an article at all. Apparently part
1567:
people) and most importantly it was completely unsourced. Merely owning media companies doesn't necessarily make somebody notable at all, which counts is if there's any substantial coverage of that person in third-party reliable sources. I think the comparisons made by the OP are somewhat overblown,
466:
argument was only brought forward by one user, and neither accepted nor refuted by others in the discussion, it cannot be said to have consensus. Most of the discussion focused on the blocked status od the creator, and ther it was said that this article was significantly different in having edits by
108:
insofar as most people consider the arguments against the G5-based argument - that the page had substantial edits by non-blocked/banned editors - valid and that there was too little discussion to establish that NOTNEWS was applicable (although one editor dissented). Some people also want a relist or
981:
I looked at the history of each of the deleted articles bundeld in the AfD after this DRV discussion started. All of them, except for "2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq", had no substantial edits by anyone other than the now-blocked editor. Any other admin is of course able to double check that right
727:
includes the CSD reasons by explicit reference. So any comments favoring deletion based on G5 are not valid, and any based on mixed reason are not valid to the extent that they relied on G5 (including such reasons as "by a blocked sock" which is in effect an invocation of G5). I have given my views
1601:
check was done. It should have been relisted, but it could not have been closed as anything but delete if it was to be closed when it was. Allowing a draft prmits this to be developed, and an editor to explore if sufficient sources can be found to clearly establish notability. There seems no issue
714:
As to the G5 issue, it is unquestionable that this was created by an editor now blocked, and who is at least stated to have been improperly socking at that time. That editor wrote much of the text before anyone else edited the article. The history also clearly establishes that other editors edited
667:
So, yes, if an article is deleted because it's created primarily/exclusively by a blocked/banned user while they're blocked/banned, then anyone else could recreate it without issue. If it's deleted because NOTNEWS, then you'd need to write a new article that addressed that concern or it could be
625:
This isn't really true - the nominator is also implicitly arguing for deletion. The AfD was open for seven days, which is standard. A lot of the discussion is kinda vague - I probably would've relisted for better clarity, but that's a very subjective judgement. And, of course, when you call it
649:
If this deletion was because the user who created these articles was blocked –although that's not what the votes arguments say– then could I recreate these articles? I am not block and is there any copyright issues if I copied the deleted articles and recreated them? Also who is the user who was
1597:. I can't endorse the A7. A G4 might have been valid, but it wasn't tagged or logged as G4. The AfD was a very poor one, not addressing significance of the associations of Sharma, nor the plausible chance that sufficient sources to demonstrate notability exist, and there is no indication that a
1566:
not a valid A7 because it stated that the subject owns several companies which we have articles on, but I think it's a valid G4 per the previous AfD. This version was much shorter than the AfDed version, didn't include any new claims to notability (unless you count being related to a couple of
1479:
the benefit of the doubt on this one. The best way forward, would be to write a new draft, complete with solid sources. If you can do that, I'm sure there won't be any issue accepting it. If you can't, then haggling over whether this should have been deleted via CSD vs AfD is just silly
467:
multiple editors known not to be socks. That means that the fact of the article creator being blocked becomes totally irrelevant, and all delete (and keep) votes based solely on it must be discounted. That leaves one editor favoring deletion on NOTNEWS grounds, and one favoring keep as
549:, 1 and 1. Furthermore, regarding rest of the articles, I feel they need to be restored and voted again because none of the other contributors got a chance to comment. I can't remember who those users are since the histories have been deleted, though it looks like
578:. The lack of clarity as to whether it's closed as a pseudo-G5 or a NOTNEWS is liable to be a problem going forward (if someone wants to take another stab at the articles, they deserve to know whether they're going to run afoul of G4), so I'd also be fine with
524:. The original silly deletion was a speedy deletion because the editor who created these articles is blocked. I have contributed to these articles myself. I find this deletion unreasonable. The battle of Aden was significantly reported in the news.--
1475:; the deleted page (which I've tempundeleted for review) claims he owns a TV network, which seems like a plausible claim of significance. But, given the long history of multiple deletions, and that there were zero sources, I'm willing to give
918:
From the draft, we'd be looking for established editors to check, confirm, edit as necessary to remove anything that's in bad faith or fails to meet core policies, and then restore to mainspace when they're satisfied it's appropriate to do
1423:
A quick Google search shows that the man is far too notable to not have a page on
Knowledge. He owns a media conglomerate comprising of several news channels and newspapers. He also is the son of an influential and famous politician
1630:
and was nominated for deletion again, but this time successfully. After no involvement for seven days it was relisted and got one delete support that the mentions in sources were non-trivial. On looking at the article, this source:
1698:, per ST's explanation above, to which I'll add that '4399 didn't comply with BLP but '9970 appears to, and if you add the new sources e.g. from '6089, then it's no longer a G4 candidate. I disagree that owning a media company =
471:. Sounds like a no-consensus result to me on this article. If someone wants to renominate to focus on the not-news issue, so be it. I won't express a view on that issue here, because it is out of scope for this DRV, I believe.
668:
speedily redeleted. Which is why I suggested if the close is endorsed and the article left deleted, we should at least make explicit the deletion reason(s), as the current discussion doesn't make it entirely unambiguous.
120:
One editor wants to restore as draft, citing concerns about whether G5 or NOTNEWS would apply; this stance has not received much input. The ill-supported accusation of censorship on the other hand has not convinced
1638:. However, there was no challenge to the trivial mention claim, so the article was deleted Oct 2014 on the understanding that the subject was non-notable due to lack of coverage. It was recreated Nov 2014:
383:
just because they were created by a block-evading sockpuppet. That may be rationale for an administrator to hide the sockpuppet's revisions, but the article itself should have a fulsome debate. --
943:
Each article needs to be looked at for who has contributed and for NOTNEWS. The discussion had so far just doesn't get me to believe more than one person (plus the nom) looked at each article.
431:
No one "short-circuted" deletion, the AfD remaiend open na full 7 days if I am not mistaken. That is normal procedue. The question is whether the AfD clsoe was proper and compliant with policy.
1499:. Speedy deletion occurred on the judgement the article gave no indication the subject might meet that criterion. That's debatable, but it was previously deleted due to the discussion here:
915:. And Knowledge isn't the news, but we rightly have articles on current events as they unfold. When something's attracting significant international interest, NOTNEWS needs to give way.
626:"absolute censorship", you completely destroy any credibility you have. From the discussion, the only choices an admin could've reasonably be made were to close as delete, or relist.
1059:
that started this threadf which talks about any of the other articels that were bundeled with "2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq" in the AfD. What are you seeing to this effect, please?
682:
It can't be about NOTNEWS. The article has many citations and the battle was for months, dozons were killed in the battle. There is still a verison of the article in Google cache
275:
Also note that the 4 articles that were added to this AfD were nominated after the first delete !vote was cast, and the second delete !vote specifically excluded this article. –
247:
206:
194:
90:
1218:
or his edits, but I disagree with undoing the good work of other editors solely because the creator was blocked. The same issue is true of some other articles, including the
715:
the article after the blocked editor. I just reviewed the history and I count more than a dozen such editors, and I don't think anyone is claiming that they are socks.
907:
In the matter of NOTNEWS, well, basically, my position is bugger NOTNEWS. It's a really unhelpful rule. Knowledge isn't a cookbook, but we rightly have an article on
1500:
1406:
215:
48:
34:
570:- okay, so, a real toughie. The discussion couldn't have been closed any other way; three delete arguments, one keep with no real rationale, one comment. It
228:
of an event possibly critical of Israel. The creator being blocked is not a reason to delete a major event article which is contributed a lot by other users.
1645:
43:
1635:
gives in depth information on the subject. That source does not appear to be a media organisation owned by the subject, and has a named editorial staff:
491:
My !vote rationale below covers "the editors above," but specifically, per {{rto|DESiegel}), who has made the case to overturn so well. Thank you! --
1394:
1038:
issue for all of them. But yeah, the one requested sounds to be different than the rest and probably shouldn't have been part of the bundle.
651:
164:
582:. I don't think there's a consensus here for a deletion based on #NOTNEWS, so I don't think it can be explicitly reclosed that way?
1415:
1138:
39:
1454:
via the afd, not the a7 technically. I see very little non-trivial coverage and being a relative of notable people is meaningless.
930:
999:
608:
604:
546:
542:
160:
98:
70:
1608:
1199:
1065:
1027:
988:
876:
858:
802:
734:
477:
437:
109:
say "endorse but relist anyways" owing to concerns about the low participation and not very thorough analysis in the AFD, so
21:
250:
that this article should be deleted. The other outcomes of that discussion are fine, but this one should have been kept.
835:
507:
399:
1503:, and the new version doesn't fix the problems noted there, so it's eligible to be speedily deleted for that reason.
254:, the original reason for the nomination, does not apply as this article was extensively worked on by other editors. –
1648:
which not not in the deleted version, and is pretty substantial. So, we come to the latest incarnation - this version
1249:
893:. In the matter of whether site-banned editors' contributions can always be removed, I refer you to the consensus
1742:
1621:
and deleted same day as a G11. A new article was created in March 2014 and reached this state in
September 2014:
1344:
1292:
144:
17:
1632:
683:
574:
been relisted, which might've been the wiser choice; I would certainly be fine with this DRV being closed as
1317:– Deletion endorsed. If somebody wants to bring this to a usable state, they can request draftification via
1107:
130:
1731:
1714:
1674:
1613:
1585:
1552:
1534:
1512:
1487:
1463:
1445:
1333:
1277:
1253:
1231:
1070:
1047:
1032:
993:
969:
952:
934:
881:
840:
807:
783:
753:
739:
709:
694:
677:
662:
635:
620:
591:
562:
533:
512:
482:
442:
423:
404:
359:
344:
315:
291:
270:
237:
134:
1441:
1245:
1157:
379:, I respectfully disagree that we should short-circuit debate and arbitrarily delete articles that may be
225:
1364:
1227:
1143:
690:
658:
529:
321:
1655:, which our article says is: "a media group founded, owned and promoted by Kartikeya Sharma". So, yes,
328:. That argument really doesn't apply to this article though, and no one in that AfD argued it does. –
1727:
1530:
1496:
1459:
1433:
926:
908:
897:. As I said at the time, I don't fully agree with that consensus, but the consensus does exist that
779:
724:
616:
558:
545:, meanwhile one user (myself) opposed the deletion of all. Certainly not a clear consensus to delete
233:
125:
This was a somewhat complicated deletion review, hence the somewhat complicated conclusion as well.
1652:
1572:
1651:
was created four days ago, and then speedied under A7, despite the credible claim of ownership of
1219:
1709:
1670:
1606:
1484:
1197:
1063:
1025:
1007:
986:
965:
902:
874:
856:
800:
732:
644:
475:
435:
126:
81:
Well, first off it seems like there is some confusion here about whether the deletion was about
1083:
Edits to "2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq" bu editors other than the original blocked creator:
700:
isn't a good guide). Maybe re-open is the wiser approach here, given all the lack of clarity.
541:
Also, there were two who voted to delete the articles and only one of them voted to delete the
1437:
1169:
463:
325:
302:
82:
1598:
1360:
1318:
1313:
1223:
1113:
1101:
1086:
827:
686:
654:
550:
525:
499:
391:
1723:
1644:
and speedied as being substantially identical. But the new article contained this source:
1547:
1526:
1507:
1455:
1266:
agreed, that is the right course. Anyone who wishes to nominate for AfD agains can do so.
1190:
Over all, article went from 10,174 bytes to 15,293 bytes during the course of these edits.
1056:
1043:
1017:, my response was to those above saying "overturn all" and particularly to the comment by
948:
920:
793:
775:
748:
704:
672:
630:
612:
586:
554:
339:
286:
265:
229:
1699:
1324:
1175:
1163:
1119:
1705:
1666:
1603:
1481:
1476:
1273:
1194:
1151:
1060:
1022:
1014:
1003:
983:
978:
961:
912:
898:
871:
853:
797:
729:
716:
472:
432:
410:
380:
349:
Er, no, Clarityfiend clearly thought that rationale applied to this article as well.
94:
86:
1578:
1568:
1472:
1425:
723:
as part of the defination of pages deletable under G5. The relevant policy section
416:
376:
352:
308:
251:
93:
which got the first version of the article deleted and a second also deleted under
1429:
866:
849:
820:
492:
428:
384:
1428:, the brother of one of the most infamous convicted murderers in modern India,
97:. There is also confusion about whether we are discussing the deletion only of
1722:
low participation but was relisted once and this is not an incorrect reading.
1544:
1540:
1504:
1092:
1052:
1039:
1018:
944:
745:
701:
669:
627:
600:
583:
329:
276:
255:
1134:
1125:
1021:
which was just above yours -- I was confused as to who I was responding to.
1268:
1662:, using some of the updated sources and information from this version:
1627:. It continued to slowly develop until it reached this stage in 2017:
1636:
1593:
The A7 was not even arguably valid, owing a major network is a clear
911:. Knowledge isn't a style guide, but we rightly have an article on
1624:
when it was nominated for deletion, but the template was removed:
1594:
1521:
This is gonna be my go to for snow deletes from now on. Thanks!
685:. I really can't understand why editors said it is NOTNEWS.--
409:
That's not what I said, and that opinion does contradict
101:
or also that of the other articles discussed in the AFD.
1695:
1691:
1683:
1663:
1660:
1649:
1642:
1639:
1628:
1625:
1622:
1619:
1401:
1387:
1379:
1371:
894:
201:
187:
179:
171:
248:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Battle of Aden (2019)
1193:People can perhaps better judge "significant now.
1575:doesn't seem to be in the same league as MSNBC.
1501:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Kartikeya Sharma
1095:applied protection and added a protection icon.
104:It seems like the consensus is leaning towards
8:
1659:all the deletions and restore this version
1523:snowball in a gasoline suit's chance in hell
1432:and a relative of former President of India
721:... that have no substantial edits by others
1343:The following is an archived debate of the
143:The following is an archived debate of the
1306:
76:Overturn all and relist, as separate AFDs.
63:
1602:other than notability on the table here.
1571:isn't nearly as influential as Nixon and
603:3 users did not endorse the deletion of
1522:
792:A reason or two would not come amiss,
720:
468:
580:endorse, reclose as explicitly CSD#G5
7:
1055:I don't see anythign in the post by
1745:of the page listed in the heading.
1295:of the page listed in the heading.
1172:added roughly 2800 bytes of content
246:– there were no arguments made at
224:this page is total censorship and
89:, both of which were cited in the
28:
1139:Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps
1131:Citation bot (activated by Nurg)
1010:) 20:03, 30 November 2019, (UTC)
819:per nom and the editors above. --
1741:The above is an archive of the
1291:The above is an archive of the
1000:2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq
609:2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq
605:2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq
547:2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq
543:2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq
301:the rationale for deletion was
161:2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq
99:2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq
71:2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq
1539:I think I stole the line from
1181:KasimMejia 5 edits during AfD
863:19:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
1:
1675:19:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
1614:03:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
1586:23:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
1553:16:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
1535:16:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
1513:16:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
1488:15:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
1464:15:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
1446:14:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
1098:Jim Michael fixed a citation
1048:21:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
1033:20:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
994:18:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
970:18:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
953:01:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
935:00:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
901:is a higher commandment than
882:20:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
841:17:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
808:21:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
784:21:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
754:08:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
740:19:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
710:10:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
695:10:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
678:09:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
663:09:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
636:08:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
621:08:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
592:07:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
563:07:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
534:02:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
513:17:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
483:02:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
405:17:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
360:07:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
345:02:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
316:22:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
292:20:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
271:20:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
238:17:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
78:Bunch of considerations here:
1732:04:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
1715:07:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
1694:with new sources, e.g. from
1618:Article was created in 2011
1334:13:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
1278:08:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
1254:06:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
1232:04:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
1160:three edits adding 200 bytes
1071:03:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
728:on the NOTNEWS issue above.
443:19:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
424:15:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
135:17:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
1469:Weak endorse; write a draft
576:Endorse, but relist anyways
1768:
1591:Allow recreation in draft
1104:Fixed a link to a DAB page
1688:allow recreation/draftify
1148:KasimMejia ADDED TEMPLATE
941:relist, ideally unbundled
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
1748:Please do not modify it.
1350:Please do not modify it.
1298:Please do not modify it.
1137:added information about
960:. Consensus is unclear.
150:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
1471:. This was a marginal
469:important recent events
998:I have only looked at
1720:Weak endorse or draft
1595:claim of significance
1154:nominaed for deletion
1110:fixed a repeated link
322:Battle of Aden (2019)
1696:this version ('6089)
1692:this version ('9970)
1684:this version ('4399)
1497:Knowledge:Notability
1480:wiki-lawyering. --
1434:Shankar Dayal Sharma
1166:semi-automated fixes
909:Chicken tikka masala
773:Overturn all of them
539:Overturn all of them
522:Overturn all of them
1653:Itv Network (India)
1573:the network he owns
1347:of the page above.
1178:spelling correction
1128:Multiple copy edits
147:of the page above.
1108:Here come the Suns
895:at this discussion
320:The rationale for
1755:
1754:
1610:DESiegel Contribs
1332:
1305:
1304:
1246:Anthony Appleyard
1201:DESiegel Contribs
1158:Anthony Appleyard
1067:DESiegel Contribs
1029:DESiegel Contribs
990:DESiegel Contribs
933:
878:DESiegel Contribs
860:DESiegel Contribs
804:DESiegel Contribs
736:DESiegel Contribs
648:
479:DESiegel Contribs
439:DESiegel Contribs
1759:
1750:
1713:
1712:
1581:
1569:the guy's father
1550:
1510:
1452:Endorse deletion
1418:
1413:
1404:
1390:
1382:
1374:
1361:Kartikeya Sharma
1352:
1331:
1329:
1322:
1314:Kartikeya Sharma
1307:
1300:
1144:Takinginterest01
1116:fixed references
925:
891:Restore as draft
870:
838:
830:
751:
719:says explicitly
707:
675:
642:
633:
589:
553:is one of them.
510:
502:
419:
402:
394:
355:
342:
337:
311:
289:
284:
268:
263:
218:
213:
204:
190:
182:
174:
152:
64:
59:26 November 2019
53:
49:2019 November 27
35:2019 November 25
33:
1767:
1766:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1746:
1743:deletion review
1708:
1703:
1611:
1579:
1548:
1508:
1414:
1412:
1409:
1400:
1399:
1393:
1386:
1385:
1378:
1377:
1370:
1369:
1348:
1345:deletion review
1325:
1323:
1296:
1293:deletion review
1244:Now undeleted.
1202:
1089:moved the page.
1068:
1030:
991:
879:
864:
861:
834:
826:
805:
749:
737:
705:
673:
631:
587:
506:
498:
480:
440:
417:
398:
390:
353:
340:
330:
309:
287:
277:
266:
256:
226:WP:GRAVEDANCING
214:
212:
209:
200:
199:
193:
186:
185:
178:
177:
170:
169:
148:
145:deletion review
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1765:
1763:
1753:
1752:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1717:
1677:
1641:, then tagged
1616:
1609:
1588:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1516:
1515:
1490:
1466:
1421:
1420:
1410:
1397:
1391:
1383:
1375:
1367:
1355:
1354:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1303:
1302:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1200:
1191:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1179:
1173:
1167:
1161:
1155:
1149:
1146:
1141:
1132:
1129:
1123:
1117:
1111:
1105:
1099:
1096:
1090:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1066:
1050:
1028:
989:
955:
938:
887:
886:
885:
884:
877:
859:
844:
843:
813:
812:
811:
810:
803:
787:
786:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
735:
640:
639:
638:
595:
594:
565:
536:
518:
517:
516:
515:
486:
485:
478:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
438:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
296:
295:
294:
221:
220:
210:
197:
191:
183:
175:
167:
155:
154:
139:
138:
123:
122:
118:
114:
102:
79:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1764:
1751:
1749:
1744:
1739:
1738:
1733:
1729:
1725:
1721:
1718:
1716:
1711:
1707:
1701:
1697:
1693:
1689:
1685:
1681:
1678:
1676:
1672:
1668:
1664:
1661:
1658:
1654:
1650:
1647:
1643:
1640:
1637:
1634:
1629:
1626:
1623:
1620:
1617:
1615:
1612:
1607:
1605:
1600:
1596:
1592:
1589:
1587:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1574:
1570:
1565:
1564:Endorse as G4
1562:
1561:
1554:
1551:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1532:
1528:
1524:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1514:
1511:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1491:
1489:
1486:
1483:
1478:
1477:User:RHaworth
1474:
1470:
1467:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1453:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1417:
1408:
1403:
1396:
1389:
1381:
1373:
1366:
1362:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1353:
1351:
1346:
1341:
1340:
1335:
1330:
1328:
1320:
1316:
1315:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1301:
1299:
1294:
1289:
1288:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1270:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1216:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1203:
1198:
1196:
1192:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1180:
1177:
1174:
1171:
1168:
1165:
1162:
1159:
1156:
1153:
1150:
1147:
1145:
1142:
1140:
1136:
1133:
1130:
1127:
1124:
1121:
1118:
1115:
1112:
1109:
1106:
1103:
1100:
1097:
1094:
1091:
1088:
1085:
1084:
1082:
1072:
1069:
1064:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1051:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1031:
1026:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1011:
1009:
1005:
1001:
997:
996:
995:
992:
987:
985:
980:
976:
973:
972:
971:
967:
963:
959:
956:
954:
950:
946:
942:
939:
937:
936:
932:
928:
924:
923:
916:
914:
913:Singular they
910:
904:
900:
896:
892:
889:
888:
883:
880:
875:
873:
868:
862:
857:
855:
851:
848:
847:
846:
845:
842:
839:
837:
831:
829:
824:
823:
818:
815:
814:
809:
806:
801:
799:
795:
791:
790:
789:
788:
785:
781:
777:
774:
771:
770:
755:
752:
747:
743:
742:
741:
738:
733:
731:
726:
725:WP:DEL-REASON
722:
718:
713:
712:
711:
708:
703:
698:
697:
696:
692:
688:
684:
681:
680:
679:
676:
671:
666:
665:
664:
660:
656:
652:
646:
645:edit conflict
641:
637:
634:
629:
624:
623:
622:
618:
614:
610:
606:
602:
599:
598:
597:
596:
593:
590:
585:
581:
577:
573:
569:
566:
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
544:
540:
537:
535:
531:
527:
523:
520:
519:
514:
511:
509:
503:
501:
496:
495:
490:
489:
488:
487:
484:
481:
476:
474:
470:
465:
461:
458:
457:
444:
441:
436:
434:
430:
427:
426:
425:
422:
421:
420:
412:
408:
407:
406:
403:
401:
395:
393:
388:
387:
382:
378:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
361:
358:
357:
356:
348:
347:
346:
343:
338:
336:
335:
327:
323:
319:
318:
317:
314:
313:
312:
304:
300:
297:
293:
290:
285:
283:
282:
274:
273:
272:
269:
264:
262:
261:
253:
249:
245:
242:
241:
240:
239:
235:
231:
227:
217:
208:
203:
196:
189:
181:
173:
166:
162:
159:
158:
157:
156:
153:
151:
146:
141:
140:
137:
136:
132:
128:
127:Jo-Jo Eumerus
119:
115:
112:
107:
103:
100:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
44:2019 November
41:
36:
23:
19:
1747:
1740:
1719:
1687:
1682:deletion of
1679:
1656:
1590:
1577:
1576:
1563:
1492:
1468:
1451:
1438:Trickipaedia
1426:Venod Sharma
1422:
1349:
1342:
1326:
1312:
1297:
1290:
1267:
1220:Kulp bombing
1214:
1170:Virtualerian
974:
957:
940:
921:
917:
906:
890:
833:
825:
821:
817:Overturn all
816:
772:
579:
575:
571:
567:
538:
521:
505:
497:
493:
459:
415:
414:
397:
389:
385:
351:
350:
333:
331:
307:
306:
298:
280:
278:
259:
257:
243:
222:
149:
142:
124:
110:
105:
75:
69:
58:
1430:Manu Sharma
1224:Jim Michael
1114:Greyshark09
1102:Narky Blert
1087:Jim Michael
903:WP:PRESERVE
687:SharabSalam
655:SharabSalam
551:SharabSalam
526:SharabSalam
1724:Lightburst
1541:Dave Barry
1527:Praxidicae
1456:Praxidicae
1327:Sandstein
1057:KasimMejia
1013:I'm sorry
922:S Marshall
822:Doug Mehus
794:Lightburst
776:Lightburst
613:KasimMejia
555:KasimMejia
494:Doug Mehus
464:WP:NOTNEWS
386:Doug Mehus
326:WP:NOTNEWS
303:WP:NOTNEWS
230:KasimMejia
91:AFD debate
83:WP:NOTNEWS
1599:WP:BEFORE
1319:WP:REFUND
1176:Orenburg1
1164:DannyS712
717:WP:CSD#G5
95:WP:CSD#G4
87:WP:CSD#G5
85:or about
1667:SilkTork
1657:overturn
1646:HuffPost
1633:MXMIndia
1482:RoySmith
1152:Onel5969
1122:AWB edit
1015:SilkTork
1004:SilkTork
979:SilkTork
962:SilkTork
572:could've
460:Overturn
413:anyway.
244:Overturn
113:as well.
106:overturn
20: |
1700:WP:CCSI
1680:Endorse
1580:Hut 8.5
1493:Comment
1416:restore
1380:history
1215:Restore
975:Comment
568:Comment
418:Hut 8.5
381:notable
377:Hut 8.5
354:Hut 8.5
310:Hut 8.5
299:Endorse
216:restore
180:history
121:anyone.
1485:(talk)
1120:GünniX
958:Relist
899:WP:BMB
867:Dmehus
850:Dmehus
429:Dmehus
411:policy
111:relist
1706:Leviv
1690:of
1473:WP:A7
1402:watch
1395:links
1274:talk
1093:Bradv
1053:Hobit
1040:Hobit
1019:Hobit
982:now.
945:Hobit
601:WilyD
202:watch
195:links
52:: -->
16:<
1728:talk
1671:talk
1545:Wily
1531:talk
1505:Wily
1460:talk
1442:talk
1388:logs
1372:edit
1365:talk
1250:talk
1228:talk
1126:Nurg
1044:talk
1008:talk
966:talk
949:talk
919:so.—
780:talk
746:Wily
702:Wily
691:talk
670:Wily
659:talk
628:Wily
617:talk
584:Wily
559:talk
530:talk
462:The
332:brad
324:was
279:brad
258:brad
234:talk
188:logs
172:edit
165:talk
131:talk
32:<
1710:ich
1604:DES
1407:XfD
1405:) (
1269:DGG
1195:DES
1135:X1\
1061:DES
1023:DES
984:DES
872:DES
854:DES
798:DES
730:DES
473:DES
433:DES
207:XfD
205:) (
22:Log
1730:)
1704:–
1686:,
1673:)
1665:.
1543:.
1533:)
1525:.
1462:)
1444:)
1321:.
1276:)
1252:)
1230:)
1222:.
1046:)
977:,
968:)
951:)
782:)
693:)
661:)
619:)
611:?
561:)
532:)
341:🍁
288:🍁
267:🍁
252:G5
236:)
133:)
74:–
42::
1726:(
1669:(
1549:D
1529:(
1509:D
1458:(
1440:(
1419:)
1411:|
1398:|
1392:|
1384:|
1376:|
1368:|
1363:(
1272:(
1248:(
1226:(
1042:(
1006:(
964:(
947:(
931:C
929:/
927:T
869::
865:@
836:C
832:·
828:T
778:(
750:D
706:D
689:(
674:D
657:(
647:)
643:(
632:D
615:(
588:D
557:(
528:(
508:C
504:·
500:T
400:C
396:·
392:T
334:v
281:v
260:v
232:(
219:)
211:|
198:|
192:|
184:|
176:|
168:|
163:(
129:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.